LOs Banos
At the Crossroads of California
www.losbanos.org
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
520 J Street
Los Banos, California
DECEMBER 17, 2025-6:00 PM
; ' ) I I J .' •~/ l ' : i I I I ' \ I I I ,; • ••. I I Live stream on YouTube at:
https ://www .youtube.com/@losbanos406 , ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... __ _ If you require special assistance or translation services to attend or participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk's Office@ (209) 827-7000 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
The City of Los Banos complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * *
Si requiere asistencia especial o asistencia de traducci6n para atender o participar en esta junta por favor flame a la oficina de la secretaria de la ciudad al (209) 827-7000 a lo menos de 48 horas antes de la junta.
La Ciudad de Los Banos cumple con la fey de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades (ADA) de 1990.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the meeting and in the City Clerk's office located at City Hall, 520 J Street, Los Banos, California during normal business hours. In addition, such writings and documents may be posted on the City's website at www.losbanos.org.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Cualquier escritura o los documentos proporcionaron a una mayoria de/ Ayuntamiento respecto a cualquier articulo en este orden de/ dia sera hecho disponible para la inspecci6n publica en la reunion y en la oficina de la Secretaria de la ciudad en City Hall, 520 J Street, Los Banos, California durante horas de oficina normales. Ademas, tales escrituras y /os documentos pueden ser anunciados en el website de fa ciudad en www.losbanos.org.
· ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ---··••' Please note: The Brown Act provides the public with an opportunity to make public bomment at any public meeting. As an alternative for in-person comments, written public comment may be made by e-mail to [email protected] or delivered to the City Clerk at City Hall, 520 J Street. All comments received will be read by the City Clerk during Public Forum and added to the agenda packet on the City's website for public review. Agenda packets can be found qn the City'~ w~l?.!?lt~ ?It t~e fQ_lloyvil]g li_n_~:
https://losbanos.org/category/city-council/
Los Banos City Council Agenda - December 17, 2025 Page 1 of4 1 1. CALL TO ORDER - December 17, 2025 6:00 PM
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
3. ROLL CALL: (City Council Members)
__ Mitzy Perez - District 1
Marcus Chavez - District 3
__ Michael Amabile - Mayor
Evan Sanders - District 2
Deborah Lewis - District 4
4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Recommendation: Adopt the agenda as submitted.
5. PRESENTATION.
A. City of Los Banos Employee of the Year 2025.
B. Proclamations Recognizing Members of City Committee/Commissions:
1) Denise Tarka -Airport Advisory Commission Member
2) Dennis Reed - Airport Advisory Commission Member
3) Herman Jackson - Measure H Citizens' Oversight Commission Member 4) Douglas Young - Measure H Citizens' Oversight Commission Member 5) Richard Stewart - Measure P Citizens' Oversight Commission Member 6) Nathan Mancebo - Measure P Citizens' Oversight Commission Member 7) Gerald Giesel - Measure P Citizens' Oversight Commission Member 8) Jeri Blevins - Parks & Recreation Commission Member
9) John Spevak - Parks & Recreation Commission Member
10) Abel Molina - Tree Commission Member
11) Laurence Byers - Tree Commission Member
6. PUBLIC FORUM. (Members of the public may address the City Council Members on any item of public interest that is within the jurisdiction of the City Council; includes agenda and non-agenda items. No action will be taken on non-agenda items. Speakers are limited to a five (5) minute presentation. Detailed guidelines are posted on the Council Chamber informational table.)
7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA. (Items on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the Consent Agenda by a City Council Member.) A. Check Register for #255135 - #255328 in the Amount of $2,088,333.15.
Recommendation: Approve the check register as submitted.
B. City Council Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2025.
Recommendation: Approve the minutes as submitted
Los Banos City Council Agenda - December 17, 2025 Page 2 of 4 pgs. 1-4
pgs. 5-26
pgs. 27-30
pgs. 31-38
2 C. City Council Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2025.
Recommendation: Approve the minutes as submitted
D. City Council Resolution No. 7033 - Accepting Public Improvement for Dove Hollow, The Villages V Phase 3, Unit 3.
Recommendation: Adopt the resolution as submitted.
8. PUBLIC HEARING. (If you challenge the proposed action as described herein in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.)
A. Public Hearing - To Receive Public Comment and Consideration of Accepting the Development Impact Fee Report (AB 1600 Report) for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2025.
Recommendation: Receive the staff report, open the public hearing, close the public hearing, and accept the report as submitted.
9. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE FOLLOWING COMMISSION:
A. Planning Commission
One (1) Unexpired Term in District 1 - Expiring December 31, 2028 Recommendation: Receive staff report and direction from the City Council on how to proceed.
10. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 7034- ADOPTING THE 2025 CITY OF LOS BANOS' EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN REVISION AND THE 2025 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS ANNEXES.
Recommendation: Receive staff report and adopt the resolution as submitted.
11. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 7035 -
AUTHORIZING CITY CONTRIBUTIONS TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS, CITY CLERK AND CITY TREASURER HEAL TH AND WELFARE BENEFITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS.
Recommendation: Receive staff report and adopt the resolution as submitted.
12. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 7036 -
REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE CANAL TRAIL SOLAR LIGHTING PROJECT.
Recommendation: Receive staff report and adopt the resolution as submitted.
13. CITY DEPARTMENT REPORTS.
A. Community & Economic Development
B. Finance
Los Banos City Council Agenda- December 17, 2025 Page 3 of4 pgs. 39-48
pgs. 49-86
pgs. 87-210
pgs. 211-212
pgs. 213-440
pgs. 441-448
pgs. 449-455
3 C. Fire
D. Human Resources
E. Parks & Recreation
F. Police
G. Public Works
Recommendation: Informational item only, no action to be taken.
14. CITY MANAGER REPORT.
Recommendation: Informational item only, no action to be taken.
15. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS.
A. Deborah Lewis - District 4
8. Mitzy Perez - District 1
C. Evan Sanders - District 2
D. Marcus Chavez - District 3
E. Michael Amabile - Mayor
16. ADJOURNMENT.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing r;::a~ ~•= Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk Dated this 12 th day of December 2025 Los Banos City Council Agenda- December 17, 2025 Page 4 of4 4 LOs Banos
At the Crossroads of California
PR.OCLAMA TION RECOGNIZING
DENISE TARKA
AIR.POR. T ADVISOR. Y COMMISSION MEMBER.
WHEREAS, Denise Tarka was appointed to serve as a
member of the Los Banos Airport Advisory Commission on
Yanuary 17, 2024; and
WHEREAS, Denise Tarka faithfully attended regular
meetings of the Airport Advisory Commission; and
WHEREAS, Denise Tarka was a dedicated member of the Los Banos Airport Advisory Commission and continually provided her support to the goals and missions of the Commission; and WHEREAS, Denise Tarka fulfilled her term as a member of the Los Banos Airport Advisory Commission December 31, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and
City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby recognize and commend Denise Tarka for her dedicated service as a member of the Los Banos Airport Advisory Commission.
In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los Banos, this r/h day of December, 2025.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
ITEM 5B
5 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6 LOsBanos
At the Cmssroads of California
PR.OCLAMA TION RECOGNIZING
DENNIS REED
AIR.POR.T ADVISOR.Y COMMISSION MEMBER.
WHEREAS, Dennis Reed was appointed to serve as a member of the Los Banos Airport Advisory Commission on Yanuary 17, 2024; and
WHEREAS, Dennis Reed faithfully attended regular meetings of the Airport Advisory Commission; and
WHEREAS, Dennis Reed was a dedicated member of the Los
Banos Airport Advisory Commission and continually provided his support to the goals and missions of the Commission; and WHEREAS, Dennis Reed fulfilled his term as a member of the Los Banos Airport Advisory Commission December 51, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and
City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby recognize and commend Dennis Reed for his dedicated service as a member of the Los Banos Airport Advisory Commission.
In Mitness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los Banos, this 17h day of December, 2025.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
7 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
8 LOs Banos
At the Crossroads of California
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING
HERMAN JACKSON
MEASURE H CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION MEMBER
WHEREAS, Herman Jackson r.vas appointed to serve as a
member of the Los Banos Measure H Citizen's Oversight Commission on January 17, 2024; and
WHEREAS, Herman Jackson faithfully attended regular
meetings of the Measure H Citizen's Oversight Commission; and WHEREAS, Herman Jackson r.vas a dedicated member of the Los Banos Measure H Citizen's Oversight Commission and continually provided his support to the goals and missions of the Commission; and WHEREAS, Herman Jackson fulfilled his term as a member of the Los Banos Measure H Citizens Oversight Commission December 31, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby recognize and commend Herman Jackson for his dedicated service as a member of the Los Banos Measure H Citizen's Oversight Commission.
In r.vitness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los Banos, this 17h day of December, 2025.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
9 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10 LOs Banos
At the Crossroads of California
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING
DOUGLASYOUNG
MEASURE H CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION MEMBER
WHEREAS, Douglas Young was appointed to serve as a member of the Los Banos Measure H Citizen's Oversight Commission on April 17, 2024; and
WHEREAS, Douglas Young faithfully attended regular meetings of the Measure H Citizen's Oversight Commission; and
WHEREAS, Douglas Young was a dedicated member of the Los Banos Measure H Citizen's Oversight Commission and continually provided his support to the goals and missions of the Commission; and WHEREAS, Douglas Young fulfilled his term as a member of the Los Banos Measure H Citizen's Oversight Commission December 31, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby recognize and commend Douglas Young for his dedicated service as a member of the Los Banos Measure H Citizen's Oversight Commission.
In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los Banos, this 1'/h day of December, 2025.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ArIEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
11 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
12 LOsBanos
At the Crossroads of California
PR.OCLAMA TION R.ECOGNIZING
R.ICHARD STEWART
MEASUR.E P CITIZENS' OVER.SIGHT
COMMISSION MEMBER.
WHEREAS, Richard Stewart was appointed to serve as a
member of the Los Banos Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission on January 4, 2023; and
WHEREAS, Richard Stewart faithfully attended regular
meetings of the Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission; and WHEREAS, Richard Stewart was a dedicated member of the Los Banos Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission and continually provided his support to the goals and missions of the Commission; and WHEREAS, Richard Stewart fulfilled his term as a member of the Los Banos Measure P Citizens Oversight Commission December 31, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby recognize and commend Richard Stewart for his dedicated service as a member of the Los Banos Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission.
In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los Banos, this 17h day of December, 2025.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
13 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14 LOsBanos
At the Crossroads of California
PR.OCLAMA TION RECOGNIZING
NA THAN MANCEBO
MEASURE P CITIZENS' OVER.SIGHT
COMMISSION MEMBER.
WHEREAS, Nathan Mancebo was appointed to serve as a
member of the Los Banos Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission on January 4, 2025; and
WHEREAS, Nathan Mancebo faithfully attended regular
meetings of the Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission; and WHEREAS, Nathan Mancebo was a dedicated member of the
Los Banos Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission and continually provided his support to the goals and missions of the Commission; and WHEREAS, Nathan Mancebo fulfilled his term as a member of the Los Banos Measure P Citizens Oversight Commission December '31, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby recognize and commend Nathan Mancebo for his dedicated service as a member of the Los Banos Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission.
In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los Banos, this r/h day of December, 2025.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
15 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
16 LOsBanos
At the Crossroads of California
PR.OCLAMA TION RECOGNIZING
GERALDQESa
MEASURE P CITIZENS' OVER.SIGHT
COMMISSION MEMBER.
WHEREAS, Gerald Giesel r.vas appointed to serve as a member of the Los Banos Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission on February~2023;and
WHEREAS, Gerald Giesel faithfully attended regular meetings of the Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission; and
WHEREAS, Gerald Giesel r.vas a dedicated member of the Los Banos Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission and continually provided his support to the goals and missions of the Commission; and WHEREAS, Gerald Giesel fulfilled his term as a member of the Los Banos Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission December 31, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby recognize and commend Gerald Giesel for his dedicated service as a member of the Los Banos Measure P Citizen's Oversight Commission.
In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los Banos, this 17h day of December, 2025.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
17 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
18 LOsBanos
At the Crossroads of California
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING
JERI BLEVINS
PARKS & RECREATION
COMMISSION MEMBER
WHEREAS, Yeri Blevins (R)as appointed to serve as a member of the Los Banos Parks & Recreation Commission on Yanuary 17, 2024; and
WHEREAS, Yeri Blevins faithfully attended regular meetings of the Parks & Recreation Commission; and
WHEREAS, Yeri Blevins (R)as a dedicated member of the Los Banos Parks & Recreation Commission and continually provided her support to the goals and missions of the Commission; and WHEREAS, Yeri Blevins fulfilled her term as a member of the Los Banos Parks & Recreation Commission December 31, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby recognize and commend Yeri Blevins for her dedicated service as a member of the Los Banos Parks & Recreation Commission.
In (R)itness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los Banos, this 17h day of December, 2025.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
19 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
20 LOsBanos
At the Crossroads of California
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING
JOHN SPEVAK
PARKS & RECREATION
COMMISSION MEMBER
WHEREAS, Yohn Spevak was appointed to serve as a member of the Los Banos Parks & Recreation Commission on Yanuary 17, 2024;and
WHEREAS1 Yohn Spevak faithfully attended regular meetings of the Parks & Recreation Commission; and
WHEREAS1 Yohn Spevak was a dedicated member of the Los
Banos Parks & Recreation Commission and continually provided his support to the goals and missions of the Commission; and WHEREAS1 Yohn Spevak fulfilled his term as a member of the Los Banos Parks & Recreation Commission December 31, 2025.
NOWI THEREFORE1 BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby recognize and commend Yohn Spevak for his dedicated service as a member of the Los Banos Parks & Recreation Commission.
In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los Banos, this 17h day of December, 2025.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
21 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
22 LOs Banos
At the Crossroads of California
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING
ABEL MOLINA
TREE COMMISSION MEMBER
WHEREAS, Abel Molina was appointed to serve as a member of the Los Banos Tree Commission on March 20, 2024; and
WHEREAS, Abel Molina faithfully attended regular meetings of the Tree Commission; and
WHEREAS, Abel Molina was a dedicated member of the Los
Banos Tree Commission and continually provided his support to the goals and missions of the Commission; and
WHEREAS, Abel Molina fulfilled his term as a member of the Los Banos Tree Commission December 51, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby recognize and commend Abel Molina for his dedicated service as a member of the Los Banos Tree Commission.
In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los Banos, this 1rh day of December, 2025.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
23 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
24 LOs Banos
At the Crossroads of California
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING
LAURENCE BYERS
TREE COMMISSION MEMBER
WHEREAS, Laurence Byers fi!as appointed to serve as a member of the Los Banos Tree Commission on Yanuary 17, 2024; and WHEREAS1 Laurence Byers faithfully attended regular meetings of the Tree Commission; and
WHEREAS1 Laurence Byers fi!as a dedicated member of the Los Banos Tree Commission and continually provided his support to the goals and missions of the Commission; and
WHEREAS1 Laurence Byers fulfilled his term as a member of the Los Banos Tree Commission December 31, 2025.
NOWI THEREFORE1 BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Los Banos do hereby recognize and commend Laurence Byers for his dedicated service as a member of the Los Banos Tree Commission.
In fi!itness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the City of Los Banos, this r/h day of December, 2025.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
25 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
26 CK# 255135 - # 255328 12/17 /25 $2,088,333.15
Los Banos
4 rh, C:w.s<road• cf C<1lif<1nii
Check Number Payment Date Vendor Module Payment Type Payment Amount 255135 11/26/2025 Tim Baptista Jr. Accounts Payable Check 150.00 255136 11/26/2025 Andre Castillo Accounts Payable Check 225.00 255137 11/26/2025 City of Los Banos Escrow Account Accounts Payable Check 3,665.58 255138 11/26/2025 Imagine Way More LLC Accounts Payable Check 7,500.00 255139 11/26/2025 Lucky Plumbing & Rooter LLC Accounts Payable Check 5,900.00 255140 11/26/2025 Ramon McDonald Accounts Payable Check 57.00 255141 11/26/2025 Brent Specht Accounts Payable Check 225.00 255142 11/26/2025 US Bank Corp Pymt System Accounts Payable Check 63,419.20 255144 11/26/2025 Anderson Pump Company Inc Accounts Payable Check 9,435.54 255145 11/26/2025 Animal Damage Management, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 175.00 255146 11/26/2025 AT&T Accounts Payable Check 76.28
255147 11/26/2025 Belkorp Ag, LLC Accounts Payable Check 2,602.59 255148 11/26/2025 BJ's Consumers Choice Pest Control Inc. Accounts Payable Check 125.00 255149 11/26/2025 BlueTriton Brands, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 78.93 255150 11/26/2025 Bruce's Tire Inc Accounts Payable Check 99.99 255151 11/26/2025 BSK Associates Accounts Payable Check 547.50 255152 11/26/2025 Burton's Fire Inc. Accounts Payable Check 4,963.69 255153 11/26/2025 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 5,448.60 255154 11/26/2025 Central Sanitary Supply, LLC Accounts Payable Check 735.29 255155 11/26/2025 Central Valley Concrete Inc. Accounts Payable Check 2,452.31 255156 11/26/2025 Comcast Accounts Payable Check 161.60 255157 11/26/2025 CPS Accounts Payable Check 635.50
255158 11/26/2025 Electric Drives Inc Accounts Payable Check 9,415.19 255159 11/26/2025 Federal Express Corporation Accounts Payable Check 66.83 255160 11/26/2025 Fun Express LLC Accounts Payable Check 746.39 255161 11/26/2025 Helena Chemical Co Inc Accounts Payable Check 1,522.50 255162 11/26/2025 Hilmar Lumber Inc. Accounts Payable Check 553.99 255163 11/26/2025 Tim J Law Accounts Payable Check 800.00 255164 11/26/2025 Mark Thomas & Company. Inc. Accounts Payable Check 59,794.16 255165 11/26/2025 Marfab Inc Accounts Payable Check 292.18 255166 11/26/2025 McCrometer Inc. Accounts Payable Check 494.00 255167 11/26/2025 Merced County Environmental Health Accounts Payable Check 1,067.00 255168 11/26/2025 Merced Truck & Trailer Inc Accounts Payable Check 308.82 255169 11/26/2025 OSE Accounts Payable Check 27.17
255170 11/26/2025 O'Reilly Auto Parts Accounts Payable Check 492.96 255171 11/26/2025 Pace Supply Corp. Accounts Payable Check 4,312.56 255172 11/26/2025 Pitney Bowes Inc Accounts Payable Check 199.35 255173 11/26/2025 Provost and Pritchard Engineering, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 5,490.60 255174 11/26/2025 RMGY Inc. Accounts Payable Check 157.52 255175 11/26/2025 Destiny Razo Accounts Payable Check 100.00 255176 11/26/2025 Sherwin Williams Co Accounts Payable Check 26.37 255177 11/26/2025 Robert & Susan Hansen Accounts Payable Check 65.25 255178 11/26/2025 Sorensens True Value Accounts Payable Check 918.76 255180 11/26/2025 Superior Pool Products, LLC Accounts Payable Check 13,645.39 255181 11/26/2025 Shames Construction Accounts Payable Check 756.26 255182 11/26/2025 Terminix Processing Center Accounts Payable Check 127.00 255183 11/26/2025 CalMatCo. Accounts Payable Check 625.94 255184 11/26/2025 Turlock Truck Stuff LLC Accounts Payable Check 4,320.17 255185 11/26/2025 Uline, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 3,710.04 255186 11/26/2025 Vanir Construction Management, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 11,260.00 ITEM 7A
27 255187 11/26/2025 Vestis Group, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 730.35 255188 11/26/2025 Vestis Accounts Payable Check 69.80
255189 11/26/2025 Verizon Wireless Accounts Payable Check 2,776.64 255190 11/26/2025 Westside Water Conditioning Accounts Payable Check 193.50 255191 11/26/2025 Windecker Inc Accounts Payable Check 11,304.05 255199 12/03/2025 City of Los Banos Escrow Account Accounts Payable Check 1,238.72 255214 12/05/2025 Anabasis LLC Accounts Payable Check 45,900.00 255215 12/05/2025 Best Best & Krieger Accounts Payable Check 4,374.80 255216 12/05/2025 Sara Blevins Accounts Payable Check 461.25 255217 12/05/2025 John Butler Accounts Payable Check 170.00 255218 12/05/2025 Amanda Cobos Accounts Payable Check 400.00 255219 12/05/2025 Jimmy Dewitt Accounts Payable Check 95.00 255220 12/05/2025 Food 4 Less Accounts Payable Check 1,260.18 255221 12/05/2025 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Accounts Payable Check 9,888.50 255222 12/05/2025 William Marchese Accounts Payable Check 95.00 255223 12/05/2025 Merced County LAFCo Accounts Payable Check 2,700.00 255224 12/05/2025 Mid-Valley Disposal LLC Accounts Payable Check 625,507.90 255225 12/05/2025 Gerald "Obie" O'Brien Accounts Payable Check 77.14 255226 12/05/2025 PG&E Company Accounts Payable Check 128,679.12 255227 12/05/2025 Domingo Sandoval Accounts Payable Check 300.00 255228 12/05/2025 Law Offices of William A Vaughn Accounts Payable Check 13,680.95 255229 12/05/2025 Animal Damage Management, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 4,416.00 255232 12/05/2025 AT&T Accounts Payable Check 2,516.79
255233 12/05/2025 Axon Enterprise, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 2,271.24 255234 12/05/2025 Ashley Acuna Accounts Payable Check 350.00 255235 12/05/2025 Alejandra Armenta Accounts Payable Check 600.00 255236 12/05/2025 BJ's Consumers Choice Pest Control Inc. Accounts Payable Check 80.00 255237 12/05/2025 Boot Barn Accounts Payable Check 215.31 255238 12/05/2025 Stericycle Inc Accounts Payable Check 229.48 255239 12/05/2025 Bruce's Tire Inc Accounts Payable Check 3,163.78 255240 12/05/2025 BS K Associates Accounts Payable Check 6,827.75 255241 12/05/2025 Cal Coating Asphalt, Inc Accounts Payable Check 20,900.00 255242 12/05/2025 Capital One Accounts Payable Check 1,265.65 255243 12/05/2025 Central Sanitary Supply, LLC Accounts Payable Check 148.50 255244 12/05/2025 Comcast Accounts Payable Check 108.16 255245 12/05/2025 Copware Inc Accounts Payable Check 965.00 255246 12/05/2025 LN Curtis & Sons Accounts Payable Check 1,396.35 255247 12/05/2025 City of Los Banos Utility Accounts Payable Check 22,388.75 255248 12/05/2025 Dos Palos Publishing Company Accounts Payable Check 80.00 255249 12/05/2025 DR Horton Accounts Payable Check 1,441.52 255250 12/05/2025 E.M.S. Electrical Solutions, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 1,073.95 255251 12/05/2025 Federal Express Corporation Accounts Payable Check 14.00 255252 12/05/2025 Fehr & Peers Accounts Payable Check 4,822.50 255253 12/05/2025 Ferro Automotive Group Inc Accounts Payable Check 41,642.63 255254 12/05/2025 Fields Outdoor Adventures LLP Accounts Payable Check 9,999.96 255255 12/05/2025 Halcyon Creek Inc. Accounts Payable Check 13,814.24 255256 12/05/2025 Herwaldt Automotive Group, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 1,345.83 255257 12/05/2025 Hoffman Electronic Systems Accounts Payable Check 258.90 255258 12/05/2025 Holt of California Accounts Payable Check 1,232.53 255259 12/05/2025 Home Depot Accounts Payable Check 9,067.92 255263 12/05/2025 Nereyda Hernandez Accounts Payable Check 600.00 255264 12/05/2025 ICC Codification, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 1,245.00 255265 12/05/2025 Kone Inc. Accounts Payable Check 903.00 255266 12/05/2025 Lawson Products, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 111.65 255267 12/05/2025 Lexipol LLC Accounts Payable Check 3,288.96 255268 12/05/2025 Natasha Liu-Tovio Accounts Payable Check 200.00 255269 12/05/2025 Mark Thomas & Company. Inc. Accounts Payable Check 88,974.82 255270 12/05/2025 Matson Alarm Co Inc Accounts Payable Check 215.00 28 255271 12/05/2025 Max's Mobile Truck Repair Accounts Payable Check 840.00 255272 12/05/2025 Mission Merced Incorporated Accounts Payable Check 13,557.94 255273 12/05/2025 Modesto Janitorial Supply Center, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 2,118.76 255274 12/05/2025 Monterey Auto Services Inc. Accounts Payable Check 100.00 255275 12/05/2025 Municipal Maintenance Equipment, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 2,819.55 255276 12/05/2025 Napa Auto Parts of Los Banos Accounts Payable Check 39.24 2552ll 12/05/2025 NDN International LLC Accounts Payable Check 358.26 255278 12/05/2025 OSE Accounts Payable Check 647.87
255279 12/05/2025 O'Reilly Auto Parts Accounts Payable Check 1,085.70 255280 12/05/2025 PG&E Company Accounts Payable Check 5,097.20 255281 12/05/2025 Phoenix Group Information Systems Accounts Payable Check 3,178.31 255282 12/05/2025 Price Paige and Company CPA's LLP Accounts Payable Check 2,663.00 255283 12/05/2025 Provost and Pritchard Engineering, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 12,142.30 255284 12/05/2025 Purchase Power Inc Accounts Payable Check 3,168.96 255285 12/05/2025 Rolfe Construction Inc. Accounts Payable Check 523,840.40 255286 12/05/2025 RRL Enterprises Inc. Accounts Payable Check 1,600.00 255287 12/05/2025 Isabel Mendonca Reid Accounts Payable Check 500.00 255288 12/05/2025 Save Mart Supermarkets Accounts Payable Check 194.56 255289 12/05/2025 Robert & Susan Hansen Accounts Payable Check 685.74 255290 12/05/2025 Sorensens True Value Accounts Payable Check 661.36 255291 12/05/2025 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 89,573.81 255292 12/05/2025 United Rotary Brush Corp. Accounts Payable Check 6,822.02 255293 12/05/2025 West Coast Arborists, Inc. Accounts Payable Check 19,947.00 255294 12/05/2025 Willdan Engineering Accounts Payable Check 11,025.00 255295 12/05/2025 Windecker Inc Accounts Payable Check 17,840.52 255314 12/08/2025 Aflac-Customer Service Accounts Payable Check 215.93 255315 12/08/2025 AFSCME District Council 57 Accounts Payable Check 2,144.34 255316 12/08/2025 Empower Annuity Ins. Co of America Accounts Payable Check 2,005.00 255317 12/08/2025 Empower Annuity Ins. Co of America Accounts Payable Check 1,783.03 255318 12/08/2025 Franchise Tax Board Accounts Payable Check 412.81 255319 12/08/2025 Los Banos Police Assn Accounts Payable Check 910.00 255320 12/08/2025 Los Banos Police Assn. Accounts Payable Check 315.00 255321 12/08/2025 MissionSquare Accounts Payable Check 1,595.89 255322 12/08/2025 MissionSquare Accounts Payable Check 10,687.50 255323 12/08/2025 Minerva Moreno Accounts Payable Check 642.80 255324 12/08/2025 Nationwide Retirement Solutions Accounts Payable Check 5,624.29 255325 12/08/2025 Professional Fire Fighter of Los Banos local 4703 Accounts Payable Check 780.99 255326 12/08/2025 State Disbursement Unit Accounts Payable Check 1,471.00 255327 12/09/2025 Westamerica Bank - Cafeteria Plan Accounts Payable Check 7,009.50 255328 12/10/2025 Merced County Clerk Accounts Payable Check 4,173.50 Break in check sequence due to the following: Payment Type Check #255143 (Manual Void) Regular Checks 148 2,088,333.15 Check #255179 (Manual Void) Manual Voids 7
Check #255192 - #255198 (Utility Billing) Voided Checks 0 Check #255200 - #255213 (Payroll) 2,088,333.15
Check #255230- #255231 (Manual Void)
Check #255260- #255262 (Manual Void)
Check #255296- #255313 (Utility Billing)
29 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
30 CITY OF LOS BANOS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 19, 2025
ACTION MINUTES - These minutes are prepared to depict action taken for agenda items presented to the City Council. For a detailed account of this meeting, refer to the video recording available on YouTube, which serves as a permanent record.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Amabile called the City Council Meeting to order at the hour of 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Police Chief Reyna led the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL - MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Council Members Council Member Mitzy Perez - District 1, Marcus Chavez - District 3, Deborah Lewis - District 4, Mayor Michael Amabile; ABSENT: Evan Sanders - District 2 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: City Manager Than, City Attorney Lerner, City Clerk/Human Resources Director Mallonee, City Treasurer Lawrence, Community & Economic Development Director Souza Elms, Police Chief Reyna, Public Works Director Via, Fire Chief Tualla, Finance Director Moreno
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Motion by Lewis, seconded by Chavez to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion carried by the affirmative action of all Council Members present, Sanders absent.
PRESENTATION BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF MERCED COUNTY
REGARDING THE SENIOR TINY HOMES DEVELOPMENT IN LOS BANOS. Rosa Vasquez, Executive Director of the Merced County Housing Authority, presented the staff report and introduced the Housing Authority employees who were also in attendance.
She provided an overview of the agency's work and then turned the presentation over to a colleague, who spoke in more detail while referencing the PowerPoint slides. The presentation highlighted the progress of the senior tiny home developments in Los Banos and the services provided by the Housing Authority throughout the county.
Developer Vernell Hill addressed the Council and stated that this was his first time working in Los Banos. He noted that every city is different in terms of process, but praised Los Banos staff for doing a great job assisting with the project. He referenced the email blasts sent out regarding the tiny homes and reported that construction is moving forward, with the homes expected to be ready in approximately two months. Mr. Hill emphasized that these units are high-quality, stick-built homes designed to last up to 100 years, making them a far better option than fabricated structures. He added that this type of development should be used as a model for the state of California moving forward .
ITEM 7B
31 Ms. Vasquez spoke again and commented positively on the experience of working with City staff, expressing appreciation for both Stacy Souza Elms and Christy McCammond and for the responsiveness and support provided throughout the project.
Council Member Lewis asked whether the new units would be designated for older adult housing and inquired about the minimum age. Ms. Vasquez confirmed that the housing is intended for adults aged 62 and older or for individuals with disabilities, with no age requirement for disabled applicants. Council Member Lewis also asked about individuals currently staying in hotels or motels on temporary vouchers. Ms. Vasquez explained that HSA provides those motel vouchers for a limited period, and once they expire, families are at risk of becoming homeless. At that point, they may be referred to the Housing Authority to determine eligibility for permanent housing assistance.
PUBLIC FORUM: MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS ON ANY ITEM OF PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY; INCLUDES AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO A FIVE (5) MINUTE PRESENTATION. DETAILED GUIDELINES ARE POSTED ON THE COUNCIL CHAMBER INFORMATIONAL TABLE. Mayor Amabile opened the public forum. BLANCHE JORGE expressed appreciation for the recent tiny homes presentation and discussed the potential development of a program for service dogs in need of homes. She emphasized continuing efforts to make Los Banos a pet-friendly city, including maintaining green spaces for pets, encouraging developers to plan for pets in new projects, and exploring the possibility of a city fee to support pet-related services.
She also highlighted issues with residents feeding outdoor animals, encouraged spay and neuter practices, and noted veterinarian services available in the community, offering to provide names to Ivan Mendez. Additionally, she suggested placing signs promoting the city as pet-friendly and providing stickers for pet-friendly businesses. UNNAMED SPEAKER addressed concerns about the limited scope of the PBID audit, noting public uncertainty and the importance of a complete audit. They also raised questions about the city's infrastructure and water capacity to support proposed housing developments, while acknowledging efforts to mitigate these concerns in the future. The speaker highlighted the recent celebration of the Marine Corps anniversary at M&M Restaurant, thanking all involved, including Esmeralda Soria, and noting funds raised for veterans through a silent auction. MIGUEL ALEJANDRE spoke regarding infrastructure capacity, citing concerns with fire staffing, hospital and EMT/ambulance access, road congestion, and water and wastewater limits. He urged the council to take steps to ensure infrastructure growth keeps pace with population growth and read a letter from a resident regarding the Los Banos School Board. The letter raised concerns about a parent-led organization whose bank account containing $6,700 was reportedly closed and deposited to the school, leaving the club without a president and proper leadership. A letter from ERASMO VIVEIROS was read into the record by City Clerk Mallonee, expressing concern about the growing number of e-bikes being operated throughout Los Banos on sidewalks, city roadways, and along the rail trail. He highlighted personal safety incidents on the rail trail and requested that the City Council coordinate with the Police Department and the Los Banos Unified School District to engage the community in drafting an e-bike ordinance. 32 The letter suggested promoting safe outdoor activity, reinstating dashed lane lines on the rail trail, and including provisions in the ordinance regarding speed limits, direction of travel, right-of-way requirements, open space restrictions, and modification bans. The Council thanked and acknowledged all participants in the public forum. No one else came forward to speak and the public forum was closed.
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA. Motion by Lewis, seconded by Chavez to approve the consent agenda items as follows: Check Register for #254495 - #254914 in the Amount of $1,379,596.63; City Council Meeting Minutes for October 1, 2025; City Council Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2025; City Council Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2025; City Council Resolution No. 7017 -Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF); City Council Resolution No. 7018 - Accepting the Transportation Development Act (TOA) Funds Financial Statement for the Years Ended June 30, 2019 and 2018 as Prepared by Price Paige & Company, Merced County Associations of Governments' (MCAG) Auditors; City Council Resolution No. 7019 - Authorizing the Submittal of an Application, Acceptance of an Allocation of Funds, and Execution of a Grant Agreement with the California Department of Transportation for an Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Matching Grant, Increasing the Amount by $3,515.00 and Amending the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget; City Council Resolution No. 7020 - Acting as the City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), Approving the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Domestic Well Mitigation Policy; City Council Resolution No. 7021 - Acting as the City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Revised Delta-Mendota Subbasin Memorandum of Agreement; City Council Resolution No. 7022 - Amending Division 4, Salary Schedule - Employee Classifications Relating to Changes to Section A -Administration -Adding Legal Assistant and Amending the FY 2025-2026 Budget by Approximately $63,753 as it Pertains to Salary and Benefits. The motion carried by the affirmative action of all Council Members present, Sanders absent.
PUBLIC HEARING - TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF THE 2025 CALIFORNIA FIRE STANDARDS CODE. LOCAL CITY OF LOS BANOS AMENDMENTS TO THE CODES, AND JUSTIFICATION OF LOCAL CONDITIONS; ORDINANCE NO. 1211 - ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2025 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE BY AMENDMENT TO TITLE 4 CHAPTER 3 OF THE LOS
BANOS MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTION OF LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO (SECOND READING & ADOPTION). Fire Chief Tualla presented the staff report.
Mayor Amabile opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Motion by Lewis, seconded by Chavez to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 1211 - Ordinance No. 1211 -Adopting by Reference the 2025 Edition of the California Fire Code by Amendment to Title 4 Chapter 3 of the Los Banos Municipal Code and Adoption of Local Amendments Thereto. The motion carried by the affirmative action of all Council Members present, Sanders absent.
33 Motion by Lewis, seconded by Chavez to adopt Ordinance No. 1211 - Ordinance No. 1211 -Adopting by Reference the 2025 Edition of the California Fire Code by Amendment to Title 4 Chapter 3 of the Los Banos Municipal Code and Adoption of Local Amendments Thereto: AYES: Chavez, Lewis, Perez, Amabile; NOES: None; ABSENT: Sanders.
PUBLIC HEARING - TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, LOCAL CITY OF LOS
BANOS AMENDMENTS TO THE CODES, AND JUSTIFICATION OF LOCAL CONDITIONS; ORDINANCE NO. 1212 - ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2025
EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARD CODES BY AMENDMENT TO TITLE 8 CHAPTER 1 OF THE LOS BANOS MUNICIPAL CODE (SECOND READING & ADOPTION). Fire Chief Tualla presented the staff report.
Mayor Amabile opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Motion by Chavez, seconded by Lewis to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 1212-Adopting by Reference the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standard Codes by Amendment to Title 8 Chapter 1 of the Los Banos Municipal Code. The motion carried by the affirmative action of all Council Members present, Sanders absent.
Motion by Chavez, seconded by Lewis to adopt Ordinance No. 1212 - Adopting by Reference the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standard Codes by Amendment to Title 8 Chapter 1 of the Los Banos Municipal Code. AYES: Chavez, Lewis, Perez, Amabile; NOES: None; ABSENT: Sanders.
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1213 - ADDING ARTICLE 49 TO TITLE 9, CHAPTER 3 OF THE LOS BANOS MUNICIPAL CODE - REGIONAL
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) OVERLAY DISTRICT TO FACILITATE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT (SECOND READING & ADOPTION). Community & Economic Development Director Souza Elms presented the staff report.
Motion by Lewis, seconded by Chavez to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 1213-Adding Article 49 to Title 9, Chapter 3 of the Los Banos Municipal Code-Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Overlay District to Facilitate Implementation of the Housing Element. The motion carried by the affirmative action of all Council Members present, Sanders absent.
Motion by Lewis, seconded by Chavez to adopt Ordinance No. 1213 -Adding Article 49 to Title 9, Chapter 3 of the Los Banos Municipal Code - Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Overlay District to Facilitate Implementation of the Housing Element. A YES: Chavez, Lewis, Perez, Amabile; NOES: None; ABSENT: Sanders.
CONSIDERATION OF POLICY PRIORITY AND APPOINTMENT OF DELEGATE TO ATTEND THE 2026 MCAG ONE VOICE PROGRAM. City Manager Than presented the 34 staff report, making note that the annual MCAG One Voice Program allows regional cities and the county to coordinate on policy priorities and advocate in Washington, D.C. Mr.
Than volunteered to serve as a staff delegate for the program. Council discussion focused on selecting policy priorities for Los Banos. Mayor Amabile emphasized Chromium 6 water infrastructure as the top priority, along with police and fire needs and roads. Council Member Chavez agreed that Chromium 6 and public safety should be priorities, adding transportation as a top-three priority. Council Member Perez highlighted water infrastructure. Council Member Lewis noted that water and Chromium 6 remain priorities and stressed the ongoing importance of public safety, drawing from her experience representing the city last year. She also discussed how federal representatives view small cities and noted that, despite a population of 50,000, Los Banos may not be considered small in federal funding considerations. The Council discussed potential funding opportunities for transportation projects such as the Pioneer Complete Street Project and noted challenges related to California's standing with the current administration and prior discussions of high-speed rail, which could affect funding. Mr. Than explained that highspeed rail is a priority for the east side of the county but not for Los Banos, and that the city has the opportunity to provide input and approval for regional priorities. Discussion then turned to delegate appointments. Council Member Lewis noted the importance of continuity in representation to advance city priorities and recommended that an alternate delegate be involved to learn the process. Mayor Amabile volunteered to serve as the delegate, and Council Member Perez volunteered to serve as the alternate delegate. The Council confirmed the selected policy priorities for the program would be water infrastructure and public safety, with staff preparing detailed materials for coordination with the regional One Voice group.
CITY DEPARTMENT REPORTS.
Community & Economic Development. Director Souza Elms provided updates to the Council. She reported that the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, November 26th, would be canceled due to the Thanksgiving holiday. ELMS also announced a groundbreaking ceremony for the One Tree Project, a permanent supportive housing development with 58 units for unhoused residents, scheduled for Friday, November 21st at 11 a.m., and encouraged Council and community participation.
Regarding local businesses, ELMS provided an update on ONO HAWAIIAN BARBECUE, noting that they are completing final inspections and a grand opening will be announced soon. She also highlighted Small Business Saturday on November 29th, emphasizing the "Shop Smart, Support Local" initiative, which includes promotions such as LB Bucks and giveaways for participating small businesses. Additionally, ELMS reported on a recent Chick-fil-A mobile food truck event, noting strong community turnout and interest from the Chick-fil-A franchisee in the area, and indicated that future visits are being planned.
Finance. Director Moreno provided updates to the Council. He emphasized the "Shop Smart, Support Local" campaign, encouraging residents to purchase locally in order to retain sales tax revenue within the City of Los Banos and reduce the current 70% revenue leakage. She highlighted the impact this revenue has on funding city services such as police, fire, and recreation. He also provided an update on water service accounts, noting 35 that with AB 998 policy now in place, water service shut-offs will begin in January for customers with high balances. She encouraged residents to contact the City to make payment arrangements to avoid service interruptions. Notices regarding the upcoming shut-offs have been issued over the past four years, and additional outreach will include social media campaigns and inserts in utility bills to ensure residents are informed.
Fire. Fire Chief Tualla provided a brief update to the Council, beginning by thanking the City for the adoption of updated codes, noting their importance in keeping the community safe. He reported on a couple of fires that occurred that day, highlighting that prior issues at one location were mitigated thanks to fire prevention measures and coordination with Code Enforcement, which helped prevent a more serious incident. The Chief also mentioned an upcoming December movie night and reminded the community to exercise caution during the holidays, including safe practices for deep-frying turkeys. He indicated that a fire safety campaign would be promoted to ensure public awareness.
Human Resources. Director Mallonee provided an update to the Council that since the last meeting, three new employees have joined the City: Marizol Romero as the new Homeless Outreach Coordinator in the Community & Economic Development Department, Monica Heguy as an Account Clerk I in the Finance Department, and Mary Lerner as the new City Attorney. She added the City is actively recruiting for at least 12 additional positions across various departments, including lateral police officer, public safety dispatcher, community services officer, custodian, and volunteer firefighter.
Residents interested in current job openings were encouraged to visit the City's website or contact Human Resources at City Hall. Ms. Mallonee also announced that the City Council will host its 29th annual Holiday Open House at the December 17th council meeting, beginning at 4:30 p.m. and continuing until the start of the meeting at 6:00 p.m., and invited the public to attend.
Parks & Recreation. Director Heim announced upcoming public meetings regarding the Vineyard Park expansion, including a proposed parking lot and Westside Dog Park, scheduled for the following evening at 5:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at Miller and Lux, and on Saturday at noon and 1 :30 p.m. at the Community Center, with comments also being accepted via email. Mr. Heim provided updates on South Point Basin Park and Pump Track, noting that public feedback is still being accepted. Regarding Shaunessey Village, the shade structure has begun installation, and concrete work will follow; the playground area is near completion, with plans to open the top area soon while allowing the basin area's grass to establish before a spring opening. He also reminded residents that tickets are available for the Breakfast with Santa event on December 13th and highlighted other holiday activities, including movie night, the Christmas parade on December 6th, Cocoa with the Popo at the plaza, and the lighting of the 29-foot Christmas tree at the plaza.
Police. Chief Reyna reported that last week, the Police Department, Code Enforcement, and Public Works coordinated with Housing staff to secure tarps on tents in preparation for incoming rain, ensuring a swift and effective response. He reminded the community that the annual canned food drive is ongoing through December 10th and noted a recent collaboration with Charleston to collect additional donations. Chief Reyna announced that 36 a new police officer will begin on December 1st, with a formal swearing-in ceremony to be scheduled. He highlighted the upcoming Hot Cocoa with a Po-Po community event at the Plaza, featuring holiday activities and prizes. The Chief also provided a staffing update, noting four officers currently in the Academy, four candidates undergoing background checks for the January Academy, and several other candidates in process for open positions. He welcomed new City Attorney Mary Lerner and offered to answer any questions from the Council.
Public Works. Director Via noted that recent rain had slowed some ongoing projects. He reported that the department has made offers to a couple of potential employees, with updates expected at the next Council meeting. Mr. Via also provided an update on a recent meeting with Caltrans regarding De Anza, which the City Manager attended; the consultant is continuing to develop the project based on guidance received from Caltrans.
Additionally, he reported that staff began internal replacement of water valves and endpoints last week, addressing issues with zero-read meters to ensure accurate billing.
A more detailed update on this project is expected at the next Council Meeting.
CITY MANAGER REPORT. Mr. Than provided updates to the Council, highlighting the ongoing work related to the city's Housing Element, noting that the 500-page document is now public and that the city is seeking compliance certification from HCD. He thanked staff and Council for their review and comments to ensure the document meets the specific needs of Los Banos. He also discussed partnerships with the Housing Authority, the County, and other grant programs to support vulnerable populations at risk of homelessness. Mr. Than announced a public meeting on November 25th for community input on the Community Development Block Grant, which provides $27 million statewide, with up to $3.6 million per jurisdiction for infrastructure improvements. He reminded the Council of the upcoming groundbreaking for the One Tree permanent supportive housing project and noted that further housing updates will be provided at the December Council Meeting. Regarding water and sewer, he highlighted progress on groundwater recharge basins in partnership with the Grassland Water District and the re-initiation of the city's water and sewer master plan update. He thanked the new Public Works Director for his immediate contributions to the De Anza project and emphasized ongoing collaboration with Caltrans to advance this priority. He concluded by expressing appreciation to city staff for their hard work and reminded residents not to dispose of cooking oil or grease into the sewer system, especially as colder temperatures approach.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS:
EVAN SANDERS- DISTRICT 2: Absent.
MARCUS CHAVEZ - DISTRICT 3: Thanked staff for their hard work on the budget books, noting the effort put into compiling them and recognizing the value of the information contained within. He welcomed Mary Lerner to her first Council meeting, appreciating her calm and efficient presence. He concluded by wishing everyone a happy Thanksgiving and encouraging residents to cherish time with their families while also expressing gratitude to city staff for their ongoing dedication and service. 37 DEBORAH LEWIS - DISTRICT 4: Expressed excitement about ONO Hawaiian Barbecue opening soon and hoped that Dutch Brothers would follow in the area. She welcomed Mary Lerner to her new position, noting it would be a "breath of fresh air" to work with her. Ms. Lewis also raised a concern regarding proper disposal of cooking oils and other contaminants, suggesting that MCAG consider establishing drop-off locations on both the east and west sides of the county to prevent residents from pouring oils down drains. She concluded by thanking everyone in attendance and wishing all a safe and happy Thanksgiving.
MITZY PEREZ - DISTRICT 1: Reported that she was pleased to attend Esmeralda Soria's turkey giveaway last Saturday, noting the large turnout and the joy it brought to participants. She encouraged residents to watch for other upcoming turkey giveaways and community events. She also shared that she has been door-knocking in his district to inform residents about the open Planning Commission position and encouraged everyone to spread the word.
MICHAEL S. AMABILE - MAYOR: Mayor Amabile highlighted the importance of longterm planning and growth management for the city. He referenced the growth management system he established in 1999, which set a 3-5% growth rate, and suggested that staff begin reviewing and updating the system to guide future housing development. He emphasized the need for public meetings to discuss housing preferences, including the potential for smaller, more affordable two- and three-bedroom homes, and to ensure a balanced mix of senior, low-income, and multifamily housing. He also discussed collaboration with the school district, noting the return of the two-by-three meetings with city and school board representatives to plan for school sites, capacity, and infrastructure impacts. Mr. Amabile highlighted the importance of coordinated planning to avoid issues with roads, traffic, and public services and shared a historical example of developer agreements that supported school funding. Finally, he addressed water and infrastructure planning, including chromium six mitigation, groundwater recharge, and potential surface water solutions, stressing the need for sustainable, cost-effective approaches. He thanked staff and residents for their engagement and participation, welcomed City Attorney Mary Lerner, and wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving.
ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 7:29 p.m.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
38 CITY OF LOS BANOS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 3, 2025
ACTION MINUTES - These minutes are prepared to depict action taken for agenda items presented to the City Council. For a detailed account of this meeting, refer to the video recording available on YouTube, which serves as a permanent record.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Amabile called the City Council Meeting to order at the hour of 6:02 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Police Chief Reyna led the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL- MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Council Members Mitzy Perez - District 1, Evan Sanders - District 2, Marcus Chavez - District 3, Deborah Lewis - District 4, Mayor Michael Amabile
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: City Manager Than, City Attorney Vaughn, City Clerk/Human Resources Director Mallonee, City Treasurer Lawrence, Community & Economic Development Director Souza Elms, Police Chief Reyna, Public Works Director Via, Fire Chief Tualla, Finance Director Moreno
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Motion by Lewis, seconded by Chavez to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion carried by the affirmative action of all Council Members present.
PRESENTATION-CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION-EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER 2025 - ROSEMARIE SOUTO, ACCOUNTANT II, FINANCE DEPARTMENT. Mayor Amabile presented the certificate to Rosemarie Souto and Finance Director Moreno accepted on her behalf.
PRESENTATION - PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE RETIREMENT OF CITY OF LOS BANOS CITY ATTORNEY WILLIAM A. VAUGHN. Mayor Amabile and the City Council presented the proclamation to William A. Vaughn, City Attorney, who was in attendance to accept. City Attorney William A. "Bill" Vaughn was recognized for more than 22 years of dedicated service to the City of Los Banos. Mayor Amabile reflected on Mr.
Vaughn's long tenure, noting his vital role in keeping the city on track legally and operationally, and presented a proclamation honoring his service from May 21, 2003, through his upcoming retirement on December 15, 2025. Mayor Amabile commended Mr.
Vaughn for his dedication and loyalty, congratulated him on his retirement, and presented him with a retirement watch on behalf of the City Council and the residents of Los Banos.
Council Member Chavez expressed appreciation for Mr. Vaughn's work and remarked on the pleasure of working with him, adding humorously that although an attempt was made to secure a Ro lex for his retirement, it was not approved. Council Member Lewis shared memories of serving on the Planning Commission when Mr. Vaughn first began as City ITEM 7C
39 Attorney, noting the transition and thanking him for his years of service. She wished him well in retirement, encouraging him to enjoy time with his children and grandchildren.
Council Member Sanders stated that although they had not been with the city long, it had been wonderful working with Mr. Vaughn. He commented that Mr. Vaughn was the best City Attorney they had ever worked with, expressing gratitude for his guidance, support, and mentorship. Mr. Vaughn thanked Mayor Amabile, Council, and staff for their kind words. He reflected on how quickly the past 23 years have gone, recalling his early days working with the Planning Commission. He shared that serving as City Attorney has been the highlight of his professional career and stated that what he will miss most is the daily interaction with staff, though he joked that he will not miss the Wednesday night meetings.
He concluded by expressing hope that he has made the city proud. Mayor Amabile noted at the close of the presentation that Mr. Vaughn is retiring from his city position but will continue operating his private law practice across the street should anyone need legal services.
PUBLIC FORUM: MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS ON ANY ITEM OF PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY: INCLUDES AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO A FIVE (5) MINUTE PRESENTATION. DETAILED GUIDELINES ARE POSTED ON THE COUNCIL CHAMBER INFORMATIONAL TABLE. Mayor Amabile opened the public forum. ANIAS BROWN spoke regarding his efforts to assist people throughout the city, including the homeless. He stated he has provided clothing and food and is working with local churches to obtain grills, cables, and other items for use at the encampments.
He noted he heard some grills had been removed and explained that he is working on securing generators, as many tents are too thin and tarps provide little protection from the cold. He is also working with Mid Valley Disposal to obtain mattresses for those who lack adequate bedding and stated that floodlights are needed because the area is dark at night. He said he does this work out of the kindness of his heart and has contacted the National Guard to request rations. He is working with Chief Tualla, acknowledging the department's staffing challenges, as well as with the Merced Fire Department and their food drive. He emphasized that human life is more important than any penal code restrictions and stated that showers, restrooms, plastic bins, and tubs are needed at the encampment. JERRY GIESEL, a Los Banos resident of 44 years, spoke on behalf of the Los Banos Elks Lodge and expressed appreciation for work completed by the City's Streets crew. He thanked Ozzy, Jason, Ron, and Israel for a job well done and for following up on a sidewalk repair near the lodge. An UNNAMED PERSON spoke about community efforts to get every shelter pet "home for Christmas." She thanked Public Works for allowing a flyer to be posted and thanked the City Police Chief for the department's work on an upcoming special event. She shared that she has volunteered for many years and that helping residents access spay/neuter services is very rewarding.
She encouraged the Council and staff to attend the event and see the community support firsthand, noting that life can change on a dime.
City Clerk Mallonee read a written statement from MIGUEL ALEJANDRE requesting that the City establish quarterly public reports on both the homeless encampment and the One 40 Tree Project. He stated that residents want consistent updates on how the encampment is being managed, how many individuals are being served or have exited the program, plans to improve safety and well-being, and any challenges staff are facing. Regarding the One Tree Project, he requested updates on construction progress, clear communication on the placement process for unhoused individuals, and information on whether a selection or scoring system will be used to ensure fairness. He emphasized the importance of transparency, noting past concerns in other city processes and stating that residents deserve clear information on decisions and outcomes. He expressed his willingness to help inform the public and stated that quarterly reports would support community trust.
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA. Motion by Chavez, seconded by Sanders to approve the consent agenda items as follows: Check Register for #254915-#255134 in the Amount of $4,336,353, 73; City Council Resolution No. 7022 - Rejecting the Bids for the Water Meter Replacement Project; City Council Resolution No. 7023 - Accepting the Meadowlands Wet Well Replacement and Bypass Project as Complete and Authorizing the Filing of a Notice of Completion with the Merced County Recorder (Rolfe Construction, Inc.); City Council Resolution No. 7024 - Authorizing a Lease Agreement Between the City of Los Banos and Fernando Escobedo dba Escobedo and Sons, for the Purpose of Leasing Agricultural Parcel APN# 454-0200-001, Amending the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget by Increasing Revenue in the Amount of $7,500, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Lease and All Related Documents; City Council Resolution No. 7025 - Approving and Adopting Final Tract Map No. 2021-01 Quail Meadows Villages at Stonecreek V Phase 3, Unit 4 (Anderson Homes); City Council Resolution No. 7026 - Accepting the Transportation Development Act Funds Financial Statement for the Years Ended June 30, 2021 and 2020 as prepared by Price Paige & Company, Merced County Associations of Government's (MCAG) Auditor; City Council Resolution No. 7027 - Accepting the Transportation Development Act Funds Financial Statement for the Years Ended June 30, 2020 and 2019 as prepared by Price Paige & Company, Merced County Associations of Government's (MCAG) Auditors; City Council Resolution No. 7028 -Authorizing a One-Year Facility Use Agreement Between the City of Los Banos and Los Banos American Little League for the Use of Colorado Ballpark in the Amount of $3,387 for the 2026 Little League Season. The motion carried by the affirmative action of all Council Members present.
PUBLIC HEARING - TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #2022-02, FINAL DEVELOPMENT #2022-02, AND AN
ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED VILLA SURANO AREA PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2006011135) FOR THE NORTHPOINTE AT REGENCY PARK PROJECT; CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 7029 -
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #200611135) FOR THE VILLA BURANO AREA PLAN RELATED TO THE NORTHPOINTE AT REGENCY PARK PROJECT; CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 7030 - APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #2022-02 AND ZONE CHANGE #2022-02 FOR THE NORTHPOINTE AT REGENCY PARK LOCATED ON ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 424-010-002, 005 AND 006; CITY 41 COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 7031 - APPROVING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #2022-02 FOR NORTHPOINTE AT REGENCY PARK: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 7032 - APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXE CU EE A
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS BANOS AND STONEFIELD HOME, INC. Community & Economic Development Director Souza Elms presented the staff report which included a PowerPoint presentation.
Mayor Amabile opened the public hearing. JEFF ROBERTS, speaking on behalf of the developer, thanked staff for their excellent presentation and stated that the applicant concurs with staff's recommendation and the Planning Commission's unanimous approval. He referenced the EIR addendum, the rezone, the final development plan, and noted that the reimbursement agreement will allow for efficient delivery of sewer line improvements. He added that the project will allow for many homes and a fire station and said he was happy to answer any questions. An UNNAMED PERSON commented that while the project includes a large number of homes, the City should also consider offering land for future school sites. BLANCHE JORGE stated that the project is beautiful, complete, and well thought out, and encouraged the developer to push for amenities that support pets, such as catios, cat walk-arounds, running rails, and garage access features for heavy pet-food storage, noting these additions would help the subdivision stand out in Los Banos. MATTHEW ROGERS of Benchmark Engineering thanked Stacy and her staff for their hard work and said they were happy to reach this stage and hope to begin building homes soon. He described the project as a strong infill development that improves circulation and utilities and provides many amenities. He also stated that Stonefield Homes is in discussions with the school district regarding a school site in the area, and that the homes and nearby walkways are pet friendly. Another UNNAMED PERSON asked whether the proposed fire station location is in addition to or a replacement for the previously discussed station, and whether street widths will allow emergency vehicles to pass when cars are parked. With no one else coming forward and the public hearing was closed.
Mayor Amabile began by addressing questions about schools, noting that building schools in the state has historically been challenging. In the early 2000s, he facilitated a voluntary agreement among local developers and the Los Banos Unified School District (LBUSD) to raise fees above state requirements to support school funding. Land for Pacheco High School and Merced College was donated by developers, and he emphasized that all new development must enhance the community rather than overburden it. He also noted that the City updates its Housing Element every eight years, and failure to comply could allow the state to control housing development. The City is currently in preliminary discussions with LBUSD regarding a new school site and planning for potential future school sites over the next 20 years. Chief Tualla confirmed that the East Side Fire Station will be located on the designated site rather than the originally proposed water tank site. Community & Economic Development Director Souza Elms added that the West Side Fire Station will house the Emergency Operations Center.
Streets in the development will be four feet wider than previous standards, making them larger than streets near Target, and the land originally proposed for a fire station remains 42 city-owned for potential future use. One acre is sufficient for Station 3, and while Station 4 on the West Side is the immediate priority, once it is completed, attention will shift to Station 3. Station 4 will also free up resources from Station 1, improving overall response times. The fire station site will be dedicated to the City prior to the first final map being recorded, though ownership will not transfer until streets and infrastructure are complete, and the City will be responsible for building the station. Council members raised questions about traffic, particularly the Dove and 165 interchange and the future Vineyard connection, which could create a default north bypass. Ms. Souza Elms noted that traffic studies indicated the level of service would remain acceptable within General Plan parameters. Ward Road was also a concern for speeding, and traffic calming measures, including bulb-outs and potential speed cushions, are planned as part of the development.
The discussion then turned to housing density and lot sizes. Medium-density lots will have smaller lots and houses compared to low-density, designed for lower-cost or starter homes. House sizes on medium-density lots range from approximately 1,000 to 2,700 square feet, while larger homes up to 3,300 square feet will be on low-density lots. Council members noted the need to revisit zoning code definitions for medium-density development, particularly regarding lot spacing and parking. Recreational amenities were also discussed. Council expressed support for the trail along the Canal, and plans are being considered to extend it past Pacheco High School and connect it to the Ag Sports Complex, ultimately creating a looped system. Regarding pets, homes are designed to be pet-friendly, offering options such as no carpet, energy-efficient designs, pet doors, and the potential for catwalks. The Developer is open to working with buyers to accommodate additional pet-related amenities. Finally, infrastructure was addressed. All necessary utilities, including water, sewer, and storm drainage, are in place and capable of supporting the development. Planned improvements, such as upgraded trunk lines and new stormwater basins, ensure adequate capacity. Mayor Amabile concluded by emphasizing the importance of a growth management system, which will be reintroduced to ensure development aligns with city services, maintains community health, and attracts businesses and jobs. Overall, the project was presented as a well-planned development that balances new growth with the needs of existing residents.
Motion by Sanders, seconded by Chavez to adopt City Council Resolution No. 7029 - Adopting an Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH#200611135) for the Villa Surano Area Plan Related to the Northpointe at Regency Park Project. The motion carried by the affirmative action of all Council Members present.
Motion by Sanders, seconded by Perez to adopt City Council Resolution No. 7030 - Approving General Plan Amendment #2022-02 and Zone Change #2022-02 for Northpointe at Regency Park Located on Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 424-010-002, 005 and 006. The motion carried by the affirmative action of all Council Members present.
Motion by Sanders, seconded by Chavez to adopt City Council Resolution No. 7031 - Approving Final Development Plan #2022-02 for Northpointe at Regency Park. The motion carried by the affirmative action of all Council Members present. 43 Motion by Sanders, seconded by Perez to adopt City Council Resolution No. 7032 - Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Reimbursement Agreement for Sewer Main Replacement Between the City of Los Banos and Stonefield Home, Inc. The motion carried by the affirmative action of all Council Members present.
CONSIDERATION OF EMERGENCY SHELTER OPTIONS. Community & Economic Development Director Souza Elms presented the staff report and introduced Housing Program Manager McCammond, who provided a detailed presentation, including a PowerPoint. City Manager Than emphasized that addressing homelessness is a complex task and that the missing link in Los Banos is permanent shelter, noting that this topic will be brought back for further discussion. City Clerk Mallonee read a letter from the public, and Mayor Amabile invited community members to speak. BLANCHE JORGE, representing the downtown area and the Livingroom, expressed concerns about the concentration of shelters in the downtown area, noting that retail spaces are already difficult to fill and the area has reached maximum density. She suggested exploring alternatives, such as Tracy, California, where shelters are located near a water treatment plant with busing provided, keeping shelters away from amenities. She stressed that repeatedly impacting the downtown could harm the town and emphasized that homeless individuals with pets should also be considered in planning. Mayor Amabile invited the public to come forward and speak. KA THY BALLARD asked about long-term hotel residents and whether they would be displaced to tents if the hotel were repurposed. An UNAMED PERSON raised questions about transparency and requested data on bridge home occupancy, turnover rates, and space availability to demonstrate program effectiveness. The speaker also expressed concerns about clustering residential shelters and emphasized the need for centralized, well-managed options like a tiny shelter village or a motel. Council Member Lewis spoke about the city's emergency interim shelter needs, noting that the tiny home shelter village is the best option. She highlighted the availability of CDBG funds to support the project and noted that rehabbing a hotel has many unknowns while HomeKey funds are unavailable. Purchasing residential homes would reduce housing stock. She suggested city-owned property near One Tree as a suitable site for consolidating services. Council Member Lewis described her visit to tiny homes at LCC, praising their fire safety and efficiency, and noted that tiny homes are more cost-effective and faster to implement than rehabbing hotels. Ms. McCammond explained that CDBG funding has been released and that the motel option is less viable due to relocation requirements. Council Member Lewis added that San Jose has successfully implemented tiny home shelters as an affordable and rapid solution. Council Member Chavez asked about occupancy per home, and Ms. McCammond confirmed approximately 10 residents per home. Finance Director Moreno addressed tax implications, noting that property taxes, CFDs for police and fire, and LLD assessments would be lost at roughly $5,000 per home. She also noted that displacing motel residents could increase homelessness and that TOT revenue would be lost if hotels were repurposed. City Manager Than noted that property availability limits location options.
Council Member Sanders asked about project timelines, and Ms. McCammond explained that CDBG funding was delayed until February, with an estimated 18-month completion for the tiny shelter village. Refurbishing a motel may take longer. Interim measures and phased implementation are possible, and early work demonstrates readiness for grants, 44 including issuing RFQs for developers. Council Member Sanders also asked about CDBG funding, and Ms. McCammond explained that the maximum application is $3.6 million, covering construction and program costs, but costs incurred before the award date cannot be reimbursed, and funds cannot supplant existing services. Council Member Chavez asked whether motels are currently used for emergency shelter, and Ms. McCammond confirmed that they are, primarily for families with minors. The tiny shelter village option provides more flexibility. Council Member Perez supported the tiny shelter village for its centralized services, easier case management, and scalability, with Ms. McCammond noting that PLHA dollars could support expansion as needed. Mayor Amabile emphasized that Phase 1 addressing encampments must move forward, stating that the tiny shelter village is the best option for CDBG reimbursement and that site selection needs to happen promptly. Council Member Sanders suggested presenting the tiny homes project with and without CDBG funding to clarify city costs. The city council reached a consensus to move forward with the tiny shelter village as the preferred emergency shelter option, with phased implementation and future site selection to be addressed in subsequent meetings.
CANCELLATION OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2026 DUE TO THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY SEASON.
Motion by Chavez, seconded by Sanders to cancel the Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 7, 2026 due to the Christmas holiday season. The motion carried by the affirmative action of all Council Members present.
CITY DEPARTMENT REPORTS.
Community & Economic Development. Director Souza Elms began her report by providing public hearing notices for upcoming Planning Commission meetings. She noted that the first meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 10th, at 6 p.m., with two items on the agenda. The first item involves the demolition and rehabilitation of an existing car wash at 1015 East Pacheco, located next to Marion Santos' Chevron on 10th Street, across from El Grullense's restaurant. The second item is the Villages VI subdivision, which consists of 30 units within a small pocket of the Stone Creek subdivision off Cardoza Road. Ms. Souza Elms also announced a special Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, December 11th, at 6 p.m. to consider the San Luis Estates project, which includes 96 units located just south of Los Banos Junior High, between Miller and the extension of Place Road. She highlighted that this special meeting is being held due to a conflict of interest and a commissioner recusal that prevented a quorum at the regular meeting. Ms. Souza Elms concluded her report by sharing the grand openings of two new local businesses: Ono Hawaiian Barbecue on Friday, December 5th at 11 a.m., located at 1443 West Pacheco Boulevard next to Dutch Bros in the same shopping center as Target, and Retro Rewind, a family entertainment arcade at 537 I Street downtown, opening Saturday at 10 a.m.
Finance. Director Moreno had no report.
Fire. Fire Chief Tualla began his report with upcoming community events. He noted that the city's parade will take place on Saturday, and the Fire department looks forward to 45 hosting attendees. Chief Tualla also highlighted the "Santa on the Engine" program, scheduled for December 17th, 19th, 21st, and 22nd, which will make multiple neighborhood stops, including various parks, with details available on the department's social media and through distributed flyers. He shared that on December 15th at 10 a.m. at Fire Station 1, there will be a swearing-in and badge-pinning ceremony for new employees, promotions, and newly filled Battalion Chief positions, emphasizing that this will strengthen management and oversight of personnel. Chief Tualla also provided an update on the EMR transition with the county ambulance service, noting that coordination with police, dispatch, and city staff has been strong and that the new provider is expected to successfully take over services in the county.
Human Resources. Director Mallonee reported that three new employees have joined the city: Jesse Spangler as a part-time Maintenance Worker at the Community Center, Zachary Zuspin as a Police Officer, and Carlos Pena as a part-time Maintenance Worker in the Fleet Division. She also noted that five current employees have received promotions or classification changes: Martin Defranco to Utilities Maintenance I, Gabriel Cervantes as an Environmental Control Specialist Trainee, Brian Thompson as a new Battalion Chief, Juan Ramirez promoted to Fire Captain, and Vincent Rizzo promoted to Fire Engineer. Ms. Mallonee stated that the city is in the process of hiring at least 12 more employees by the end of the month and is currently recruiting for positions including Community Services Officer, Custodian, Lateral Police Officer, Legal Assistant, Public Safety Dispatcher, and Volunteer Firefighters. She encouraged interested individuals to visit the city's website or contact HR at City Hall for more information and reminded everyone that the Los Banos City Council will host its 29th annual Holiday Open House at the next meeting on December 17th.
Parks & Recreation. Director Heim reported on upcoming events, highlighting the Breakfast with Santa scheduled for December 13th, with tickets now on sale. He reminded everyone that the Christmas parade will take place the Saturday prior, and attendees are encouraged to stay for the tree lighting ceremony at the plaza, which traditionally follows the parade. Mr. Heim also noted that two new shade structures have recently been installed, one at the Ag Complex and another at Shaunessey Park. He mentioned that Shaunessey Park will open soon once the concrete work under the shade structure is completed and the playground certification is finalized. He concluded by introducing the upcoming "Cocoa with Popo" event hosted by the fire and police departments.
Police. Chief Reyna provided an update on several community programs and events. He highlighted the return of the Snip Bus, a mobile spay and neuter service, which has signed up approximately 75 low-income residents for free animal services on December 8th and 9th, with all slots already filled. He noted that the program, funded by the City Council this fiscal year, has been very successful and is planned to return in 2026. Chief Reyna also reported on collaboration with the National Child Safety Council, which raises funds to provide free educational materials for children, including child safety books and information on dialing 911. Through this partnership and local business support, approximately $2,400 was raised to purchase a new Safety Pup outfit, which will be 46 featured at the Hot Cocoa with Popo event at Henry Miller Plaza from 5 to 9 p.m., with attendees encouraged to dress warmly. Chief Reyna also mentioned that Zachary Zuspin recently joined the department as a Lateral Police Officer and that a public swearing-in ceremony will be scheduled. Additionally, he highlighted ongoing programs such as Shop with a Cop, which involves about 60 local children in a shopping spree coordinated with the school district, and Cops for Kids, among other community events, emphasizing the department's commitment to public engagement and youth outreach.
Public Works. Director Via provided a brief update to Mayor Amabile and Council. He announced that a new City Engineer, James Cozad, will be starting on December 16th, and he will attend the December 17th meeting to be introduced to the council. Cozad previously served as acting Public Works Director and Acting City Engineer for a consultant over the past three years. Mr. Via noted that this hire will help fill a vacancy and ease his workload. He also reported that Juan Lopez, currently an ECM trainee, has passed the test for wastewater treatment plant operator and has applied for state certification. Once certified, the plant will have two certified operators. Additionally, Gabriel, who has moved from Utilities to an ECM trainee role, will need to complete his required hours and pass his certification test. Mr. Via concluded that the department is making progress on staffing and operational capacity.
CITY MANAGER REPORT. City Manager Than stated that he was asked not to give a report that evening, but he thanked the staff for their work. He gave a special shout-out to the Human Resources department, noting that although the team is small, they are very effective. He recognized the added workload from new levels of service and additional staff positions and thanked Lucy Mallonee for her efforts in managing HR. Mr.
Than emphasized that the HR team's work now allows the city to build capacity and successfully deliver many of the projects currently underway.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS:
MARCUS CHAVEZ - DISTRICT 3: Emphasized that people in the community need help and encouraged everyone to donate to local food banks. He noted that the city has plans to work on the roads, mentioning a recent incident with a busted tire on the highway caused by potholes. He expressed his excitement about upcoming community events, including the Christmas parade and Cocoa with the Popo. MARCOS CHAVEZ concluded by thanking MR. VAUGHN for his service and all that he has done for the community.
DEBORAH LEWIS - DISTRICT 4: Emphasized the importance of community donations and thanked the Police Department for their continued efforts in supporting those in need.
She requested that city staff provide Council Members with directions and details for the upcoming Christmas parade. Council Member Lewis also addressed design standards, expressing a desire to see video renderings of projects rather than just paper plans, so the community can better understand what will be coming to their neighborhoods.
Additionally, she suggested that when new developments are being built, essential amenities and infrastructure should be established incrementally as homes are 47 completed, rather than waiting until the entire project is finished, to ensure residents have necessary services in place.
MITZY PEREZ - DISTRICT 1: Suggested helping people in the community by setting up neighborhood "borrow a book" style stations, but instead of books, they would provide food, diapers, and other essential supplies. She noted it would be helpful to have these accessible in local neighborhoods. Council Member Perez also thanked Mr. Vaughn for his service to the city.
EVAN SANDERS - DISTRICT 2: Noted that there are lessons to be learned from the recently approved development. They emphasized the need to find ways to encourage developers to actually build high-density projects. Council Member Sanders also highlighted the city's calendar, describing it as a really useful tool, and requested that it be kept up to date with all events.
MICHAEL S. AMABILE - MAYOR: Reported that he attended an MCAG meeting following the last city council session, which included two closed sessions regarding the potential expansion of MCAG's offices. He thanked the Downtown Association and the Los Banos Chamber of Commerce, noting that the holiday lights downtown look fantastic.
Mayor Amabile expressed his excitement for the upcoming Christmas parade on Saturday and reminded the public about the city's 29th annual Holiday Open House. He concluded by thanking Mr. Vaughn, noting that it has been a great experience working with him
ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
48 LOsBanos
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
t th, ,, nwd
Agenda Staff Report
Mayor & City Council Members
William Via, Public Works Director
December 17, 2025
TYPE OF REPORT: Consent Item
,lif on ic,
SUBJECT: Accepting Public Improvements for Dove Hollow at Stonecreek The Villages V Phase 3, Unit 3.
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopts the Resolution accepting Public Improvements for Dove Hollow at Stonecreek The Villages V Phase 3, Unit 3.
Background:
The Tentative Tract Map No. 2021-01 was approved by the City of Los Banos Planning Commission on December 08, 2021 by Resolution No. 2021-16. In August 2023, Public Works staff was contacted by Lodi Development, Inc., a California Corporation, for Final Map approval. The final map consisted of a total of 82 lots on 15.15.± acres and was in substantial compliance with Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2021-01. The map was approved by the City's consulting firm in May 2024 and was resubmitted for review again in April 2025. The resubmittal for the Final Map was reviewed and was deemed complete by the City's consulting firm. The Final Map was approved by the City Council of the City of Los Banos on August 6, 2025 and, along with a Development Agreement between Anderson Homes and the City of Los Banos, was recorded with Merced County by Resolution No.6963 on August 6, 2025. In July 2023, the developer contacted Public Works for the approval of Improvement Plans for Dove Hollow at Stonecreek The Villages V Phase 3, Unit 3. The Improvement Plans were reviewed and approved by the City's Consulting Professional Engineering Firm as well as the Los Banos City Engineer. During ITEM 7D
49 construction and upon completion, the site was inspected and deemed substantially complete by the City. In October 2025, the developer contacted the Public Works Staff to request acceptance of Public Improvements for Stonecreek The Villages V Phase 3, Unit
3. Discussion:
The subject is generally located within the area bounded by Stonecreek Blvd to the North, Los Banos Creek to the West, Dock Ave to the East and Pioneer Road to the South. The applicant is Lodi Development, Inc., a California Corporation. The Final Map is in substantial compliance with Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2017-01 and public Improvements were inspected and subject to all Subdivision Improvement Agreement Conditions. A Landscape and Lighting District Letter of Inclusion was executed for the parcels.
Fiscal Impact:
A Maintenance Bond in the amount of $213,703.17 shall remain on file with the City of Los Banos for a minimum of one year after the acceptance of public improvements. All other required processing, development, plan check and inspection fees to date have been paid.
Reviewed by:
g:L.- )l __ - Soknirorn Than, City Manager
Attachments:
Resolution
Site Map
Recorded Final Map
Recorded Subdivision Improvement Agreement
Exhibit A Original Engineers Estimate
Exhibit B Conditions of Approval
50 RESOLUTION NO. --
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LOS BANOS ACCEPTING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS FOR DOVE HOLLOW, THE
VILLAGES V PHASE 3, UNIT 3.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Los Banos has received a request from the developers of Dove Hollow, The Villages V Phase 3, Unit 3 that public Improvements for Dove Hollow, The Villages V Phase 3, Unit 3 be accepted by the City of Los Banos; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Los Banos has reviewed said request and finds that the Public Improvements of Dove Hollow, The Villages V Phase 3, Unit 3 are in a position to be accepted by the City of Los Banos.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Banos that is does hereby accept the Public Improvements Dove Hollow, The Villages V Phase 3, Unit 3 as presented.
The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 17th day of December, 2025 by Council Member _ _ _ who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member __ _ and the Resolution adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Michael S. Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
51 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
52 Site Map: Villages V Phase 3, Unit 3
53 OWNER'S STATEMENT
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, 00 HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OR HAVE SOME RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN ANO TO THE AEALPAOPEATYINCLUDEDWITHINTHE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THE MAP; THAT
WE ARE THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS CLEAR TITLE TO SAID REAL PROPERTY; AND THAT WE HERE8YCOI\ISENT TO THE MAKING AND RECORDING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE.
THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED JN FEE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES:
1. TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS FOR PUBLIC AIGHT •OF•WAY PURPOSES, THOSE PORTIONS OF SAID LANDS
DESIGNATED ON SAID MAP AS MARIPOSA DRIVE, VISTA DRIVE, SOLIMAA DRIVE, ANO NETTLE WAY, THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED ASAN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES:
1. A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO
CONSTRUCT, RECONSTRUCT, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN, POLES, WIRES, CABLES, PIPES, AND CONDUITS
AND THEIR APPURTENANCES UPON, OVER AND UNDER THE STRIPS OF LAND AS SHOWN ON THIS FINAL MAP DESIGNATED AS "P.u.E.~ (PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT).
2. TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS, A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR PURPOSES OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SOUND WALL FOR THE AREAS DESIGNATED AS "WALL EASEMENT" (W.E.) ALONG l.OTS 139 THROUGH 145 AND 220, AS SHOWN ON THIS FINAL MAP.
WE ALSO RELINQUISH TO THE CITY OF LOS BANOS All ACCESS RIGHTS TO LOTS 139 THROUGH 145, AND 220 ALONG CATHERINE HOSTETLER BOULEVARD, SHOWN AS L:..L.L.L.L. ON THIS FINAL MAP.
OWNERS:
ANDERSON HOMES, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
BY ~ 8',;. o> (,A,}J.,__, gr, J2,1 Jt0l& DATE
NAME: Rt.~in~ w ..t~t11n (PRINTNAMEJ
ITS: ~iC(, l'fes'dertt (TITLE)
TRUSTEE'S STATEMENT FIRST AMERICAN TITLE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AS TRUSTEE, UNDER THE DEED OF TRUST RECORDED MARCH 12, 2025 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 2025007767, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MERCED COUNTY, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE MAKING AND RECORDING OF THIS MAP.
DA.TEDTHIS~ • ..Jun'----, 2025,
BY • ,Jct'!M,C
NAME ~'/U,O {PRINT NAME)
1rs IJ.P. Nwc.R. ARA ~~ne1
SEE SHEET 2 FOR NOTARY STATEMENTS
CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION THE FOLLOWING REAL PROPERTY IS DEDICATED BY ANDERSON HOMES, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AS FOLLOWS:
1. THOSE PORTIONS OF SAID LANDS DESIGNATED ON SAID MAP AS MARIPOSA DRIVE, VISTA DRIVE, SOLIMAR DRIVE, AND NETTlE WAY.
THE CITY OF LOS BANOS SHALL RECONVEY THE PROPERTY TO THE SUBDIVIDER IF THE CITY MAKES A DETERMINATION THAT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65477.5 THE SAME PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS DEDICATED DOES NOT EXIST.
I
N
~
Recorded Final Map
TRACT NO: 2021-01
STONECREEK AT LOS BANOS
THE VILLAGES V • PHASE 3, UNIT 3
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF TRACT NO. 2021-01
VOLUME 87 OP, PAGES 18·25, LYING IN A PORTION OF
SECTION 21, T. 10 S., R. 1 O E., M.0.B.&M.
CITY OF LOS BANOS .
MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 2025
Westwood
Phone (209) 571-1765 1165 Seenie.Dt"lve, SuitaA
Modesto, CA 95350
wutwoodps.com
Westwood Professloml Sentlces. Inc.
WEST PACHECO ROAD
PRAlRIE SPRINGS DRIVE
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
CARDOZA ROAD
PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT:
!
~
fi
ti'
0 I, STACY SOUZA ELMS, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF LOS BANOS, DO HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS FINAL MAP OF "TRACT NO: 2021-01, STONECREEK AT LOS BANOS, THE VILLAGES V • PHASE 3, UNIT 3", AND THAT THE SUBDIVISION IS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THAT SHOWN ON THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 18TH OAYOF JANUARY, 2022, ANDTHATTHISFINALMAP OF "TRACT NO: 2021-01, STONECREEK AT LOS BANOS, THE VILLAGES V • PHASE 3, UNIT 3", COMPLIES WITH All REQUIREMENTS OF SAID PLANNING COMMISSION.
DATEDTHIS~DAYOF l"ll1!t,\ls\:; , 2025.
BY:~~ sTACSOUELMs.COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC c5EVELO'PMBNT DIRECTOR
CITY OF LOS BANOS
RIGHT TO FARM STATEMENT
PER MERCED COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 1213
THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THE HEREON SHOWN MAP IS IN THE VICINITY OF LANO UTILIZED FOR
AGAICUL TURAL PURPOSES AND RESIDENTS OF THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO INCONVENIENCE OR DISCOMFORT ARISING FROM THE USE OF AGRlCUL TURAL CHEMICALS, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS, AND FROM THE PURSUIT OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS
INCLUDING, BY NOT LIMITED TO, PLOWING, SPRAYING AND BURNING WHICH OCCASIONALLY MAY GENERATE DUST, SMOKE. NOISE, AND ODOR.
THE COUNTY OF MERCED HAS ESTABLISHED AGRICULTURE AS A PR10AITY USE IN AGRICUL TUAAL
ZONES WHICH ARE OUTSIDE OF AN ESTABLISHED SPECIFIC URBAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SUDP) BOUNDARY, AURAL RESIDENTIAL CENTER (RAC) BOUNDARY, HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE CENTER (HlC) BOUNDARY, OR AGRICULTURAL SERVICE CENTER {ASC) BOUNDARY, ANO RESIDENTS OF PROPERTY IN
THE VICINITY OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL ZONES SHOULD BE PREPARED TO ACCEPT INCONVENIENCE OR DISCOMFORT FROM NORMAL, NECESSARY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS.
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY
MADE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF STONECREEK PROPERTIES, IN NOVEMBER OF 2022. I HEREBY
STATE THAT THIS FINAL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THECONDITIONALLYAPPROVED TENTATIVE MAP. I FURTHER STATE THAT All THE MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON Will BE OF THE CHARACTER ANO OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 30TH, 2025; ANO THAT SAID MONUMENTS WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED.
DATED THIS ~AY OF J"~\11: , 2025.
BY: \)~C-~~ D CRAwFORO,'P.Ls. nae
CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT:
I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS FINAL MAP OF ''TRACT NO: 2021·01, SiONECREEKAT LOS BANOS, THE VILLAGES V • PHASE 3, UNIT 3", AND STATE THAT THE
SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN HEREON IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP, ANO ANY APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF, AND THAT All PROVISIONS OF
THE CALIFORNIA SUBDIVISION MAP ACT ANO ANY LOCAL ORDINANCE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP, IF REQUIRED, HAVE BEEN CO~ITH.
DATED THIS 2'51!! DAY OF , '®I . 2025.
•Y llfl. -tkvJ HAEt.71RN, R.C.E. 46695
ACTING CITY ENGINEER
CITY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS FINAL MAP OF "TRACT NO: 2021-01,.STONECREEK AT LOS BANOS, THE VILLAGES V • PHASE 3, UNIT 3", AND I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS FINAL MAP IS TECHN1CALl Y CORRECT.
OATEDl°HIS~DAYOF lHbY ,2025.
BY: " AN"'NiieE-~SO~ P~H;;,IE"il"hW"'""N""G=i , P-'L,s';a.igol ga;---
ACTING CITY SURVEYOR
CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT:
t, LUCILLE L MALLONEE, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO ~;:~~~ :~~E ;~rc;6~~1~E~~l't~~~~~~:ycg; ~~~l~~T~~~T<:e~i~E1N EMBODIED FINAL MAP ENTITLED "TRACT NO: 2021-01, STONECREEk M' LOS BANOS, THE VILLAGES V • PHASE 3, UNIT 3~, WAS APPROVED AND THAT SAID CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC USE, THE OFFER OF DEDICATION IN EASEMENT OF All PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS (P.U.E.), THE WALL EASEMENT (W.E.), All AS SHOWN ON THIS FINAL MAP; ACCEPTED THE OFFER OF DEDICATION IN FEE OF THE STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY, All AS SHOWN ON THIS FINAL MAP; AND ACCEPTED THE RELINQUISHMENT OF ACCESS RIGHTS OF LOTS 139-145 AND 220, AS SHOWN ON THIS FINAL MAP, SAID APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENTS.
DATED THIS ~DAY OF. 0~st , 2025.
BY ~ t. }-(a.at~ LUCILLE L. MALLONEE, C1TY CLERK - CITY OF LOS BANOS
COUNTY RECORDER'S STATEMENT
FILED THIS I~~ DAY OF A....tfflit -. 1 2025, AT ..l:'...!l..._ O'CLOCK, .!_M. IN VOl.M_ OF OFACIAL PLATS, AT PAGES ·JJ_ .... 11_~ AT THE REQUEST OF i=IRST AMERICAN TfTLECOMPANY. ... 'Z0'2.S01.U,t.()
m1q5-
MATT H. MAY, RECORDER
MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BY: (! ,-...ll_.. ASSIST ANT/DEPUTY RECORDER VOL M.___ PAGE • ,l,J. SHEET 1 OF 7
54 NOTARY STATEMENT (OWNER) "ARY PUBLIC oR otHER OFFicER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY TH IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE 1S ATTACHED, ANO NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF &In l!,e!!\iO l •• ONJ0'1C, 2,1, 207.6 BEFOREME.f;Qk t-l.Te,1'110\'ts ANOTARYPUBLIC, (DATE)
PERsoNALLYAPPEAREo R ~l'llo. W ...tah:nn { 1E OF SIGNER(S)} TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON~WHOSE ~~~ ~~7Nw=:M:~HtA~~~K~f~~~~~~i ;::~ BY
JRE(Jil') ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSONrpf. OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHlcR THE PERSON%) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.
I CERTIFY UNDER PENAL TY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE ANO CORRECT.
WIT~
~
r s ~y HAND.
rt,, ~ , NOTARY PUBLIC
PRINT NAME: 6r'{'nl- N . .,...f,VY)O~
COMMISSION NUMBER: ~1-~,j-'-( ']. "-'-~-'fl_,_ _____ _
COMMISSION EXPIRES: ~ 11,, 2.02.C,
PAINCIPALOFACE LOCATION (COUNTY): $,u\ lc,r\i-ft
( DO NOT STAMP)
A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFF'~"PLET'ING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE
IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTYOF~ l ss
ON.Ju,ie UJ, t.Ot-5 BEFOAEME. C,1'1n3fiM. ~,-d:5
PE~~~~¼t.YAPPEARED Am\/ /JMAtrO
{NAME OF SIGNEA(S))
A NOTARY PUBLIC,
WHO PRO ED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON~ WHOSE NAME ~ SUBSCRIBED TO THE W=HI INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT EXECUTED THE SAME IN E A6lR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(l!Sj, AND THAT BY HIS ~A SIGNATURE~ ON THE INSTR MENT THE PERSON~. OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON~ ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALlY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIF013.NIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH JS TRUE ANO CORRECT.
WIThlESS MY HANO.
~ .,-,r.,_{--,.!~ iiaa ,NOTARY PUBLIC
PRINT NAME: t'.klri lfl:1/llll- t .t..,..,-,13
COMMISSION NUMBER: _ 2'e,4c,'f-'-"0 -'\ -"'5'-'\ _____ _ COMMISSION EXPIRES: .,.\I· ~ 1.D"Cif- (DO NOT STAMP)
PRINCIPAL OFFICE LOCATION (COUNTY):~
TRACT NO: 202h01 STONECREEK AT LOS BANOS
THE VILLAGES V • PHASE 3, UNIT 3
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF TRACT NO. 2021-01
VOLUME87OP, PAGES 18-25, LYING INA PORTION OF
SECTION 21, T.10 S., R.10 E., M.D.B,&M.
SIGNATURE OMISSIONS:
CITY OF LOS BANOS
MERCED COONlY, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 2025
Westwood
Phone (209)571-17~ 11858cenlcDrtve,SUtteA
Modnlo, CA 96350
Westwood Professional Services, --- Inc,.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 66436 OF THE. CALIFORNIA SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE SIGNATURES OF THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HAVE BEEN OMITTED:
1. EXISTING DITCHES AND RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT OlTCHES AS NEEDED IN FAVOR OF MILLER &. LUX INCORPORATED PER BOOK 116 O.A. PAGE 438 AND BOOK 142 O.R. PAGE 38, MERCED COUNTY RECORDS.
2. AGREEMENT RE: EASEMENTS AND COVENANTS BETWEEN ANDERSON TRUST AND KENNETH A. SADLER PER DOCUMENT NO. 2020-021789, MERCED COUNTY RECORDS.
SHEET 2 OF 7
VOLM_ PAGE~
55 !
N
FOUND2"1PWIBRASSCAP q 30' W.C. TO SECTION CORNEA (R6) N01"01 '10"E 30.00' NW CORNER OF SECTION 21
~ ! 50 100 200
SCALE: 1 • .. 1 00'
LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS
SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY LINE
CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
RESTRICTED ACCESS
SECTION LINE
BASIS OF BEARINGTI~ - - ---
AC
FD
IP
(Ml
(M-8)
(M-M)
OP
PM
P.U.E.
M.C.A
(All)
(RI
SFN
(T)
w.c.
W.E.
ACRES
FOUND
IRON PTPE-OIAMETEA NOTED
MEASURED DISTANCE
MONUMENT TO BOUNDARY LINE
MONUMENT TO MONUMENT
OFFICIAL PLATS
PARCEL MAP
PUBLIC LITILITY EASEMENT
MERCED COUNTY RECORDS
REFERENCED RECORD DOCUMENT
RADIAL BEARING
SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING
TOTAL DISTANCE
WITNESS CORNER
WALL EASEMENT
MONUMENT NOTES
SECTION LINE
FOUND 314" IP W/PLASTIC PLUG "PLS 7788", UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. @ FOUND 3/-4" IRON PIPE W/ PLASTIC PLUG "PlS nss- IN WELL, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
■ FOUND 3.00' WITNESS CORNER, UNLESS OTHERW'ISE NOTED, MEASURED ALONG LOT LINE, RADIAL LINE 0A PERPENDICULAR TO STREET
CENTERLINE AS NOTED. 3/4" K 24" IRON PIPE WI PLASTIC PLUG "PLS naa·.
CUAVETABLE
CURVE# RADIUS DELTA LENGTH
C1 1200.00' 3°18'48" !W.40'
C2 1200.00' 5"30'26" 115.34'
c, 1150.00' 0°04'28" 1.49'
C4 1150.00' 2°16'06" 45.53'
LINE TABLE
il
I
PARCEL G
(R6)
::r:
Eli
~ ~
ll;
PARCEL
(R6)
N6°33'31"E
59.92'{A6)
N4°27'54"E
-41U4'(R6)
N1"57'1n
so.""lflli
No0 48"32'11
60.54'{111!
-!O.M(R6)
N0°05'05"E
50.54'(R6)
N1°59'46"W
225. 18'(R6)-.,,_
~2'0S"W
.....-52.09'(R6)
PAACB..2
15.154 AC
(R7)
111
86 >
N2"00'CKrE ~ ... 09'(R6) 87 0
0 !,~ 88
~ I 135
ill 8 ...__
gb
- z 89
N2"22'15'W
50.0S'(R6)
-r 901 £ 91 - [ I 92
~
111oq 99 I 98 1 97
z
N9"34'58"W
52.78"(R6) """"-\. MARIPOSA DRIVE
TRACT NO: 2021~01
STONECREEK AT LOS BANOS
THE VILLAGES V - PHASE 3, UNIT 3
!!l!lNG ASUBDMSIOttOF PARCEl.20FTl'iAC1' NO. 2021-01
VOWM£a10P;PAGES19-25, LYNltfAPORTION OF
SECTION 21, T, tO S., R. 10 E., M0.8.&M.
arY OF lDSEIAIIOS
MSRCer)CO!llffi", CAIJFOAMA.
JI.JM!2005
Westwood
Phatie. (mtS?M?H 1tfiM,bJ 0rlA, Suftl A
~c;.1Si91),
·- w~~·~.fM. ~
~
~-
·~t!tr..1111
74 ~ 73 ~
76 75
REFERENCE;O RECORP DOCUMENTS ~ COUl<TY~
(Rli -,1&0t'()ff1CIIL~TS,~28->tM.C.R.
••• tJt!f.·WlUJM!l,..Ol'PMQIII.-.--.M.O.R.
• • (Ati YClt1M "'°" 80RY!!Ya; """'890-11!.II.C.R. (fl4) 'l<II.\JME .. 0t'PAAC!Ll1W!l,-0-19,M.C.ll (R9j \'OI.UMIU901' PMCll MIIPS. Pl•lUO, Ill.CA
IA") VOUJMi .. Ol'Ol'l'ICIAI.PIA"l$;PA<IS-.W.R. !Fri) VOUJM!U70FOR'!CW. l'lAlS, PAQ!S -M.M. !RB) VDUIMl!t!80FOFl'ICW.PU.ts,!W11!1Ut4;1o!.C.R, NOTES
I. l"IISUOl'fflll0NCON1'M'8~TOl"AI.OFl6,1$4 ... 11\lMOR LESS. Z. All.~--AA!QAll)-IMSTAlll;el;MUl.l!PtYGRID __ ..,., __ TQffl--. •. AU.111$f _____ N01911,
~ ®rr.Ntl!8-D1!1$1110NSl'f(f-l!IA!'ff-lll!CIM/ilTHEREOf. 5. AU.l'OUNl>"°"""'l!IISAREAeCa'!El)lJNlEll!!l(JI-NOTED. aASIS OF BEARINGS
_,"ll ..... u-l!llleARINGQFl>ll;U!E-MllR<:ED COllN:r, GPSSTA'f'JON foe:J ·AN() hERCED00\W'tVGIPS STATION 1024 (A>).~AN!)ll!ST--l!Alllll>UPOIICN.ll'OANIA
COONllN/\"lo~Z<lNEIOH@lll(IM). TOG!f MOIJND
!lnlTANC1!8M\JL111'lYCIRll>013F/\NCB-l!Vt.-•.
g ~8101 102 103 104 ~'"""'·""119 2111! LINE# DJRECTION LENGTH L1 N46°56'44"YJ I 48.82'
L2 N0"00'09"W 27.60'
L3 N48'22'04"E 4.00'
L4 N43"3756"W 90.00'
£ I"£ rf'OIJNDt'D'TAGG!ll>"l.HI02"il'!II
ci r' 0
W1/4 CORNEROFSECTION21 _____ ,i N89~42'14"W 407.13' :: N89°42'14"W 520.00'(A6) ~;: _J811'41XIRNiROIF$ECTIONtt FOUNDgJ4"IPTAGGED"Pt..Snsa· ,·~ 92713' •-- PG~ IP.LS41U..ffirf (R6) -{...__ ... - N89°4214"W 1475.<o"(T) 29 p M 20 - - -- _,/ MONWfNTWEU,(l'lt)i!l4) GP6STA1101110M 10,~ ' ' - - ~ P02°Dl$1(,JIICll!ll10
N0lUl'lO"[ - 11 "0<1!·~ (RS) ~~~ P!!l'l(A3J
2686•39" \ ~ N89'58"10"E 267054"(M)(A1)1A4) PIONEER ROAD '46' - - =--= L5
LB N87"15'42"W
N46"22'04"E
27.60'
4.00'
FD3"MERCEDCOUNTYBRASSDISK
SECORNEROFSECTION20 _/ GPSSTATION1023 ~ - - ---
N-1838037.727 ----- - --- - --- - --N89'S4"39"
- -
E 651 0.B>"(R2)(R>)
--- -BASISOFBEA!1!NGS --- - ---· - - --= +- ---@--8ft -i,,t_ - -::we--,,. ~ IN BRIDGE (R1)(R4) ~~~;~;r- RCE 15310 E-6447400.846 VOL , . PAGE ~ SHEET 3 OF 7 56 :i::
id <O U<>< O::~
~
PARCEL
(RB)
I
B
I I l w. - ..... , .I, w I I I I I I I I I I ~ ARCEL A (RB) I
N
~ ,. ....
SCALE:- 1• • 200'
400
TRACT:No: 2021-01
STONECREEK ATLOS BANOS
THE VlllAGESV, PH~E 3,lJNIT 3
aa.G>-a:IBDM8DIOFPARCEL20FTIIACTNO. 2021-01
VOL!JJ,£ 8'/'0i', PAGl!S 18-25, LYW'«3'11'U PORTION OF
SECTION 21, t !OS., R.10E., M.0.8..IM.
CIIYOF.LOSSAN06 Mea!)OOIMIY;CM.lfOFINtA
JUNE 2025
Westwood
,...,. . (toi,S?M.JG& T ttal~D,fr,&.Nlll:A
.,...._CA-,SO.
,,_._ w......,.~..,.__•
LEGENO AND ABBREVIATIONS
8UMll¥R>NIIOUNllMYUNE
..-iirt.JNE _____ '-------
; ; j j);;) ,t,, > r"/7); >;;;;;;,,
--lll!CT1CN UIE
tOl'LNE
VOL ..M_, PAGE~· SH£ET 4 OF 7
57 MONUMENT NOTES
SET 3/4" x 24• IRON PIPE W/PlASTIC PLUG "PLS nsa· FOR UNPAVED AREAS OR 1 .1'7" BRASS DISK STAMPED "PLS 7WY FOR CONCRETE AREAS. @ SET 3/4' x 24" IRON PIPE W/ PLASTIC PLUG "PLS ne3" 1N WELL i, SET 3.00' WITNESS CORNER, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, MEASURED
ALONG LOT LINE, RADIAL LINE OR PERPENDICULAR TO STREET
CENTERLINE AS NOTED. 3/4" x 24" IRON PIPE w, PLASTIC PLUG "PLS naa·.
FOUND 3/4' IP W/PlASTIC PLUG "PLS TT88", UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. @ FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE WI PLASTIC PLUG "PLS nBB" IN Will, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
T SET 3/4" x 24" IRON PIPE W/ PLASTIC PLUG "PLS 7788" FOR ALL REAR LOT CORNERS (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED). SET 1.1r BRASS DISK STAMPED "PLS 77W" IN SIDEWALK 1.00' ON PROPERTY LINE PROJECTION FOR ALL FRONT LOT CORNERS.
)i SET 1.00' WITNESS CORNER, MEASURED ALONG RADIAL LINE OR PERPENDICULAR TO STREET CENTERLINE AS NOTED. 1.17" BRASS DISK STAMPED "PLS nsa· FOR CONCRETE AREAS OR 3/4' x 24" IRON PIPE W/ PlASTfC PLUG "PLS 7788" FOR ALL UNPAVED AREAS.
• FOUND 3.00' WITNESS CORNER, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, MEASURED
ALONG LOT LINE, RADIAL LINE OR PERPENDICULAR TO STREET
CENTERLINE AS NOTED. 3/4" x 24• IRON PIPE W/ PLASTIC PLUG "PLS nas·.
NOTES
1. SEE SHEET 7 FOR LINE AND CURVE TABLES.
2. SEE SHEET 3 FOR ABBREVIATIONS, BASIS OF BEARINGS, LEGEND AND REFERENCES.
3. ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID DISTANCES, MUl TIPL Y GRID DISTANCES SHOWN SY 1.0000016 TO GET GROUND DISTANCES.
4. ALL DISTANCES ARE MEASURED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
5. DISTANCES AND DIMENSmEi ARE SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.
6. SEE DETAIL BELOW FOR DIMENSIONS OF OFFSET MONUMENTS ALONG STREET TIES.
+
TYPICAL STREET
~ TIE DETAIL ~ (1"•10')
PARCEL
IR6l
@
"f,.- SEE SHEET 6 @
N82"22'02"W(AJ 106,45• ; ; 1/ :fr~
209 !f)j
I j ~ ~ 'f/ ~ ;:: i/ ~ r-.
w',;,, 6581S.F. lo. ":J Ill _ 7 ~/
~;I ~ 1 f ;;:/ ~ "" .... ; ? a 176 1 ; ?! . I
; ~ g N85"32'06"W(RJ 10611, , ~ ! t ;.: 5462SF /& f;; ~ f ~/ 150 z t • I 1 ~ j I N85"24'47'W(R) 1os.oo· l26 j ~ ~ !: I 5621 S.F. w 208 J ... g J c:> c:a I NaS°30'tS"W(R) 10495' I .Ji ~ ~ ,-...,1,,.._ __ E~ ~ 6575S.F. 1'1 ;;; gl ~ ~/ 193 !3 I g :1 : f N8s030•14-w-Ml 1o{Oo"· ~ ~ si I ~ :;I ~ I 55188.F. ~ 175 1~ i'l :ll :l I 15 O N88"42'10"W(R) 106.14' / a: ~ a: 1 ~OS.F. 1° ~ ~ ~ B1 151 2 9.99' lfl 2510:. 2 S ~I N88"31'39"W{A) 105.51' ~ I a:
251
rl:. 25, J. I 6347SI.
~Fz,, ft~ lf)f ~
!"
!!,~ ill~
E\:1~ ;?;i ~ gg_
207 1 .. --,(ij@,.,f,-, I 194 N89"4'14'W(R) 105.00' ' i~(ii@i~rii 1,1t • ~2S.F. :~ I ~: 6397S.F. 174 :~ I '--'1- - .-... -,-• ..,, - ,-. -1.011 _ _, NB9 4214"W 106M 1 I s:tl S3l-4S.F. 1g l 81
152 z~
-~ NB9"42'14' l"W 105,00' j I )i:: 6IJIJI.S.P:.
~ :.... N89°42'14"W 105.00' 1
~~ ~ 6409S.F. i@ I qi lP ;,; ;l ~ I gl , 5250 ~
~, -·,,,
~ ".F.
g fs N89°42'14"W 106.95' i j - j-10 P.U.E. . 2
1---9.45• 10· PUE---l i-- I I N89"42'14'W 105.oo· , l 81 t53 w • • • I I 10 P.U.E.7 - g1 fflJl.F. ti, - 205 18 !;'. 81 196 8 NB9°42'14"W 105.00' I I , ~ ~ 6C14S.F. 1g ~ g! 63008.F. g - 1- - j10 P.U.E. ~ iil I i I ~ 172 I~ I ,....4l!'14"W 101.00•
&
lii
E''
~
1'1
~'11. Ii!
N89°42'14"W 106.80' I -. I ~ j .., 5302S.F. !Ill-. .-.. _ I T ~ I ~ I NB9"4?14"W 105.00' E I ~ I ~ ~I I "": :i t: I !:'. _ N89*42'14"W 105.00' ~ ~ '.3; ial I~! ! 8 ~I 197 le~. I_ ! ! ; I lg w !:= 2 gl 5250S.F. c, g 8 171 18 ~ ~ w NB9"42'14"W 104.79' I ~ ~ I ~ g 52505.F. I g ~ ~ ~ I
I k ~ I I N89"42'14"W 105.00' f I ~ I~ b ~:
I z ~1 W 01 ~o N89"42'14"W 105.00' ) z 1~ j :i;I
I~ 8 ~ 91 198 ~ 8 170 lg 8 I Ica z a: :i;I 6300S.F. io g 5250S.F lg W z l-'-,,,==== ~---lN89"42'14"W 102.39' I O : • I ~ I : "-••" •-- 1 a: I N89"42'14"YII 105.00' N89"42'14"W 105.00' ! ~ I ~I 202 lg ~ 81 199 8 169 1:. "' 1 I· ,.,:; ·I • I· <( I 5070S.F. lg :J :& 1 5250S.F. ~ 5250S.F. lg J- I 204
5290S.F.
203
6216S.F.
1M
510U.F.
155
&l.$.F.
156
61t&·a1;
N89"42'14"W 100.39' I Q I I ~ ,-;I~-=.,.. ~. "'rw-1-..,,,,..... --11" rn ~ 201 i ~ II (/) i:{ i N8'il"42'1:: 105.00' 8 N89"42'1:: 10s,;• 1 il > II ~ i ~ 157 ; ~ 6412SF :rn mt 6796S.F. ~ 6796S.F. ; :Ci '°: ; 7ffiHtf. r
TRACT NO: 2021-01
STONECREEK AT LOS BANOS
THE VILLAGES V - PHASE 3, UNIT 3
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF TRACT NO. 2021·01
VOLUME 87 OP, PAGES 18-25, LYING IN A PORTION OF
SECTION 21, T. 10 S., R. 10 E., M.D.B.&M.
86 CITY OF LOS BANOS
MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 2025
Westwood
....... (JO!)Sff.;1785 1ff55eenloGl1¥G;·9uill,A
........ ;CA9SSN
87 WMl'WoN~Sdrvka;ln(.
- 88
89 100
90 UNIT 2
(RS)
I
99 I
N
~ 25 "' 100
9CAl.!c f',..9(1'
___ L _____ J ,.. 2~ '--------~ --------1_) ,.. "'' ,_1_ N89°4214"W 90.12' \_ I J 97.33' 97.33' o\_ O ~O-'NWr'-c:'"1""·';:;• .::n..:-:::c·a:. "'-~lf---- '-- - -"-- ,- ~ W l11 L10 • "' N89"4214"W 194,66'(TI w r L5 L4 J I ~~ ~ ~ 122.28'(8-M) _ --@I __ --- _ ~00'~..f.1_) ____ N ____ @I __ 1!2.71'(M-PJ} q:? - N89°42'14"W 516.99'(T)
1ll~ ~ ill MARIPOSA DRIVE
b
~ w
~I
8 z
50.00'
167
5500S.F.
_ ss.oo· _ L 50.00· _ _J_ _ 50.()()' _
g
1: 166
,_ 6050S.F.
i
1 .,; 165
~ 5500S.F.
j
8 ~ 164
5500S.F.
Na9•42'14"W. 520.00'(11 ~ __ 60.oo· _ J _ so.oo· _ L _ so.oo· 1 b
~
~ 163
6600S.F.
z
~
g
~ 162
5500S.F.
8 "' cS
n:
161 '$>
5500s.F.
, __ _§5~0.'.___
160
6050S.F.
-~~- ~
~ ; 159
,_ ~ 55008.P:.
j
,i-- -"'"~ _,l_@ ,. j ~14"W488..0~ --,.-
~- il
~ 1; 158 101 102
,_
~ z
ct 50.00' ~ 55.00' "' §Q,QQ' 50.00' lit 60.00' ~ 50.00' It 50.00' 3 55.DO' t, ~ • • SOJIG' -~ 29 P.M. 20
<RSJ
N89°42'14"W 520.00'(TI
VOL ft_ ,PAGE •:t- SHEET 5 OF 7
58 NOTES
1. SEE SHEET 7FOR LINEANO CURVE TABLES.
2. SEE SHEET 3 FOR ABBRE\IIATIONS, BASIS OF BEARINGS, LEGEND ANO REFERENCES.
3. ALL DISTANCES SHOINN ARE GRID DISTANCES, MULTIPLY GRID DISTANCES SHOWN BY 1.0000016 TO GET GROUND DISTANCES.
4. All DISTANCES ARE MEASURED UNLESS OTHEA'MSE NOTED.
5. DISTANCES AND OIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.
6. SEE SHEET 5 FOR MONUMENTATION NOTES.
~
145
DETAIL B FROM THIS 9-lEET
(l"•r)
t':)0t:>6
<,,,rt-9 ~-
t',l""" 14(R)
#. . q._. rt'~ ,_[Q~
"
~
@ fi"' /~\;',;;.
~,
DETAILD
FROM THIS SHEET
(1"=201
__ ,. ..... -
/
SEE OETAILD
ON TMIS SHEET
12,
,...,"ti " @
J-0. ~<:::-0" • ~ ,l;e,"' PARCEL J ,i\._.f '-- \_ • (R6) ,fl b .,;,.,--..,<!., S · '
~ 219 ' 7284S.F. 6(1
L1
" o,,oA "'"'"'
~ ~ ~ 1?'
ov ~{v Cd ~ / <:>
.:;,/
'·§S \
SEE DETAIL!!
ON THIS SHEET ~
\ ~
\
'\.\
TRACt N'O: 2021-01
STONECREEK AT LOS BANOS
THE VR..LAGES V - PHASE 3, UNIT 3
BElNGAS\J8tllVISIOKOF'PARC9..20FTRACTNO, 2021-01
\IOUJME STOP;PNEita.25, ·tYlNGINA POATDI OF
• SEC110ff 21, T. 10 S, R 14 E., M.O.UM.
CITY Of' LOS MNO$
MERCEOOWKN.
JIJlll:2025
~
Westwood
,_ ('219'S7t-f18!S 'M&a.enkt°""Swtli _ .. _ ·A
•MWIIOd'l90WI
W..twi:loll~~lne.
I
N
~ "~
,~ '\ 't-' '\ . ~
25 SO
SC-"L!:1"=50"
!GO
84 VNIT 2
(RB)
85 -1'~
\ ~
' -~ J , ... . 7
218
219
0€TAILC
FRO•· fuis SHEET (f'•10')
191
DE"l'ALA
~ T
(1"=1')
VOL~, PAGE 18._ SHE!:T 6 OF 7
59 LINE#
L1
L2
L3
l4
L5
L6
L7
LS
l.9
LlO
L11
L12
L13
L14
LlS
L16
L17
Ll8
L19
L20
)
/
/// .:: 4.00'
/~,l: // _,. ~- ,-& <:;J'""' iJ .....
-.,,~ · L~ •
@
>rt~,,,'(, //
~
/,,,~ ~ O..,;,
I
N
~
LINE TABLE
PIRECTlON
N~59'25"E
NBr15'42"\Y
N138°42'20"'<N
N44°42'14-W
N45•17'46"E
N6°27'21 "E
N2"46'26"E
N41"22'04"E
N89•48'42"W
N44•42'14-W
N45°17'46~E
N41°22'04"E
N41"22'04"E
N41"22'04"E
N2°13'48"W
N46-SS'44"W
N46-SS-44'W
N38°0730"W
N!l0°00'00'1!
N46-s8'44'"W
,¥
~ ~,$,~ q,_
~ ~"' - QQ;' /; • .,~ ~
~0 / ,,l'
c,Ov , / '
LENGTH
6.9T
27.60'
12..74'
10.85'
10.es·
5.43·
9.44'
51.80'
12.19'
10.85'
10.2s·
1.61'
58.117'
56.96"
10.31'
51.18'
48.82'
50,23·
, ....
48.82"
@:(
DETAIL E ~6
(1"=20')
LINE TABLE
LINE# DIRECTION
L21 N0°00'09"W
L22 N46°56'44"W
lZl N51"52'30"E
l24 N38'-07'30"W
l.25 N2"26'30"E.
l26 N2"26'30"E
L27 N2"28'30"E
l.28 N2"26'30"E
LENGTH
27.60'
51.1B'
52.00 33.40'
66.68·
1.46'
49.45'
18.69'
6l Ou> ,S.,~
Oc, ~A~-1,, ?s<-,.__·(~~
-1,s,o 1>
CURVE TABLE
CURVE I RADIUS DELTA
Cl 1040.00' 2°45'48"
C2 753.00' 5°41'52"
C3 753.00' 5°12"02"
C4 753.00' 4°19"44"
cs 753.00' 4"31'30"
C5 753.00 4• 12'00"
C7 805.00' 4°11~
ce 805.00' 3°29'15"
C9 805.00' 3°29'15"
c,o 805.00' 4°11'58"
Cll 805.00' 3"29'15"
C12 805.00' 3°29'15"
C13 805.00' 1"36'12"
C1 4 366,00' 5-,gooC15 366.00' r27'0SC16 366.00' 8°59'22" CH 576.00' 2"18'15"
C18 98B.OO' 3°19'24"
C19 576.00' 5"57'26"
C20 576.00" 7'09'00"
LENGTH CURVE#
50.16' C21
74.88' C22
68.35' C23
56.89' C24
59.47' C25
55.2()' C2<
59.00' C27
49.00' C28
49.00' C29
59.00' C30
49.00' C31
49.00' C32
22.53' CS>
35.03' C34
47.60' C35
44.SS C3S
23.ts· C37
57.31' C38
59.89' C39
71 .88' C40
-- -- -·--- - ··-·- ·- ··------·-··-
NOTES
1. SEE SHEET 3 f-OR ABBREVIATIO~ BASIS OF BEARINGS. LEGEND ANO Fl!l'!'R£NCES.
2. ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID DISTANCES, Ml.IL TIPL V GRID °'9TAN'CES SHOWN BY 1.0000016 TO GET GROUND DISTANCES.
3. ALL DISTANCES ARE MEASURED utl..ESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
4. O!STANCESANO DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN IN FEET ANO DECM\LS THEAEOF.
S. SEE SHEET 5 FOR "40NUMENTATION NOTES.
CURVE TABLE CURVE TABLE
RAOIUS DELTA LENGTH CURVE# RADIUS DEL.TA l.BffiTH
578.00' 1°42'30" 17.17' C41 62a.00' 4°25'15" 48.-46'
1015.00' 2°13'16" 39.35' C42 628.00' 5'09'45" 56."9'
1015.00' 3•44•14• 66.20' C43 Q63.00' 1"31'13" ZS.ill'
1015.00' 3•05•51· 55.17 C44 588.00" 2°36'09" 26.71'
1015.00' 3•44•14• 66.20' C45 1150.00' -~.- 1.411'
1015.00" 3°06'51" ss.1r C48 1150.00' 2"14'58" 45.11'
1015.00' 3"44'14" 66.21' C47 814,00' 2"36'09" 27.!9'
1015.00' 3°06'53" 55.18' C48 1014.00' 3"18'48" 59.14'
1015.00' 1°10'35" 20.84' C51 1014.00' 5"30'26" 97.47'
1067.00' 1°00'04" 18.64' C52 640.00' 2"48'53" :Jt.44"
1067.00' 3°10'04" 58.99' C53 1040.00' 0°34'04" 10.31'
1087.00' 3°10'04" 58.99'
1087,00' 3°10'04" 58.99'
1067.00' 2°38'37" 49.23'
1067.oo· 3°10'04" 58.99'
1067.00' :r10-04· 58.99'
1067.00' 2~'Q8· 49.08"
1067.00' 1°49'58" 34.13'
628.00' 2"13'51" 24.45'
628.00' 5"18'19" 58.15'
TRACT NO: 2021-01
STONECREEK AT LOSl3ANOS
THE VlllAOES V - PHASE 3, UNIT 3
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF TRACT NO. 2021-01
VOl.lll!E r7 OP; PAGES f&-25, l YING ti A PORTION OF
SECTION'2"1, T.10S., R.10E., M.0.8.&M.
. CHY OF LOUANOS
MEACEOCOUNTY, CAIJFORNIA
JUNI! 20.!!S
Westwood
Pti.-, (2"t1~178f- 11e&aiento.~iult8'A
Jtoinllo,CA.NISO
WastwNd~C.V-.lnt.-
RAD~ BeAAINGS
LINEt ~CTIOII
1{~) N-43"~'#'!
2{R) N49"'3'26"E
3{R) N51"'51"M'E
4{R) -H48"08'43"'li
S(R) N<WJ!"04~e
6(R) N44"34'29"E
7{R) _.... .... 8{1!) N47"4?2'"W
9{R) N40°58'13"W
10{1':} N65"4S'GrW
11,i) H0"1"1,S
'2{R) "40"27'07"E
13{R) N40"2~
l4{11) N40"2T07"1:
15(11) NM0
-49'06"W
16(R) N4Y'37'20"E
VOL"--, PAGE J!..._ SHEET 7 OF 7
60 Recorded in Official Records, MERCED COUNTY
MATTH.MAY
08/26/2025
09:16 AM
re03
Recording Requested By:
City of Los Banos
And When Recorded Mail to:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
City of Los Banos
520 J Street
Los Banos CA 93635
County Clerk - Recorder
P Public
Doc#: 2025022828
11111 illl 111111111111111 IH 11111111111111 11111111111111 Fom * $ R O O O O 6 5 8 8 4 0 $ *
Titles: 1
S ace above this line for Recorder's use.
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
Pages: 12
NO FEE
THIS AGREEMENT made this 6th day of August, 2025, between ANDERSON HOMES, a California Corporation, Parties of the First Part, hereinafter designated and called "DEVELOPER(S)", and the CITY OF LOS BANOS, a municipal corporation, the Parties of the Second Part, hereinafter designated and called "CITY".
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER(S) have presented to the CITY a certain Final Map located within the corporate limits of the CITY, and known and described as Tract No 2021-01 Stonecreek at Los Banos, The Villages V Phase 3, Unit 3, comprised of 82 lots on 15 .15± acres, a copy of which is on file at the City of Los Banos Planning Department and made a part of this AGREEMENT by reference, and said DEVELOPER(S)have requested the CITY to accept the dedications delineated and shown on said Final Map in order that the same may be recorded as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the CITY requires a condition precedent to the acceptance and approval of said Final Map, the dedication of said easements as are delineated and shown on said Final Map, and deems the same as necessary for public use, and requires and deems as necessary for the public use that any and all street improvements delineated and shown thereon shall be improved by the construction thereon and the installation therein of the improvements hereinafter specified in Paragraph One herein; and,
WHEREAS, certain sections of the Los Banos Municipal Code require the DEVELOPER(S) to enter into this AGREEMENT with the CITY whereby DEVELOPER(S) agree to do, perform, and complete the works and matters hereinafter in this AGREEMENT mentioned Subdivision hnprovement Agreement FINAL TRACT MAP#2021-0l THE VILLAGES V PHASE 3, UNIT 3
61 and set forth in details, within the time hereinafter mentioned, in consideration of the acceptance of the offers of dedication by the CITY; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Los Banos has found said Final Map by Resolution No. ,cr<o'; to be in substantial compliance with the designs and Conditions of Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2021-01.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the acceptance of the offers of dedication of easements, and facilities as shown and delineated on said Final Map, and the approval of said Final Map for filing and recording as provided and required by law, it is mutually agreed and understood by and between DEVELOPER(S) and CITY as follows:
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
1. That the CITY has fixed and does fix the time within which DEVELOPER(S) shall do and perform the work and improvements hereinafter specified and at such time during this period as designated by the Public Works Director/City Engineer of the CITY, but no later than the P1 day of November 2026, with the said provision that this time may be extended by consent of the City Council, and that the DEVELOPER(S) will, within the period of time stated herein above in this paragraph stated and fixed, do or cause to be done and performed, the following described work and improvements,(as detailed in attached Exhibit "A") all at their own cost and expense, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer in accord with the approved subdivision improvement plans and existing City Policies and adopted Standards, including all costs of inspection, to-wit;
TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS
1. SITE PREPARATION $ 58,520.00
2. WATER $ 500,440.00
3. SANITARY SEWER $ 389,050.00
4. STORM DRAINAGE $ 231,300.00
5. CONCRETE $ 404,230.00
6. PAVING $ 420,841.70
7. ELECTROLIERS $ 123,500.00
8. MISCELLANEOUS $ 9,150.00
TOTAL $ 2,137,031.70
Subdivision Improvement Agreement 2 FINAL TRACT MAP #2021-01 THE VILLAGES V PHASE 3, UNIT 3
62 REMAINING IMPBOVf;ME~TS:
1. SITE PREPARATION $ 5,852.00
2. WATER $ 50,044.00
3. SANITARY SEWER $ 38,905.00
4. STORM DRAINAGE $ 23,130.00
5. CONCRETE $ 40,423.00
6. PAVING $ 42,084.17
7. ELECTROLIERS $ 12,350.00
8. MISCELLANEOUS $ 915.00
TOTAL $ 213,703.17
2. The DEVELOPER(S) shall furnish bonding or other forms of security for the estimated cost of the remaining improvements, agreed to by the CITY for Performance at 100%, $380,100.00 and Labor and Materials at 50%, $190,050.00 and prior to the release of other security, for Warranty and Guarantee at 10% of total improvements in the amount of $213,703.17 In addition, the DEVELOPER(S) shall provide a bond or other form of security in the amount of $3,500.00 for survey monuments, §66496 per of the Government Code.
3. The DEVELOPER(S) agrees to pay the following fees at the time of signing the AGREEMENT less any amount previously paid and not to exclude pending invoices from outside consulting firms.
FINAL MAP REVIEW
Charges for Final Map Review
Less: Deposit for Map Review (Check# 165613)
SUB-TOTAL
Less: Deposit for Map Review (Check# 171129)
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
8,410.88
(2,000.00)
6,410.88
(6,410.88)
$ -0-
4. In accordance with adopted City Policy, security funds may be released for each category of improvements, as per Engineer's cost estimates for $213,703.17 (attached as Exhibit "A"), as approved by Public Works Director/City Engineer and accepted by the City Council.
5. The DEVELOPER(S) shall install improvements in accordance with the requirements of the City of Los Banos Municipal Code, the Standard Specifications of the City of Los Banos, the Subdivision hnprovement Agreement 3 FINAL TRACT MAP #2021-01 THE VILLAGES V PHASE 3, UNIT 3
63 approved Subdivision hnprovements and Grading Plans and the Conditions of Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2021-0l. All public improvements and utilities must be installed prior to occupancy of units.
6. In the event that the DEVELOPER(S) shall damage, destroy, or tear up any existing improvements, DEVELOPER(S) agree to repair or replace such destroyed or damaged improvements at their cost whenever such damage shall occur.
7. Street lights shall be furnished and installed by the DEVELOPER(S). It is solely the DEVELOPER(S) responsibility to coordinate the installation of street lights with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and pay any and all fees necessary for their installation. At the time of acceptance, the street lights, including conductors to utility owner splice boxes, shall become the property of the CITY.
8. Any improvements not shown on the approved Improvement Plans which are to be dedicated to the CITY or which are to be placed within the proposed City right-of-way, including mailboxes, private and utility works, shall not be constructed without written approval from the CITY. It shall be the DEVELOPER(S) responsibility to ensure that mailboxes for use by the U.S. Postal Service are available for residents at the time of occupancy; installation to be per plans approved by the Postmaster and the CITY.
9. All earthwork and construction shall meet the requirements and recommendations of the Soils Report, the Amended Soils Report for the Project and the adopted hnprovement Standards and Specifications of the City. The DEVELOPER(S) shall, at their expense, provide a Soils Engineer whose responsibility includes the professional inspection and approval concerning the preparation of ground to receive fills, excavation and backfill operations, stability of all finished slopes, and testing for required compaction. Prior to the issuance of structural permits and prior to occupancy release, the Soils Engineer shall certify, in writing, that all earthwork including trench backfill meets the requirements and recommendations of the Soils Report and the adopted Improvement Standards and Specifications of the City.
to.· Neither the CITY nor any of its officers or agents shall be liable to DEVELOPER(S) or their contractors for any error or omission arising out of or in connection with any work to be performed Subdivision Improvement Agreement 4 FINAL TRACT MAP #2021-0 I THE VILLAGES V PHASE 3, UNIT 3
64 under this AGREEMENT. During the progress of the work, if it becomes necessary to modify the design because of errors or omissions on the plans or unforeseen conditions which render a portion of the project inoperable, unsafe, or prohibits a part of the project from performing satisfactorily in the opinion of the CITY, the plans shall be modified in accordance with the recommendations of the CITY. The DEVELOPER(S) shall be responsible for all costs incurred in revising the plans and performing the work in accordance with the modified plans.
11. The Improvement Plans may be modified upon approval by the CITY at no cost to the CITY.
12. The CITY shall not be liable to the DEVELOPER(S) or to any other person, finn, or corporation whatsoever, for any injury or damage that may result to any person or property by or from any cause whatsoever in, on, or about the subdivision of said land covered by this AGREEMENT, or any part thereof
13. The DEVELOPER(S) hereby release and agree to indemnify and hold the CITY harmless from and against any and all injuries to and deaths of persons and injuries to property, and all claims, demands, costs, loss, damage, and liability, howsoever the same may be caused and whensoever the same may appear, resulting directly or indirectly from the performance or nonperformance of any or all work to be done in and upon the street rights-of-way in said subdivision and upon the premises adjacent thereto pursuant to this AGREEMENT, and also from any and all injuries to and deaths of persons and injuries to property or other interests, and all claims, demands, costs, loss, damage, and liability, howsoever the same may be caused and whensoever the same may appear, either directly or indirectly made or suffered by the DEVELOPER(S), the DEVELOPER(S) agents, employees, and subcontractors, while engaged in the performance of said work.
14. The DEVELOPER(S) agree that the use for any purpose and by any persons of any and all of the improvements herein before specified, shalJ be at the sole and exclusive risk of the DEVELOPER(S) at all times prior to final acceptance by the CITY of the completed improvements.
Thereon and therein; provided, that acceptance by the CITY shall in no way eliminate or lessen any of DEVELOPER(S) obligations and undertakings contained in this AGREEMENT. The issuance of any occupancy permits by the CITY for dwellings located within said subdivision shall not be construed in any manner to constitute an acceptance and approval of any or all of the improvements in said subdivision.
Subdivision Improvement Agreement 5 FINAL TRACT MAP #2021-0 I THE VILLAGES V PHASE 3, UNIT 3
65 15. It is mutually agreed by the parties hereto that the Public Works Director/City Engineer shall have the right to reject any or all of the work to be perfonned under this AGREEMENT if such work does not conform with the plans and specifications mentioned herein or the ordinances of the CITY.
Reinspection of corrected work shall be at the expense of the DEVELOPER(S). The cost of such reinspection is not included in the Engineering and Inspection Fee described in Paragraph 4 of this AGREEMENT. Any damage to the sewer system, utilities, concrete work, or street paving that occurs after installation shall be repaired by the DEVELOPER(S) to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director/City Engineer by the DEVELOPER(S) before release of bond or final acceptance of completed work.
16. DEVELOPER(S) shall provide for adequate erosion control as determined by the Public Works Director/City Engineer on individual lots and from exterior property draining into the area of the subdivision, to protect the public rights-of-way and improvements. Erosion control on individual lots shall continue until such a time as front and street side yard landscaping is installed.
17. Without limiting the foregoing, DEVELOPER(S) warrant and guarantee materials used and workmanship performed on said work for a period of one (1) year after completion and acceptance thereof by the City Council, or the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
18. Upon completion of the improvements, specified herein the DEVELOPER(S) shall file a Notice of Completion with Merced County and submit to the City "As Built" drawings on mylar, of the improvements. The Notice of Completion shall be filed no later than thirty-five (35) days prior to consideration for acceptance of the improvements by the City Council. As part of the request for acceptance of improvements, the DEVELOPER(S) shall submit a title report encompassing each of the parcels within the Subdivision which discloses all liens or claims which may have been recorded in or prior to thirty-one (31) days following the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion. If any liens or claims are thus revealed, the DEVELOPER(S) shall either remove the liens and claims and submit an updated title report prior to acceptance of the Subdivision by the CITY, or shall enter into an agreement with the CITY that provides to the satisfaction of the CITY a method for the removal of such liens and claims at no cost to the CITY.
19. It is hereby mutually covenanted and agreed by the parties hereto that DEVELOPER(S) Subdivision Improvement Agreement 6 FINAL TRACT MAP#2021-01 THE VILLAGES V PHASE 3, UNIT 3
66 contractors are not agents of the CITY and that the contractors' relations to CITY, if any, are those of independent contractors.
20. That the applicant furnishes the CITY with a reproducible 8 1/2" x 11" map of the Final Map of this development prior to issuance of permits.
21. DEVELOPER(S) shall comply with all applicable original or amended Conditions of Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2021-01 prior to acceptance of public improvements or final of any housing units.
22. No work shall commence under the terms of this AGREEMENT prior to all of the following being completed: deposit of improvement security per City Council resolution; issuance of a Subdivision Improvements grading permit other than rough grading and site preparation; and payment of all required development fees.
23. All costs for engineering and inspection services which exceed the 5% fee specified above will be invoiced to the DEVELOPER(S) and must be paid in full prior to acceptance of the subject improvements by the CITY.
24. If construction of improvements has not begun within one (1) year from the date of this AGREEMENT, then prior to commencement of work the Public Works Director/City Engineer shall review the improvement plans and determine if revisions are required. In any case, a new engineer's cost estimate shall be submitted by the applicant to the Public Works Director/City Engineer. The applicant shall be responsible for any modification to the plans required by the Public Works Director/City Engineer and shall pay all plan check fees plus the difference in inspection fees due based on the new cost estimate.
25. The DEVELOPER(S) acknowledge the requirement to comply with the environmental mitigation measures for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2012-01, and the conditions of approval for said tentative map, (attached herein as Exhibit "B"), in the development of this Subdivision.
26. The terms of this AGREEMENT are not intended to, nor do they, relieve the DEVELOPER(S) of any conditions of approval, compliance with City Standards or compliance with mitigation measures of adopted environmental documents, the compliance with which may be placed as a condition of permit issuance or occupancy.
Subdivision Improvement Agreement 7 FINAL TRACT MAP#2021-0I THE VILLAGES V PHASE 3, UNIT 3
67 27. Time is of the essence of this AGREEMENT. It is agreed that the provisions of this AGREEMENT shall apply to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, devisees, and assignees of the respective parties hereto.
[Signature Page Follows]
Subdivision Improvement Agreement 8 FINAL TRACT MAP#2021-0l THE VILLAGES V PHASE 3, UNIT 3
68 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed these presents or caused the same to be executed by the officers thereunto duly authorized on the date and year in this AGREEMENT first above written.
ATTEST:
£~ I-.~
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
City of Los Banos
ANDERSON HOMES
A California Corporation
PARTIES OF THE FIRST PART
CITY OF LOS BANOS
AM • •
Signatures need to be notarized. Attach a Notary Acknowledgement.
Subdivision Improvement Agreement 9 FINAL TRACT MAP#2021-01 THE VILLAGES V PHASE 3, UNIT 3
69 CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189
~~~'"'8:!J!'l?Je:~OO~il8l!i:i!l:lll!9:€008®~~i3§18lll8tll:$8884illlc~~~~ A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California }
County of __ ~_ V\ __ ~~ nA_-_n) ____ _
On _ J_UVl _l-~2_1 -+-, 20_~1h_ before me, l?:N f1\-: ~. T etmves ,, No'Plnr Public, Date ii " , t/lr.. I/\ 1 ~~[j'~~~ Name and Title of the dmcer personally appeared -----~ t"~ \,;_q--,1-+-'-- v""" ~~-" -"""'l--'-- Vv~vlv1c...,....•_ v " _, _____ ________ _ U Name~ of Signer(s;J
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~ whose name~~ subscribed to the within instrument and ackno;':,~~~e:e that ~ffl!V executed the same in~ authorized capacity£ie-S), and that b • er • signature(:,,l'on the instrument the person($t, or the entity upon behalf of which the perso~ acted, executed the instrument.
Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph Is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Slgnatu,e ~ /IL,~
ignoture of ~
OPTIONAL
Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: _ _ _ _______________________ _ DocumentDate: _____ _________ _______ Numberof Pages: _ _ _ _ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: _______________________ _ Capaclty(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name: _____ ______ _ Signer's Name:
o Corporate Officer - Title(s): _ _ ____ _ □ Corporate Officer - Title(s): ______ _ D Partner - o Limited D General □ Partner - □ Limited □ General D Individual D Attorney in Fact □ Individual a Attorney in Fact □ Trustee □ Guardian or Conservator □ Trustee □ Guardian or Conservator D Other: □ Other:
Signer is Representing: ________ _ Signer is Representing: _________ _ ©2019 National Notary Association
70 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document, to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California }
}
County of Merced }
On this 7D"r4\ day of August , 2025 before me, Lucille L. Mallonee , a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Michael Selland Amabile , who proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed this instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
LUCILLE LYNN MALLONEE
WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Pubttc • California ~ Merc,d County s
i Commission # 244S620 -
~~ 'I. ~~ ~-• My (omm. Expires May 1, 2027
Signature of Notary Public (Notary Seal)
71 RESOLUTION NO. 6963
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LOS BANOS APPROVING AND
ADOPTING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 2021-01
QUAIL MEADOWS VILLAGES AT STONECREEK
V PHASE 3, UNIT 3
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Los Banos Tract Map No. 2021 -01 Quail Meadows Villages at Stonecreek V Phase 3, Unit 3 Final Map and accompanying Subdivision Improvement Agreement: and WHEREAS, the single-family residential subdivision consists of 82 lots on 15.15± acres: and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director/City Engineer has approved the Final Map, the plan check and inspection fees have been paid in full, and said Final Tract Map has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Los Banos for approval.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Los Banos that it does hereby approve and adopt Final Tract Map No. 2021-01 Quail Meadows Villages at Stonecreek V Phase 3, Unit 3 for the real property described in Exhibit "A", shown in Exhibit "B" and authorize recording based upon the following findings:
1. Final Map is in substantial compliance with Tentative Map No. 2021-01 .
2. All required processing, development, plan check, and inspection fees to date have been paid.
The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 6th day of August 2025, by Council Member Lewis who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member Chavez and the Resolution adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Council Members Chavez, Lewis, Mayor Amabile
None
Council Member Sanders
-t
Lucille
~f
L. Mallonee,
~ City Clerk
72 Exhibit A
Westwood OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Project name: Villages V - Phase 3, Unit 3 - 82 Residential Lots Project progress stage: Construction
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT.
A. SITE PREPARATION
1 SITE CLEARING AC 15.2
2 GRADING/EARTHWORK CY 7,600
3 EROSION CONTROL AC 15.2
SUB-TOTAL
B. WATER
1 10" WATER MAIN LF J,260
2 10" GATE VALVE EA 13
3 WATER LATERAL EA 82
4 HYDRANT, BURY & GATE VALVE EA 7
5 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER EA 3
SUB-TOTAL
C. SANITARY SEWER
1 6" SEWER MAIN LF 800
2 8" SEWER MAIN LF 2,105
3 10" SEWER MAIN LF 115
4 STD. SEWER MANHOLE EA 12
5 DROP SEWER MANHOLE EA 1
6 4" STD. LATERAL EA 82
7 CONNECT TO EX. SEWER MAIN EA 2
SUB-TOTAL
D. STORM DRAINAGE
1 12" STORM DRAIN LF 350
2 15" STORM DRAIN LF 1,055
3 18" STORM DRAIN LF 815
4 30" STORM DRAIN LF 120
5 STD. MANHOLE EA
6 CATCH BASIN EA 11
CONNECT TO EX. STORM DRAIN EA 1
SUB-TOTAL
E.CONCRETE
6" VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER (INCL. RETURNS) LF 6,030
6" CONCRETE (INCL. SIDEWALK RAMPS & RETURNS) SF 29,535
ADA RAMPS LABOR ONLY EA 10
DRIVEWAYS EA 82
6" VERTICAL CURB LF 170
SUB-TOTAL
F. PAVING
2.5" AC OVER 10.5" AB SF 80,630
3" AC OVER 13" AB SF 9 285
SUB-TOTAL
G. ELECTROLIERS
1 25' DECORATIVE STREETLIGHT EA 19
SUB-TOTAL
H. MISCELLANEOUS
2 MONUMENT WELLS EA 12
3 SlGNAGE EA 6
4 STOP AND STOP BAR STRIPING EA 6
SUB-TOTAL
UNIT COST
$600.00
$5.00
$750.00
$69.00
$2,900.00
$1,900.00
$10,000.00
$4,000.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
$3,700.00
$5,000.00
$2,000.00
$650.00
$60.00
$65.00
$75.00
$95.00
$4,000.00
$3,700.00
$500.00
$26.00
$6.00
$500.00
$750.00
$22.00
$4.54
$5.90
$6,500.00
$400.00
$350.00
$375.00
Civil c0i,structi0'1 Total
Notes:
10% CONTINGENCY
GRAND TOTAL
1. This estimate does not include surveying, engineering, landscaping, street trees, or irrigation.
2. This estimate does not include cost for removal and/or replacement of existing utility poles and the utilities associated 'Mth the utility poles.
3. This estimate does not include cost for irrigation ditch removal, relocation, or pipe lining.
4. Estimated grading cost can vary due to shrinkage, stripping, site consolidation and other variable factors associated with earthwork.
5. Items not included as part of this estimate
A. Existing Irrigation Facility Demolition I. landscaping Fees B. Permits J. Easement Acquisitions
C. Utility Fees K. Joint Trench (Ory Utilities)
Los Banos, CA
5/28/2025
AMOUNT
$9,120.00
$38,000.00
$11 400.00
$58,520.00
$224,940.00
$37,700.00
$155,800.00
$70,000.00
$12 000.00
$500,440.00
$40,000.00
$126,300.00
$8,050.00
$44,400.00
$5,000.00
$164,000.00
$1 300.00
$389,050.00
$21,000.00
$68,575.00
$61,125.00
$11,400.00
$28,000.00
$40,700.00
$500.00
$231,300.00
$156,780.00
$177,210.00
$5,000.00
$61,500.00
$3 740.00
$404,230.00
$366,060.20
$54,781.50
$420,841 70
$123,500.00
$123,500.00
$4,800.00
$2,100.00
$2,250.00
$9,150.00
$2,137,031.70
$213,703.17
$2 351) 734.87
D. City Fees, Bond Fees L. Landscape Design Improvements E. Engineering/Design Fees
F. Soils Engineering Cost
G. Power Pole Relocation
H. Construction Surveying
M. Street Trees
N. Tree Removal
0. Mail Boxes
• 1 00% PERFORMANCE 50% PAYMENT 10% WARRANTY
SECURITY SECURITY LABOR SECURITY
%Comp1ete r!HUFBW
100% $0.00 $0.00 $912.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $3,800.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $1 140.00
$0.00 $0.00 $5,852.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $22,494.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $3,770.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $15,580.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $7,000.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $1,200.00
$0.00 $0.00 $50,044.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $12,630.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $805.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $4,440.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $500.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $16,400.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $130.00
$0.00 $0.00 $38,905.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $2,100.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $6,857.50
100'%, S0.00 $0.00 $6,112.50
100% $0.00 $0.00 $1,140.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $2,800.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $4,070.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $50.00
$0.00 SO.DO $23.130.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $15,678.00
0% $177,210.00 $88,605.00 $17,721.00
0% $5,000.00 $2,500.00 $500.00
0% $61,500.00 $30,750.00 $6,150.00
0% $3 740.00 $1 ,870.00 $374.00
$247,450.00 $123,725.00 $40,423.00
100% $0.00 $0.00 $36,606.02
100% $0.00 $0.00 $5.478.15
$0.00 $0.00 $42,084.17
0% $123,500.00 $61,750.00 $12,350.00
$123,500.00 $61,750.00 $12,350.00
0% $4,800.00 $2,400.00 $480.00
0% $2,100.00 $1,050.00 $210.00
0% $2,250.00 $1,125.00 $225.00
$9,150.00 $4,575.00 $915.00
$380,100.00 $190,050.00 $213,703.17
$570,150.00
p:209.571.1765 I f;209.571.2466 Probable Cost Estlmat@
Modesto Office: 1165 Scenic Drive, Suite A, Modesto, CA 95350 I www.odellengineering.com O'Dell Engineering 73 EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #2021-01 -
QUAIL MEADOWS VILLAGES AT STONECREEK V
General
1. The applicant shall submit a revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map to the Community and Economic Development Department reflecting any modifications, additions, and/or conditions of approval, within 30 days from Planning Commission approval. If necessary, the revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and the Community and Economic Development Director and signed by the Community and Economic Development Director for purposes of providing a clear record of the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map.
2. Prior to the recordation of a Final Map the Developer shall form or annex the Subject Property to a Community Facilities District created for the purposes of funding public safety, as authorized by Government Code Section 53313(a) and (b). The form, terms and conditions and the tax rate for the formation of the Mello-Roos district, or in the alternative the annexation of the subject property to an existing district, shall be as approved by the City Council, as determined in its sole and exclusive discretion. District formation or annexation shall be at the sole cost of the Developer.
3. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the Developer shall form or annex the subject property to a Lighting and Landscaping District created for purposes of maintaining public landscape areas, signage and public lighting including a share of traffic signal maintenance costs as authorized pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 ofthe California Streets and Highways Code, and Article XIIID of the California Constitution.
The form, terms and conditions and the tax rate for the formation of the Lighting and Landscaping District, or in the alternative the annexation of the subject property to an existing district, shall be as approved by the City Council, as determined in its sole and exclusive discretion. It is the intent of the parties that the assessment of the subject property will be apportioned to each parcel in proportion to the special benefit it receives. District formation or annexation shall be at the sole cost of the developer.
4. The project shall be subject to and the Developer shall pay development impact fees enacted by the City, including scheduled or periodic increases as provided for in the adopting ordinance or resolutions in effect at the time of the Developer's request for the issuance of a building permit and/or as included in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
74 5. The Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, Final Maps, and Improvement Plans shall be consistent with the Final Development Plan, as conditioned.
6. Approval and life of the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps shall be as set forth in the Los Banos Municipal Code.
7. All development shall be consistent with the Vesting Tentative Tract Map #2021-01 and approved Final Development Plan #2021-01, reflecting any amendments added during approval.
8. The Final Map(s) shall be in substantial compliance with the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map, including any changes set forth in the conditions of approval.
9. A Final Map shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor licensed in California or a professional engineer licensed in California and qualified to practice land surveying, according to the Subdivision Map Act, and local ordinances.
10. At least two points on the Final Map shall be tied to the California State Plane Coordinate System (NAO 83) with ties shown and closure calculations depicting the tie bearings and distances.
11 . A letter from the Tax Collector shall be submitted prior to the recording of the Final Map which indicates that taxes have been paid or a bond has been posted.
12. A Final Map Guarantee shall be prepared and provided to the County Recorder.
13. When the submittal has been technically approved, the original mylars and a conforming mylar will be signed and notarized (notary shall not be stamped on the map) and delivered to the Public Works Department.
14. Developer shall include a Public Utility Easement of ten (10) feet along all road frontages.
15. For all properties within 1,000 feet of agricultural operations, deed notices shall be recorded with the final map. The deed notice shall require property purchasers to acknowledge the existing and ongoing commercial and/or agricultural uses on adjacent and nearby properties, and the Merced County Right-to-farm Ordinance.
16. Building Master Plans shall be approved by the Community and Economic Development Department and Building Department prior to issuance of the first building permit and shall be consistent with Final Development Plan #2021-01 .
7 75
17. Improvement Plans shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to/or concurrent with the application for each final map and the following note shall be required: "The Contractor is responsible for protecting and preserving survey monuments and other survey markers. Any survey monuments damaged as a direct or indirect result of construction activities shall be re-established by a duly licensed land surveyor at the Contractor's sole expense. A corner record shall be filed in accordance with State law for any reset monuments at the Contractor's sole expense."
18. Improvement Plans shall include a street signage and striping plan to be approved by the Public Works Director.
19. On-site improvements may be constructed prior to the recording of the final map subject to City approval of Improvement Plans and payment of applicable plan check and inspection fees, and satisfaction of all construction conditions of approval.
20. Off-site public improvement plan(s) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval prior to/or concurrent with the application for the Final Map. The developer shall not commence off-site improvements until approval is received by the Public Works Department. The developer shall enter into a subdivision improvement agreement with the City and provide labor and maintenance bonds in an amount of 100% of the Engineer's Estimate for public improvements to be completed following recordation of the Final Map.
21. The project is subject to the appropriate Development Impact Fees as established by the City.
22. Private property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of sound walls and decorative masonry walls located on private property.
23. The applicant shall obtain City approval in advance for permanent and temporary on-site and off-site signs through separate sign reviews and bonding consistent with the development criteria of the Los Banos Municipal Code - Sign Ordinance.
24. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the development complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
25. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to convey copies of the conditions of approval to all contractors and sub-contractors.
26. Building permits will be issued in accordance with City Subdivision Policy that identifies the improvements required in order for a building permit to be issued.
8 76
27. All structures, foundations, and footings for future buildings on the project site shall be designed and constructed to conform with the current Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4 to minimize structural damage resulting from potential seismic activity.
28. An engineering soils report shall be prepared for all projects in order to identify soil characteristics requiring special structural design. On-site and off-site structural design shall conform to the findings and recommendation of the engineering soils report. The report shall be prepared prior to issuance of a grading permit, subject to review and approval of the Los Banos City Engineer.
29. Prior to issuance of building permits for development of sensitive residential land uses (e.g. houses, schools, parks, day care), or other uses in which persons may contact soils), a Phase 1 environmental assessment shall be prepared to determine if soils contain hazardous materials. If necessary, a remediation plan shall be created and implemented. The assessment and any necessary remediation plans shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department.
30. Improvement Plans and Grading Plans shall delineate the location and design of all required walls and fences including retaining walls.
31. Improvement Plans shall include mailbox locations, which must be approved by the US Postmaster and the City of Los Banos.
32. Undeveloped portions of the subdivision shall be controlled of weeds and free of debris and litter.
33. Due to the possibility that significant buried cultural resources might be found during construction, the following language shall be included in any permits issued for the project site, including, but not limited to building permits for future development, subject to the review and approval of the Los Banos Planning Division:
If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted at a minimum of 200 feet from the find and the area shall be staked off. The project developer shall notify a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented.
34. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall ensure that this language is included in all permits in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.S(e):
9 77
If human remains are found during construction there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any , nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Los Banos Police Department contacts the coroner of Merced County to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Pre-Construction and Construction
32. A minimum 200-foot separation shall be maintained between residences and material stockpiles, debris piles or containers and equipment storage during the construction process. If such storage must be located within 200 feet of a residence, a six-foot high opaque fence shall shield the storage area from view when the storage area is inactive for more than eight hours.
This requirement shall be incorporated into the specifications for all construction plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Los Banos Community and Economic Development Director.
33. Two points of all-weather access shall be provided to all areas of the development during all phases of construction to the satisfaction of the Fire Department in areas where residential units are under construction.
34. Temporary construction trailers shall be permitted only in areas immediately adjacent to or within that portion of the subdivision where active subdivision construction is taking place. Placement of said construction trailer is subject to the Community and Economic Development Director approval in accordance with Title 9, Chapter 3, Article 38, Temporary Use Ordinance of the Los Banos Municipal Code.
10 78
35. During construction, and for safety purposes, the developer and assigned contractors shall keep the public right-of-way clear of obstructions, and provide for clean up on a daily basis.
36. Prior to acceptance of public improvements, all entries to the subdivision shall be barricaded to prevent the public from entering the construction site.
37. Undeveloped portions of development sites shall be controlled of weeds and free of debris and litter. The applicant shall provide protection against wind and water soil erosion on undeveloped portions of the project site.
Temporary vegetation on undeveloped portions of the project site shall not be allowed to grow taller than eighteen inches.
38. All contractors and subcontractors performing work relative to this project shall obtain City of Los Banos Business Licenses, prior to start of work on the project. All work performed on the project shall comply with the requirements of the State Business and Professions Code.
39. Construction shall be limited to those times allowed by City Ordinance:
Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm; Saturday from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm; and Sunday from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm. Properly muffled equipment shall be used.
40. The developer shall incorporate soil erosion control measures into grading and drainage plans that comply with NPDES storm water regulations.
These measures shall be monitored for effectiveness by the City of Los Banos. Such measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation disturbance removal to the minimum area necessary for access and construction;
b. Confine all vehicular traffic associated with construction to the right-ofway of designated access roads; c. Silt fencing installed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials standard 06462.
d. Adhere to construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds;
e. Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with temporary drainage and soil protection when construction activity is shut down during the winter periods;
f. Inform construction personnel prior to construction and periodically during construction activities of environmental concerns, pertinent laws and regulations, and elements of the proposed erosion control measures;
11 79
g. Compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
h. Development of a plan to employ best management practices that reduce the level of pollutants discharged into natural waterways and wetlands.
41. Where standard corner lot side yards abut a street, a minimum three-foot landscaping area shall be provided between the back of sidewalk and the fence.
42. Restricted access rights shall be irrevocably offered for dedication to the City along the rear edge of private property where properties back onto streets, and shall be shown on final maps.
43. Masonry walls shall be decorative and in conformance with the Final Development Plan. A minimum 3 foot landscape area shall be provided between the back of the sidewalk and any masonry walls except for the masonry wall along the Pacheco/ Pioneer Connector Road.
44. The developer shall install a decorative masonry wall along the eastern right-of-way of the Pacheco/Pioneer Connector as approved by the Community and Economic Development Director and Public Works Director.
Air Quality:
45. Housing units shall be oriented to maximize passive solar cooling and heating when practicable.
46. Gas fired appliances shall be low NOx emitting appliances complying with California NOx Emission Rule #1121.
47. Natural gas line and electrical outlets shall be included in the backyard or patio areas of residences to encourage the use of gas and/or electric barbecues.
48. Electrical outlets shall be installed around the exterior of residences to encourage use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment.
49. Only low emitting, EPA approved fireplace inserts and/or wood stoves or natural gas fireplaces shall be installed. No open hearth fireplaces shall be allowed.
50. The developer shall comply with all applicable Indirect Source Rule requirements of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
Developer shall prepare an air emissions reduction if required. 12 80
Access and Circulation:
51. All street traffic impact fee reimbursements shall be per the Transportation Impact Fee program (TIF).
52. Half-street sections will not be permitted in the construction of VTTM #2021-
01. 53. All bicycle paths shall be designed in conformance with Caltrans design standards, and shall specifically be designed to reduce intersection conflicts between cyclists and automobiles, using signage, lighting, and/or special street pavement treatments at and near points of intersection.
54. The developer shall be responsible for constructing public streets per the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps including, but not limited to curb, gutter and sidewalk, decorative masonry wall, and landscaping where noted.
55. Improvements to arterials and collector streets shall be completed prior to occupancy of any use within each phase as shown on the improvement plans, and improvements to neighborhood streets shall be complete prior to occupancy of any house that requires the street for access.
56. All street signage and striping within the project area shall be approved by the Public Works Department and shall meet all line-of-sight requirements.
57. Prior to acceptance of subdivision improvements, the developer shall install all street and traffic control signs, pavement striping, and street name signs in accordance with the public improvement plans and City and/or Caltrans standards.
58. Final Map(s) shall show a non-access strip 12 inches in width on private property along the frontage of arterial and collector streets, except at driveways, for the purpose of constructing sound walls and decorative masonry walls.
59. The developer shall be responsible for obtaining encroachment permits from the City of Los Banos prior to performing any work within the City's right-of-way.
60. Prior to Final Map approval, the developer shall have a Traffic Engineer design traffic calming measures throughout the project area to be approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. Traffic calming measures may include, but are not limited to, raised intersections, stop signs, varied cross sections, solar speed limit radars, and roundabouts to be installed by the developer.
13 81
Utilities:
Water:
61. The applicant shall construct water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities as noted on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, in accordance with City standards. The project shall comply with the current City Plans, Standards, and Specifications, all Master Plan requirements, and the ·applicant shall work with the Public Works Department in regards to needed infrastructure and development during the Improvement Plan review stage.
62. In conformance with the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall permit installation of underground cable television delivery systems within public utility easements. All dwellings shall be made cable ready.
63. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans or Final Maps, the developer shall obtain any necessary easements for utilities across adjoining properties.
64. All existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground with the exception of high voltage power lines. No new overhead utility lines and equipment shall be shown on Improvement Plans and Grading Plans.
65. Where the invert is six feet or greater below finish grade, a minimum clearance of five feet from lip of gutter to the edge of pipe shall be provided for underground utility lines.
66. All street lighting shall be hooded and/or fitted with prismatic directional lenses to prevent illumination onto adjoining properties and glare into oncoming traffic. Streetlight locations shall be shown on Improvement Plans.
Developer shall utilize decorative streetlights, as approved in Final Development Plan, meeting the illumination standards required in the City street light standards, except that cobra-head streetlights shall be used on arterial streets.
67. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Los Banos Water Master Plan, including payment of the water connection impact fee.
68. Approved backflow devices shall be installed as required.
69. Domestic water services shall not be placed in driveways.
70. Prior to recordation of a Final Map, certification shall be obtained by the Central California Irrigation District that the property has been detached from CCID, or that remaining CCID lines will be intact or rerouted to the satisfaction of CCID.
14 82
Sewer:
71. The developer shall construct all on-site and off-site sewer facilities necessary to serve the project, subject to reimbursement for over-sizing, as determined by the City.
72. Prior to submission of improvement plans for the first phase of development, a Master Sewer Plan for the development shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City Engineer.
Storm Drainage:
73. Final Improvement Plans for the storm drainage system shall utilize the TR55 analysis method. 7 4. All development shall comply with the Phase II storm water regulations.
75. Final Improvement Plans for the storm drainage system shall be submitted to the City and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.
76. The Developer shall generate a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for pre and post construction best management practices (BMPs). A Notice of Intent (NOi) shall be submitted and approved prior to construction by the State Department of Water Resources.
Public Safety:
77. Fire department requirements for the placement of fire hydrants shall be complete prior to approval of development permits.
78. Fire hydrants shall be installed at locations approved during the Improvement Plan stage and shall be installed based upon City standards.
79. The developer, as specified by City development standards, shall install "Blue Dot" fire hydrant locators.
80. Each residence shall have a 6-inch lighted address numbers of contrasting color installed on the front elevations or alternative size as agreed to by developer and Fire Chief.
81 . The developer shall comply with the City Fire Codes and regulations subject to Fire Department approval in regards to building requirements, fire hydrant placement, and sprinkler requirements.
15 83
82. Fire hydrants (or other methods approved by the Fire Chief) shall be in place and functioning prior to approval of the first residential building permit. Fire hydrants ( or other methods approved by the Fire Chief) shall be operational to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to combustible material being located on the site.
83. Street names shall be approved by the Fire Department.
84. Driveway approaches, parking lots, water lines, fire hydrants, and underground utilities shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits.
85. Upon completion and approval of the project plans, developer shall submit an electronic file, via email or file sharing service (i.e. Dropbox) to the Fire Department providing information on street layout, hydrant locations, water mains, storm drain inlets (i.e. Fire Department pre-planning).
86. In accordance with the Stonecreek Area Plan and the Stonecreek Area Plan EIR, developer shall dedicate Lot Bas shown on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map {VTTM #2021-01 ), consisting of 1.4 acres, to the City of Los Banos to be used for Fire Station #4, which will be constructed by the City of Los Banos. The parties shall take all reasonable and necessary steps and actions to satisfy this condition within a reasonable time after the approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM #2021-01) and Development Agreement. The dedication shall be completed with the recording of the final map for the phase containing Lot B.
Landscaping:
87. All residential lots shall have fully landscaped front yards prior to occupancy of each dwelling. Front yard landscape plans shall be submitted with the development Master Plans prior to building permit issuance and shall be approved by the City Engineer and Community and Economic Development Director.
88. Draught tolerant planting may replace front yard turf as approved by the Community and Economic Development Department and Public Works Department.
89. The developer shall comply with the adopted street tree ordinance.
90. Masonry walls shall be landscaped with vines to discourage graffiti.
91. The applicant shall submit landscape and irrigation plans with each phase of the improvement plans for City review and approval of streetscape landscaping.
92. Landscape plans for single-family residences shall utilize drought tolerant 16 84
Parks:
plantings for no less than 75 percent of front yards. Turf varieties shall be chosen for drought tolerance. Irrigation systems shall be set to minimize water use and spillage onto paved areas.
93. Landscape plans shall be designed in accordance with any adopted revised Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and revised landscape standards including adoption of amendments to the existing and revised Ordinance and/or standards, such revised standards shall apply to the Project immediately upon adoption by the City Council. However, said revised landscape standards shall not apply to new landscaping for any residential lot where a building permit has been issued prior to the adoption of the revised Ordinance and/or standards.
94. The developer shall provide an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) for Lot Fas shown on the Vesting Tentative Map (VTTM #2021-01 ), consisting of 10,836 square feet for future development of a neighborhood park.
95. A Park Dedication and Parks and Recreation Impact Fee shall be paid with each building permit for the development of new recreational facilities in Los Banos.
Notice: This approval may contain fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions as defined by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government code sections 66000 et seq.) This notice triggers the 90 day protest period as provided for by the Mitigation Fee Act. 17 85
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
86 TO:
FROM:
DATE:
,LOsBanos
At the Crossroads o.f Cal(fornia
Agenda Staff Report
Mayor Amabile & City Council Members
Minerva Moreno, Finance Director
December 17, 2025
SUBJECT: Development Impact Fee Report for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 (AB1600 Report)
TYPE OF REPORT: Public Hearing
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Development Impact Fee Report (AB1600 Report) for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2025.
Background:
This report provides information regarding the City of Los Banos' development impact fees for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2025. The information is presented to comply with the reporting requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (AB 1600).
This report is not a budget document and does not represent a full picture of planned capital projects. Instead, it presents revenues and expenditures related to development impact fees for the fiscal years noted above for compliance and transparency purposes.
Government Code Section 66006 requires local agencies to prepare an annual report detailing the status of development impact fee accounts, including a five-year analysis of unspent fees. This administrative report provides the required information for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2021 through 2025. It includes fee revenue, interest earnings, and expenditures for each fee program and meets the reporting requirements of Government Code Section 66006.
Discussion:
Development impact fees collected in the governmental funds Traffic, Storm Drain, Fire, Police, Public Facilities, Community Center, and Park are maintained and reported in separate funds for each fee type.
ITEM 8A
87 For enterprise activities (Water and Wastewater), development impact fees are recorded in designated "restricted cash - DIF" accounts. These accounts are segregated from operating cash and may only be used for capital projects related to development.
The City does not earmark impact fees for specific projects at the time of collection.
Instead, fees are accumulated and applied toward eligible capital improvement projects over time. Examples of projects funded with development impact fees include, but are not limited to:
1. Future Police and Fire facilities
2. Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drain infrastructure
3. Park and Public Facility improvements
4. Traffic and roadway projects
5. Renovation of City Hall and the Police Annex
6. Other eligible capital facilities
The Water, Wastewater, Storm Drain, and Traffic impact fees are based on separate master plans that establish fee levels. A citywide development impact fee justification study was completed by David Taussig & Associates, Inc. on December 31, 2019. The City Council adopted revised fees on January 15, 2020, and the updated fees became effective on April 5, 2020. As future development occurs, updated fees are collected in accordance with the 2019 justification study.
Fiscal Impact:
This report is informational only and does not result in a fiscal impact. It includes the required findings for development impact fees held for more than five years and summarizes revenues, expenditures, and ending fund balances for the fiscal years 2021 through 2025.
Reviewed by:
Soknirorn Than, City Manager
Attachments:
Development Impact Fee Report and Letter of Transmittal Public Hearing Notice
Development Impact Fee Justification Study dated December 31, 2019 Resolution 6764
Ordinance 1178
Ordinance 844
....:~
88 La's Banos
l h 1·0
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
ANNUAL REPORT
FISCAL YEARS 2021-2025
----------------------
89 Table of Contents
City Council and Elected Officials
Letter of Transmittal
INTRODUCTION
Legal Requirement for Development Impact Fee Reporting
Description and Purpose of Development Impact Fees
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund
Police Facilities Impact Fee Fund
Parks & Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund Water Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund
Sewer Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund
Storm Drain Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund
Traffic Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund
General Government Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund Administration 3% Fee Fund
DEVELOPER IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
PRIOR FEES SCHEDULE
NOTES TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROJECTS IDENTIFICATION
1 2
3 5
6 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
18 19
20 90
LcfsBanos
Al the Crossrot1ds of G:dijnrnia
City Council and Elected Officials as of November 18, 2025 Mike Amabile
Deborah Lewis
Evan Sanders
Marcus Chavez
Misty Perez
Lucy Mallonee
Lucy Lawrence
Executive T earn
Soknirorn Than
Minerva Moreno
Lucy Mallonee
William Via
Joe Heim
Stacy Souza Elms
Paul Tualla
Rey Reyna
Mary Lerner
2 Mayor
Mayor Pro-Tern
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
City Clerk
City Treasurer
City Manager
Finance Director
Human Resources Director
Public Works Director
Parks & Recreation Director
Community Development Director
Fire Chief
Chief of Police
City Attorney
91 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
92 LOsBanos
At tlir. Crossroads oJ Cal~fornia
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
November 18, 2025
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
California Government Code requires reporting of the usage of Development Impact Fees. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the State of California and Government Code Section 66000 et seq., I hereby submit the Annual AB 1600 Development Impact Fee Report for the City of Los Banos, CA for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2021 through June 30, 2025.
Development Impact Fees are a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment, which is charged by a local government agency to an applicant in connection with approval of a development project. The purpose of these fees is to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project. The legal requirements for implementing a development impact fee program are set forth in Government Code Section 66000 et seq., the majority of which was adopted as Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 and is commonly referred to as AB 1600 requirements.
The Development Impact Fee program has been in effect in the City of Los Banos since 2000 set forth by Ordinance 954.
A comprehensive impact fee nexus study was completed and prepared on June 28, 2006 by Goodwin Consulting Group and complies with California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. This study established the basis for the imposition of the fees on new development impact. The study did the following:
1. Identified the purpose of the fees.
2. Identified the use to which the fees will be put.
3. Showed a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed.
4. Demonstrated a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed.
5. Demonstrated a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fees are imposed.
The development impact fees were updated in the Development Impact Fee Justification Study Dated December 31, 2019 completed by David Taussig & Associates, Inc. The updated impact fees became effective April 5, 2020.
The fees are collected at the time a building permit is issued unless a developer through a development agreement, is allowed to defer payment until a certificate of occupancy is granted . The purpose of the fees is to mitigate the impact caused by new development on public facilities. They are then used to finance the acquisition, construction, and improvement of public facilities needed as result of the impact of the new development. Separate funds have been created to account for the impact fees.
3 93
State law requires the City to prepare and make available to the public an annual report for each fund established to account forthe Development Impact Fees. This report must include the beginning and ending balances as well as any changes.
The report must also include the amount of fees collected, interest earned, and expenditures made during the fiscal year.
The City Council must review the annual AB1600 Report at a regularly scheduled public meeting . This report was filed with the City Clerk's office and available for public review on _ _____ _ Respectfully Submitted ,
Minerva Moreno
Finance Director
4 94
LOsBanos
At th· Crossroads of C.alifo,·ni.a
INTRODUCTION
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORTING A. California Government Code Section 66006 (b)
Government Code Section 66006 (b) defines the specific reporting requirements for local agencies that impose AB 1600 Developer Impact Fee (DIF) on new development. Annually, for each separate fund established for the collection and expenditure of DIFs, the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, make available to the public the information shown below for the most recent fiscal year.
A brief description of the fee.
The amount of the fee.
The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.
The amount of the fees collected, and the interest earned.
An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.
An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence, if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement.
A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an inter-fund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan; and
The amount of refunds made due to insufficient funds being collected to complete financing on incomplete public improvements, and the amount of reallocation of funds made due to administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues exceeding the amount to be refunded.
B. California Government Code Section 66001 (d)
For all funds established for the collection and expenditure of DIFs, Government Code Section 66001 (d) has additiona requirements. For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund and every five years thereafter, the loca agency shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.
• Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and purpose for which it is charged . • Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements .
Designate the approximate dates on which the funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
5 95
C. Additional Notes
The State of California Government Code Section 66002 states that local agencies that have developed a fee program may adopt a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP} indicating the approximate location, size and timing of projects, plus an estimate for the cost of all facilities or improvements to be financed by fees . A formal CIP is recommended, at a minimum, as a five-year plan. The City biennially produces a five-year CIP, which helps to maintain and support the City's General Plan. The CIP also includes a 5-year projection of development fee revenue and expenditures. Further, it identifies situations where infrastructure is needed to accommodate the planned development.
The City does not earmark development impact fees for any specific project as the fees are collected, but rather the fees are applied toward a series of capital improvement projects, such as a future police and fire facilities, sewer, water, and storm drain improvements, park and public facilities, community center construction and improvement, traffic related projects, and other capital facilities.
The City's current, adopted 2025-29 Capital Improvement Program can be found on the City's website .
D. Establishing a Reasonable Relationship Between the Fee and the Purpose for Which It Is Charged The reasonable relationship between the development impact fee (DIF} and the purpose for which it is charged for the years preceding April 5, 2020 is demonstrated in the Development Cost and Fee Study done by Goodwin Consulting dated June 28, 2006. The City enacted an additional fee schedule in order to complete improvements for Water, Wastewater, Public Facilities, and Traffic by approving ordinance No.954 dated February 2, 2000.
On January 15, 2020, the City Council adopted an updated DIF, after consideration of the requisite AB 1600 nexus study dated December 31 , 2019. The updated DIFs became effective on April 5, 2020, and are applied to new or expanded commercial development, new residential development, and upon uses which intensify the use of existing commercial or residential structures. A new General Government Facilities fee was established in the justification study which incorporated the City Hall, Corporation Yard, Community Center and Public Facilities Impact fees and was established in Ordinance 1178.
The DIF's nexus study sets forth the relationship between contemplated future development, facilities needed to serve future development and the estimated costs for those improvements based on the current General Plan.
Comprehensive updates to the fees are completed on an as-needed basis to ensure the amount continues to reflect the appropriate fee in relation to updated costs .
E. Funding of Infrastructure
In the FY 2025 adopted budget, 5-year Capital Budget section identifies all funding sources and amounts for individual projects through FY 2029. The CIP is updated biennially to reflect the current infrastructure needs of the city. As a CIP project is identified, the project is evaluated to determine the portion of the project that will service existing residents and businesses versus new development.
Once the determination of use is made, the percentage of use attributable to new development is then funded by the appropriate development fee based on the type of project. The percentage of use associated with existing residents or businesses is funded from other appropriate sources as outlined in the CIP. Estimated construction start dates for projects are adjusted , as needed , to reflect the needs of the community.
DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (DIFJ The City collects DIFs to offset and address the impacts of new development on facilities and infrastructure. Currently, there are nine (9) DIF categories: Fire Facilities, Police Facilities, Park Facilities , Water Facilities, Sewer Facilities, Storm Drainage Facilities , Traffic Facilities, General Government Facilities and 3% Administration Fee. While each fee category has its ovvn methodology for determining fees, two main principles apply throughout. The City aims to maintain the existing level of service as the City continues to grow and new development should pay its fair share of the City's infrastructure needs. 6 96
DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES /DIFJ Continued Fire Facilities DIF - To provide for the expansion, design and construction of Fire facilities as set forth in the nexus study.
The purpose of the fire facilities impact fee is to fund the fire facilities needed to serve new development based on planned facilities referenced in the 2019 development impact fee update and nexus study. This fee will provide funding for the construction and improvement of the fire protection facilities within the City, including any required acquisition of land to serve the needs of new development. Fee study shows equipment as well as facilities.
Police Facilities DIF - To provide for the expansion, design and construction of Police facilities as set forth in the nexus study. The purpose of the police facilities impact fee is to fund the police facilities needed to serve new development. based on planned facilities referenced in the 2019 development impact fee update and nexus study. This fee will provide funding for construction and improvement of the City's law enforcement facilities, including a new police sub-station, a new comprehensive radio system, and acquisition of additional new police vehicles and equipment in order to meet the needs of new development.
Park and Recreation Facilities DIF - To provide for the development of parks to add to the system of park and recreation facilities as specified in the nexus study. The purpose of the Parks and Recreation impact fee is to generate revenue to fund the park and special use facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of new residential developments on the residents and businesses in the City of Los Banos. Residents of Los Banos use park and special use facilities. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide park and recreation facilities to new development based on planned facilities referenced in the 2019 development impact fee update and nexus study. This fee will provide funding for construction and improvement of parks and recreational facilities within the City, including any required acquisition of land to meet the demands generated by the new development.
Water Facilities DIF - To provide design and construction of key elements of the Citywide Water System including but not limited to the expansion of production, storage, transmission, treatment and distribution facilities. The purpose of the fees is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of these costs on future water supplied Citywide, based on planned facilities referenced in the 2019 development impact fee update and nexus study. This fee will provide funding for the construction and implementation of improvements to key elements of the citywide water system sufficient to accommodate future water supply (plus a reserve for storage facilities or additional wells) demand generated by new development.
Sewer Facilities DIF - To provide design and construction of key elements of the Citywide Wastewater System including but not limited to the expansion of collection and treatment capacities and the expansion of non-potable water facilities. The purpose of the fees is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of these costs on future wastewater treatment Citywide, based on planned facilities referenced in the 2019 development impact fee update and nexus study.
Storm Water Drainage Facilities DIF - To provide design and construction of key elements of the Citywide Storm Water System including but not limited to the expansion of production, storage, transmission, treatment and distribution facilities.
The purpose of the fees is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of these costs on future water supplied Citywide, based on planned facilities referenced in the 2019 development impact fee update and nexus study. This fee will provide funding forthe construction and implementation of improvements to key elements of the citywidestormwater system sufficient to accommodate future sewer demand generated by new development.
Traffic Facilities DIF - To provide for transportation facilities to accommodate the increase in traffic generated by new development as specified in the nexus study. The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of transportation facilities, including roadway segments and intersection improvements. The need for street improvements is based on the trip demand placed on the system by new development, based on planned facilities referenced in the 2019 development impact fee update and nexus study. This fee will provide funding for the construction, management, and implementation of improvements to key elements of the citywide transportation system sufficient to accommodate future traffic demands generated by new development.
7 97
DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (DIFJ Continued General Governmental Facilities DIF - The purpose of this fee is to ensure new development as reference in the nexus study will provide funding for capital costs relating to facilities used by the City to provide general governmental services, based on planned facilities referenced in the 2019 development impact fee update and nexus study. This fee will provide funding for capital costs relating to facilities used by the City to provide general governmental services. The Community Center Impact Fee was eliminated and the activity was transferred to the General Government Impact Fund. Prior Years Fund Balance will provide funding for construction, improvement and maintenance of a community center within the City, including any required acquisition of land to meet the demands generated by the new development.
The Corporate Yard Impact Fee fee was eliminated and the activity was transferred to the General Government Impact Fund. Prior years Fund Balance will provide funding for corporate yard facilities within the City in order to meet the demands generated by new development. The City Hall Impact Fee was eliminated and the activity was transferred to the General Government Impact Fund. Prior years Fund Balance will provide funding for capital costs relating to municipal services performed in the existing City Hall in order to meet the demands generated by the new development. The Public Facilities Impact Fee was eliminated and the activity was transferred to the General Government Impact Fund. Prior years Fund Balance will provide funding for the expansion of public facilities that house City staff generated by new development. 3% Administration - This fee will provide funding for municipal services relating to the administration of the impact fee programs and the administrative demands generated by new development, based on planned facilities referenced in the 2019 development impact fee update and nexus study.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT
Development Impact Fees
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Year Ended June 30, 2025
Storm
Fire Police Park & Rec Water Sewer Drainage Traffic General Go\/t Descrietion Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Administration
REVENUES
Fees $ 207,887 $ 430,097 $ 1,365,957 $ 1,071 ,449 $ 911 ,953 $ 371 ,457 $ 414,454 $ 167,505 $ 119,172 Interest 89,294 30,172 594,729 364,040 317,459 34,076 497,367 110,415 31,876 Total Revenues 297,181 460,269 1,960,685 1,435,488 1,229,413 405,533 911,822 277,920 151,047
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 525,507 2,767,267 227,283 429,630 292,111 567,453 40,573 Total Expenditures 525,507 2,767,267 227,283 429,630 292,111 567,453 40,573
REVENUES OVER
(UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 297,181 (65,238) (806,582) 1,208,205 799,783 405,533 619,711 (289,533) 110,474 Other Revenue (Not
Part of AB1600) 10,296 437,205 25,381
Fund Balance,
Beginning of Year 1,920,588 684,727 14,000,687 14,038,644 12,957,351 619,877 11,071 ,635 2,714,456 686,208 Fund Balance,
End of Year $ 2,217,769 $ 629,785 $ 13,631 ,310 $15,246,849 $ 13,757,134 $ 1,025,410 $ 11,716,727 $ 2,424,923 $ 796,682 Note: The Other Revenue reflect non-impact fee activity, including grants and other non-fee revenues. These amounts are excluded from AB 1600 revenue totals and are included only to reconcile the fund balance to the City's accounting system. 8 98
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT I Continued
Fire Facilities Impact Fee Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $ 454,623 $ 351 ,896 $ 107,463 $ 205,863 $ 207,887 Interest 1,443 (6,233) 46,578 111,313 89,294
Total Revenues 456,066 345,663 154,041 317,176 297,181
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 649,439 593,447
Total Expenditures 649,439 593,447
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (193,373) 345,663 154,041 (276,271) 297,181 Other Revenue (Not Part of AB1600) 212,253
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 1,678,274 1,484,901 1,830,564 1,984,605 1,920,587 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 1,484,901 $ 1,830,564 $ 1,984,605 $ 1,920,587 $ 2,217,768 Five Year Revenue Test Using First In First Out Method
Re'A'lnue Available:
Current Fiscal Year 38,510 317,176 297,181
Current Fiscal Year (old fees) 456,066 345,663 115,530
Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr old funds)(old fees) 456,066 345,663 154,041 317,176 Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr old funds)(old fees) 456,066 345,663 154,041 Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr old funds)(old fees) 456,066 345,663 Prior Fiscal Year (5-yr old funds)(old fees) 456,066
In Excess of 5 Prior Fiscal Years(old fees) 1,028,835 1,028,835 1,028,835 647,641 647,641 Total Revenues Available $ 1,484,901 $ 1,830,564 $ 1,984,605 $ 1,920,587 $ 2,217,768 Project Expenditures FY 2024-25
Description Expense % of Fee Funded
None
Note: The Other Revenue reflect non-impact fee activity, including grants and other non-fee revenues. These amounts are excluded from AB 1600 revenue totals and are included only to reconcile the fund balance to the City's accounting system.
The five-year findings test met as required by Gov Code 66001(d) Notes:
In using the revenue and expenditures reports to report fees that have been held past the fifth year of the first deposit, the total expenditures and transfers out over the five-year period m ustadd together. The computed total must be subtracted from the earliestfund balance plus any transfers in forth at year. The Fire Facilities Impact Fee Fund reports money being held past the fifth year of first deposit The City intends to use these funds to assist in the construction of Fire House# 4 including a regional training facility and EOC as identified in the 2019 Nexus report. The City has secured $SM in direct financing from the State of California and is in the process of securing additional financing from the State in order to construct the $12.5 M facility. The City has been dedicated land where the project will be built. The project is in the design/build stages of development and the funds are not expected to be deposited into this fund until the remaining $7.5 Mis secured from additional financing.
9 99
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT, Continued
Police Facilities Impact Fee Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Last Five Fiscal Years
Descrietion FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $ 1,224,396 $ 908,939 $ 261 ,570 $ 530,888 $ 430,097 Interest 2,783 (1,251) 26,603 39,380 30,172
Total Revenues 1,227,178 907,688 288,173 570,268 460,269
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 772,998 3,002,124 1,108,803 525,507
Total Expenditures 772,998 3,002,124 1,108,803 525,507
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 454,181 (2,094,436) 288,173 (538,535) (65,238) Other Revenue (Not Part of AB1600) 2,574 4,727 3,119 10,296 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 2,564,924 3,021,679 931,970 1,220,143 684,727 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 3,021,679 $ 931 ,970 $ 1,220,143 $ 684,727 $ 629,785 Five Year Revenue Test Using First In First Out Method
Rewnue Available:
Current Fiscal Year 72,043 570,268 629,785
Current Fiscal Year (old fees) 1,227,178 907,688 216,130 Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr old funds)(old fees) 24,282 907,688 114,459 Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr old funds)(old fees) 24,282
Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr old funds)(old fees)
Prior Fiscal Year (5-yr old funds)(old fees)
In Excess of 5 Prior Fiscal Years(old fees) 1,794,500
Total Revenues Available $ 3,021 ,679 $ 931,970 $ 1,220,143 $ 684,727 $ 629,785 Project Expenditures FY 2024-25
Descrietion Ex~nse % of Fee Funded
Animal Shelter $ 206,895 11.68%
Gun Range $ 87,535 59.48%
Vehicles $ 231,077 59.48%
$ 525,507
Note: The Other Revenue reflect non-impact fee activity, including grants and other non-fee revenues. These amounts are excluded from AB 1600 revenue totals and are included only to reconcile the fund balance to the City's accounting system.
The five-year findings test met as required by Gov Code 66001(d) Notes:
In using the revenue and expenditures reports to report fees that have been held past the fifth year of the first deposit, the total expenditures and transfers out over the five-year period must add together. The com puled total must be subtracted from the earliestfund balance plus any transfers in for that year. The Police Facilities Impact Fee Fund does not report money being held pastthe fifth year of first deposit.
10 100
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT, Continued
Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24
REVENUES
Fees $ 3,544,799 $ 1,462,675 $ 2,444,131 $ 1,545,937
Interest 8,280 (41,128) 298,838 639,977
Total Revenues 3,553,079 1,421,547 2,742,969 2,185,914
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 416,958 77,716 2,347,309 750,610
Total Expenditures 416,958 77,716 2,347,309 750,610
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 3,136,120 1,343,830 395,660 1,435,304 Other Revenue (Not Part of AB1600) 147,807
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 7,541,965 10,678,085 12,021,916 12,417,575 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 10,678,085 $ 12,021,916 $ 12,417,575 $ 14,000,687 * Fund Balance oos restated to included other existing Park Funds Five Year Revenue Test Using First In First Out Method
Rewnue Available:
Current Fiscal Year 685,742 2,185,914
Current Fiscal Year (old fees) 3,553,079 1,421,547 2,057,227 Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr old funds)(old fees) 3,553,079 1,421,547 2,742,969 Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr old funds)(old fees) 3,553,079 1,421,547 Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr old funds)(old fees) 3,553,079
Prior Fiscal Year (5-yr old funds)(old fees)
In Excess of 5 Prior Fiscal Years(old fees) 7,125,006 7,047,290 4,699,981 4,097,178 Total Revenues Available $ 10,678,085 $ 12,021,916 $ 12,417,575 $ 14,000,687 Project Expenditures FY 2024-25
Description Expense % of Fee Funded
Sunrise Park $ 1,282,659 100%
Shaunessy Park $ 493,986 100%
Cresthills Parking $ 446,294 100%
Pacheco Park $ 112,357 100%
Park Shade Structures $ 431,970 100%
$ 2,767,267
FY 2024/25
$ 1,365,957
594,729
1,960,685
2,767,267
2,767,267
(806,582)
437,205
14,000,687
$ 13,631,310
1,960,685
2,185,914
2,742,969
1,421,547
3,553,079
1,767,116
$ 13,631,310
Note: The Other Revenue reflect non-impact fee activity, including grants and other non-fee revenues. These amounts are excluded from AB 1600 revenue totals and are included only to reconcile the fund balance to the City's accounting system.
The five-year findings test met as required by Gov Code 66001(d) Notes:
*
In using the revenue and expenditures reports to report fees that have been held past the fifth year of the first deposit, the total expenditures and transfers outoverthe five-year period m ustadd together. The computed total mu1,tbe subtracted from the earliestfund 11 101
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT, Continued
balance plus any transfers in for that year. The Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Fund is planning on upgrading Colorado Park in fiscal year 2027. The City anticipates using all funds in excess of five-years forth is project. The project also includes $1 M from the State and additional funding from various grants.
Water Facilities Impact Fee Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Last Five Fiscal Years
Descrietion FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23
REVENUES
Fees $ 1,729,108 $ 1,336,854 $ 451 ,560
Interest 43,506 14,651 197,749
Other
Total Revenues 1,772,614 1,351,505 649,309
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures
Total Expenditures
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 1,772,614 1,351,505 649,309 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 9,537,659 11,310,273 12,661,779 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 11,310,273 $12,661,779 $13,311,088 Five Year Revenue Test Using First In First Out Method
Revenue Available:
Current Fiscal Year 162,327
Current Fiscal Year (old fees) 1,772,614 1,351,505 486,982 Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr old funds)(old fees) 1,772,614 1,351,505 Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr old funds)(old fees) 1,772,614
Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr old funds)(old fees)
Prior Fiscal Year (5-yr old funds)(old fees)
In Excess of 5 Prior Fiscal Years(old fees) 9,537,659 9,537,659 9,537,659 Total Revenues Available $11 ,310,273 $12,661,779 $13,311,088 Project Expenditures FY 2024-25
FY 2023/24
$ 787,934
349,721
1,137,655
410,098
410,098
727,556
13,311,088
$ 14,038,644
1,137,655
649,309
1,351,505
1,772,614
9,127,561
$ 14,038,644
Description Expense % of Fee Funded
The five-year findings test met as required by Gov Code 66001(d) Notes:
FY 2024/25
$ 1,071,449
364,040
1,435,488
227,283
227,283
1,208,205
14,038,644
$ 15,246,849
1,435,488
1,137,655
649,309
1,351,505
1,772,614
8,900,277
$ 15,246,849
In using the revenue and expenditures reports to report fees that have been held past the fifth year of the first deposit, the total expenditures and transfers out over the five-year period must add together. The computed total must be subtracted from the earliest fund balance plus any transfers in for that year. The Water Facilities Impact Fee Fund reports money being held past the fifth year of first deposit. The City intends to address capacity and treatment as identified in the 2019 Nexus Report. Some examples of these projec1s are as follows:
• Well 16- new groundwater well and Storage tank - $4.4M- Design TBD, construction TBD. (These dates changed due to test well results)
12 102
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT, Continued
• Chromium 6-well head treatment - reduction coagulation treatment - pilot study 2024-25, design criteria TBD, construction (TBD pending funding and state regulation) $40M - $90M.
The City intends to utilize all the Impact Fees forth is purpose and is in the process of reviewing user rates and exploring debt financing in order to fund the $315M of potential costs associated with future capacity and treatment. The City is working with the State of California and the State Water Resource Control Board to identify the timing of the funding. Once funding is secured the money will be deposiEC! in the Water Enterprise Fund. (This fund accounts for the Im pact Fee as restricted cash).
Sewer Facilities Impact Fee Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23
REVENUES
Fees $ 2,659,219 $ 1,827,245 $ 565,730
Interest 32,577 12,590 184,994
Other
Total Revenues 2,691,796 1,839,835 750,724
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 17,636 1,031,713
Total Expenditures 17,636 1,031,713
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 2,691,796 1,822,199 (280,990) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 7,357,314 10,049,110 11 ,871 ,309 Fund Balance, End of Year $10,049,110 $11,871,309 $11,590,319 Five Year Revenue Test Using First In First Out Method
Re\oenue Available:
Current Fiscal Year 187,681
Current Fiscal Year (old fees) 2,691,796 1,839,835 563,043 Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr old funds}(old fees) 2,691,796 1,839,835 Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr old funds}(old fees) 2,691 ,796 Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr old funds)(old fees)
Prior Fiscal Year (5-yr old funds)(old fees)
In Excess of 5 Prior Fiscal Years{old fees) 7,357,314 7,339,678 6,307,965 Total Revenues Available $ 10,049,110 $11,871,309 $11 ,590,319 Project Expenditures FY 2024-25
FY 2023/24
$ 1,114,017
305,438
1,419,455
52,423
52,423
1,367,032
11,590,319
$ 12,957,351
1,419,455
750,724
1,839,835
2,691,796
6,255,541
$ 12,957,351
Description Expense % of Fee Funded
The five-year findings test met as required by Gov Code 66001(d) Notes:
FY 2024/25
$ 911,953
317,459
1,229,413
429,630
429,630
799,783
12,957,351
$ 13,757,134
1,229,413
1,419,455
750,724
1,839,835
2,691,796
5,825,912
$13,757,134
In using the revenue and expenditures reports to report fees that have been held past the fifth year of the first deposit, the total expenditures and transfers out over the five-year period must add together. The computed total must be subtracted from the earliestfund balance plus any transfers in for that year. The Sewer Facilities Impact Fee Fund reports money being held past the fifth year of first 13 103
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT I Continued
deposit. The City intends to address capacity and treatment as identified in the 2019 Nexus Report. Some examples of these projects are as follows:
• Wastewater Treatment plant rehabilitation (pipe casing and replacement) -$4M - design TBD (Based on Master Plan criteria, construction 2025-2026.
• Sewer lift station backup generator replacement {Tier 4 per new air board regulation) - $600K, design 2024, construction 2025- 2026.
The City intends to utilize all the Impact Fees for this purpose and is in the process of reviewing user rates and exploring debt financing in order to fund the $75M of potential costs associated with future capacity, treatment, and wastewater flow. Once funding is secured the money will be deposited in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund . (This fund accounts for the Impact Fee as restricted cash).
Stormwater Facilities Impact Fee Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees
Interest
Total Revenues
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures
Total Expenditures
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES
Other Revenue (Not Part of AB1600)
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year
$ 104,776 $
(74)
104,701
104,701
59,571
201 ,086 $
(1 ,286)
199,799
199,799
164,272
97,959 $
10,871
108,830
108,830
364,071
121,048 $
25,928
146,975
146,975
472,901
371,457
34,076
405,533
405,533
619,877
$ 164,272 $ 364,071 $ 472,901 $ 619,877 $ 1,025,410
Five Year Revenue Test Using First In First Out Method
Re1.enue Available:
Current Fiscal Year 27,208 146,975 405,533
Current Fiscal Year (old fees) 104,701 199,799 81,623
Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr old funds)(old fees) 104,701 199,799 108,830 146,975 Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr old funds)(old fees) 104,701 199,799 108,830 Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr old funds)(old fees) 104,701 199,799 Prior Fiscal Year (5-yr old funds)(old fees) 104,701
In Excess of 5 Prior Fiscal Years(old fees) 59,571 59,571 59,571 59,571 59,571 Total Revenues Available $ 164,272 $ 364,071 $ 472,901 $ 619,877 $ 1,025,410 Project Expenditures FY 2024-25
Description Expense % of Fee Funded
None
14 104
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT I Continued
The five-year findings test met as required by Gov Code 66001(d) Notes:
In using the revenue and expenditures reports to report fees that have been held past the fifth year of the first deposit, the total expenditures and transfers out over the five-year period must add together. The computed total must be subtracted from the earliestfund balance plus any transfers in for that year. The Storm water Facilities Im pact Fee Fund reports money being held past the fifth year offirst deposit. The City intends to address capacity, treatment and storm water flow as identified in the 2019 Nexus Report. • Central City Detention Basin - $2.4M - design TBD, land acquisition TBD, construction TBD (Funds will be combined wilh wastewater once the project has started. This project is impacted by the State GSP program and these funds will primarily be used in the design and planning portion of this Basin.
Traffic Facilities Impact Fee Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24
REVENUES
Fees $ 1,577,169 $ 1,245,281 $ 306,892 $ 660,824
Interest 5,710 (33,219) 243,881 505,411
Total Revenues 1,582,880 1,212,063 550,772 1,166,236
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 195,420 47,643 266,914 895,409
Total Expenditures 195,420 47,643 266,914 895,409
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 1,387,460 1,164,420 283,858 270,827 Other Revenue (Not Part of AB1600) 169,210 40,206 90,743 587,577 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 7,077,335 8,634,004 9,838,630 10,213,231 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 8,634,004 $ 9,838,630 $10,213,231 $11,071,635 Five Year Revenue Test Using First In First Out Method
Revenue Available:
Current Fiscal Year
Current Fiscal Year (old fees)
Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr old funds)(old fees)
Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr old funds)(old fees)
Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr old funds)(old fees)
Prior Fiscal Year (5-yr old funds)(old fees)
In Excess of 5 Prior Fiscal Years(old fees)
Total Revenues Available
Description
SR-152 Signal Sync
Traffic Master Plan
1,582,880 1,212,063
1,582,880
7,051,124 7,043,687
$ 8,634,004 $ 9,838,630
Project Expenditures FY 2024-25
$
$
$
Expense
15 220,732
71,379
292,111
437,947 1,166,236
413,079
1,212,063 851,026
1,582,880 1,212,063
1,582,880
6,567,262 6,259,431
$10,213,231 $11 ,071,635
% of Fee Funded
29.84%
29.84%
FY 2024/25
$ 414,454
497,367
911,822
292,111
292,111
619,711
25,381
11,071,635
$11,716,727
911,822
1,166,236
851,026
1,212,063
1,582,880
5,992,702
$11,716,727
105
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT I Continued
The five-year findings test met as required by Gov Code 66001(d) Notes:
In using the revenue and expenditures reports to report fees that have been held past the fifth year of the first deposit, the total expenditures and transfers out over the five-year period m ustadd together. The computed total must be subtracted from the earliest fund balance plus any transfers in for that year. The Traffic Facilities Impact Fee Fund reports money being held past the fifth year of first deposit. The City intends to perform the following improvements based on an updated Traffic Impact Plan:
• Hwy 165 and De Anza - $BOOK - design 2025, construction 2025-2026, • Hwy 165 and Vineyard Drive Improvements - $2.8M - Design 2025-26 • Pioneer Road project-$40-60M - Environmental present to 2025, design 2024-2027, construction 2025-2029 These funds along with Impact Fees will be transferred to an appropriate Capital Projects Fund as required by the individual project.
General Government Facilities Impact Fee Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24
REVENUES
Fees $ 808,295 $ 538,163 $ 146,860 $ 321,745
Interest 2,225 (12,195) 77,781 140,531
Total Revenues 810,520 525,968 224,641 462,276
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 136,613 194,021 769,018 803,829
Total Expenditures 136,613 194,021 769,018 803,829
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 673,907 331,948 (544,377) (341,553) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 2,594,532 3,268,439 3,600,387 3,056,009 Fund Balance, End of Year $3,268,439 $ 3,600,387 $ 3,056,009 $ 2,714,456 Five Year Revenue Test Using First In First Out Method
Re-.enue Available:
Current Fiscal Year
Current Fiscal Year (old fees)
Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr old funds)(old fees)
Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr old funds)(old fees)
Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr old funds)(old fees)
Prior Fiscal Year (5-yr old funds)(old fees)
In Excess of 5 Prior Fiscal Years(old fees)
Total Revenues Available
Description
City Hall Renovations
Community Center Fence
Corporate Yard Parking Lot
673,907 525,968
673,907
2,594,532 2,400,511
$3,268,439 $ 3,600,387
Project Expenditures FY 2024-25
$
$
$
$
Expense
16 385,327
161,126
21,000
567,453
$
56,160 462,276
168,481
525,968 224,641
673,907 525,968
673,907
1,631,493 827,664
3,056,009 $ 2,714,456
% of Fee Funded
53.27%
53.27%
29.69%
FY 2024/25
$ 167,505
110,415
277,920
567,453
567,453
(289,533)
2,714,456
$ 2,424,923
277,920
462,276
224,641
525,968
485,481
448,637
$ 2,424,923
106
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT, Continued
The five-year findings test met as required by Gov Code 66001(d) Notes:
In using the revenue and expenditures reports to report fees that have been held past the fifth year of the first deposit, the total expenditures and transfers out over the five-year period m ustadd together. The computed total must be subtracted from the earliestfund balance plus any transfers in for that year. The General Governmental Facilities Im pact Fee Fund reports money being held pastthe fifth year of first deposit.
The City is intending on spending the remaining amount on upgrades to the City Hall as well as renovating the Annex. The project is currently in the design phase and the amount of the project is expected to be$ 7 .5M. The General Fund will supply the additional capi1al to complete the project.
3% Administration Impact Fee Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $ 186,539 $ 160,458 $ 53,831 $ 93,473 $ 119,172
Interest 319 (2,283) 15,941 31,837 31,876
Total Revenues 186,858 158,175 69,772 125,310 151,047
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 121,087 93,589 101,048 40,573
Total Expenditures 121 ,087 93,589 101,048 40,573
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 186,858 37,088 (23,817) 24,262 110,474 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 461,818 648,676 685,764 661,947 686,208 Fund Balance, End of Year $ 648,676 $ 685,764 $ 661,947 $ 686,208 $ 796,683 Five Year Revenue Test Using First In First Out Method
Revenue Available:
Current Fiscal Year 17,443 125,310 151,047
Current Fiscal Year (old fees) 186,858 158,175 52,329
Prior Fiscal Year (2-yr old funds )(old fees) 186,858 158,175 69,772 125,310 Prior Fiscal Year (3-yr old funds)(old fees) 186,858 158,175 69,772 Prior Fiscal Year (4-yr old funds )(old fees) 186,858 158,175 Prior Fiscal Year (5-yr old funds )(old fees) 186,858
In Excess of 5 Prior Fiscal Years(old fees) 461,818 340,731 247,142 146,094 105,521 Total Revenues Available $ 648,676 $ 685,764 $ 661,947 $ 686,208 $ 796,683 Project Expenditures FY 2024-25
Description Expense % of Fee Funded
ERP Software $ 40,573 100%
17 107
FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT, Continued
The five-year findings test met as required by Gov Code 66001{d) Notes:
In using the revenue and expenditures reports to report fees that have been held past the fifth year of the first deposit, the total expenditures and transfers outoverthe five-year period must add together. The computed total must be subtracted from the earliest fund balance plus any transfers in for that year. The 3% Administration Facilities Impact Fee Fund Balance will fund the upgrade to Tyler Technologies (Financial Software). The anticipated cost is approximately $500,000 and the project commenced in fiscal year2023 and will continue till implementation is completed.
SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Fees Based on updated Development Impact Fee nexus study dated December 31, 2019. The updated original schedule became effective on April 5, 2020. The Fee was adjusted in 2024 based on Construction Cost Index through Council Action on April 17,2024 and became effective on July 1, 2024.
DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM
SCHEDULE OF FEES
GENERAL PLAN BUILD OUT
Development Impact Fees per Unit (Residential)/1,000 Square Feet (Non-Residential) Residential Non-Residential
Age
Fee Category Single Family Multi-Family Restricted Retail Office Institutional Fire $ 1,521 $ 1,216 $ 823 $ 867 $ 650 $ 325
Police $ 2,845 $ 2,276 $ 1,540 $ 1,621 $ 1,216 $ 608
Parks & Rec $ 8,494 $ 6,795 $ 4,598 $ - $ - $ - Water $ 7,635 $ 6,109 $ 4,133 $ 4,350 $ 3,263 $ 1,632 Sewer $ 5,858 $ 4,687 $ 3,172 $ 3,338 $ 2,503 $ 1,252
Storm Drain $ 3,575 $ 2,861 $ 1,935 $ 2,038 $ 1,528 $ 764 Traffic $ 1,576 $ 1,091 $ 851 $ 7,850 $ 1,572 $ 1,902
General Gov't $ 849 $ 679 $ 459 $ - $ - $ - 3% Admin $ 971 $ 771 $ 525 $ 602 $ 322 $ 195 Industrial
$ 216
$ 405
$
$ 1,088
$ 834
$ 509
$ 1,335
$
$ 132
Total Fees $ 33,324 $ 26,485 $ 18,036 $ 20,666 $ 11,054 $ 6,678 $ 4,519
PRIOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE (OLD FEES)
The following Impact Fees Schedule was approved by Council in order to complete improvements for Police, Fire, Community Center, City Hall, Corporation Yard, and Administration. These fees were set forth in the Development Cost and Fee Study done by Goodwin Consulting dated June 28, 2006. 18 108
PRIOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE {OLD FEES), Continued Table 2 - Prior Impact Fees from Previous Nexus Study
DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM
SCHEDULE OF FEES
NEXUS STUDY 2006
Development Impact Fees per Unit (Residential}/Per Square Feet (Non-Residential} Fee Category
Police
Fire
Park Improvement
Community Center
City Hall
Corporation Yard
3% Administration
Very-Low
Density
$ 2,559
$ 912
$ 6,934
$ 399
$ 986
$ 346
$ 364
Residential
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Medium
Density
2,105
730
5,702
328
811
285
299
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
High
Density
1,515
438
4,106
236
584
205
213
Commercial
$ 0.38
$ 0.36
$ -
$ 0.07
$ 0.15
$ 0.06
$ 0.03
Non-Residential
Office
$ 0.57 $
$ 0.36 $
$ - $
$ 0.08 $
$ 0.22 $
$ 0.09 $
$ 0.04 $
Industrial
0.27 0.36
0.05 0.10
0.05 0.02
Total Fees $ 12,500 $ 10,260 $ 7,297 $ 1.05 $ 1.36 $ 0.85 The following Impact Fees Schedules were enacted in order to complete improvements for Water, Wastewater, Public Facilities, and Traffic. These fees were set forth in the by ordinance No.954 dated February 2, 2010.
Table 3 - Prior Enterprise Impact Fees per Ordinance
DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM
SCHEDULE OF FEES
ORDINANCE 954/FEBRUARY 2010
Traffic ------------------------ Waste Impact
Water Water Public Building EDU/Uni Fee/Square
Fee Category Impact Fee Impact fee Facilities Fee Category Size Unit t Feet Impact Fee Connection Size
3/4" - 1" $ 3,127 Single Family 1,800 Dwelling 1.00 $ 1.88 $ 3,380.85 1 1/2" $ 9,225 Fast Food 3,500 1,000 5.05 $ 17.07 $ 59,747.59 2" $ 19,857 Super Market 50,000 1,000 1.85 $ 6.25 $ 312,683.10 3" $ 58,540 Office Building 60,000 1,000 1.78 $ 6.02 $ 361,021.56 4" $ 126,086 Light Industrial 100,000 1,000 0.91 $ 3.08 $ 307,612.53 Single Family $ 5,419 $ 22.49 Heavy Industrial 200,000 1,000 0.18 $ 0.61 $ 121,692.40 Multi-Family $ 22.49
Commercial $ 22.49
Industrial $ 22.49
Total Fees $ 216,835 $ 5,419 $ 45 $ 34.91 $1,166,138.03
NOTES TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
The Notes address two items required by California Government Code Section 66006 (b}. 19 109
NOTES TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT (Continued)
Note 1 - Refund of Developer Fee. At this time, all fees being collected pursuant to the Developer Fee program have been earmarked for current or future capital projects necessary to maintain the current levels of services within existing service areas to serve new development.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROJECTS IDENTIFICATION
The Development Impact Fees and Development Agreement Fee projects identification table illustrates the following reporting requirements defined by California Government Code Section 66006 (b ):
• An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.
These were identified when applicable in the Note Section of each 5-year Financial Summary Report • An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement. These were identified when applicable in the Note Section of each 5-year Financial Summary Report.
20 110
Public Notice
Westside Express
Email Transmittal -
legals@th ewestsideexpress .com
November 18, 2025
Publish: November 26 ,2025
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City Los Banos will hold a Public Hearing for the AB1600 Development Impact Fee Report for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 as follows:
Date: December 17, 2025
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Place: Council Chambers
City Hall
520 "J" Street
Los Banos, CA 93635
Questions regarding the above referenced item may be directed to the Finance Department at City Hall or (209) 827-7000.
Please publish Wednesday November 26, 2025
111
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
112
Newpon Beach,,.,__.,., San Francisco I Riverside
Dallas I Houst:M / ,laltigft I 'Jl'ampa
113
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com 99 Almaden Blvd, Suite 875
San Jose, CA 95113
A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
JUSTIFICATION STUDY
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
OTA
99 Almaden Blvd, Suite 875
San Jose, California, 95113
IN ASSOC/A TION WITH:
T JKM Transportation Consultants
2055 Gateway Plaza, Suite 400
San Jose, California 95110
114
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................... ! I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 3
II LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES .............................................................................. 5 ill DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................................... 9 N THE NEEDS UST ...................................................................... 14 V METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE FEES ................... 18 A. FIRE FACILITIES············································· 22
8. POLICE FACILITIES ........................................ 25 C. PARK FACILITIES ........................................... 28 D. WATER FACIUTIES ........................................ 32 E. SEWER FACIUTIES ......................................... 35 F. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES ....................... 39 G. TRAFFIC FACILITIES ....................................... 42 H. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES .............. 45
VI SUMMARY OF FEES ................................................................. 48
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Fee Derivation Worksheets
Appendix B: 2019 Needs List
115
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
In order to adequately plan for new development and identify the public facilities and costs associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of new development, OTA (previously known as David Taussig & Associates, Inc.) was engaged by the City of Los Banos (the "City") to prepare an updated .AB 1600 Fee Justification Study (the "Fee Study"). The Fee Study is intended to comply with Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code, which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying additional public facilities required by new development ("Future Facilities") and determining the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of the Future Facilities. The Future Facilities and associated construction costs are identified in the Needs List, which is included in Section IV of the Fee Study. A description of the methodology used to calculate the fees is included in Section V. AU new development may be required to pay its "fair share" of the cost of the new infrastructure through this development fee program.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Section I of this report provides an introduction to the Fee Study including a brief description of areas surrounding the City and background information on development fee financing. Section II provides an overview of the legal requirements for implementing and imposing the fee amounts identified in the Fee Study. Section III includes a discussion of projected new development and demand variables such as future population and employment, assuming current growth trends in housing, retail, office, industrial, and institutional development extrapolated through buildout in 2038. Projections of future development are based on data provided by the City of Los Banos and the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. Section IV includes a description of the Needs List, which identifies the facilities needed to serve new development through buildout in 2038 that are eligible for funding through the impact fee program. The Needs List provides the total estimated facilities costs, offsetting revenues, net costs to the City, and costs allocated to new development for all facilities listed in the Needs List. This list is a compilation of projects and costs identified by various City departments. Section V discusses the findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act and requirements necessary to be satisfied when establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of new development, and satisfies the nexus requirements for each facility included as part of this study. Section V also contains the description of the methodology used to determine the fees for all facility types. Finally, Section VI includes a summary of the proposed fees justified by this Fee Study. Appendix A includes the calculations used to determine the various fee levels.
IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
The total fee amounts required to finance new development's share of the costs of facilities identified in the Needs List are summarized in Table ES-1 on the following page. These fees reflect the maximum fee levels that may be imposed on new development.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study _ Decembe, 3' 2019 / 1 116
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
Table ES-1: City of Los Banos Development Impact Fee Summary Single Family $1,258 $2,354 $7,028 $6,317 $4,847 $2,958 $1,304 $702 $803 $27,571 Multi-family $1,006 $1,883 $5,622 $5,054 $3,878 $2,367 $903 $562 $638 $21.913 Age Restricted $681 $1,274 $3,804 $3,419 $2,624 $1,601 $704 $380 $435 $14,923 Retail $717 $1,341 $0 $3,599 $2,762 $1,686 $6,495 $0 $498 $17,098 Office $538 $1,006 $0 $2,700 $2,071 $1,264 $1,301 $0 $266 $9,146 Institutional $269 $503 $0 $1,350 $1,036 $632 $1,574 $0 $161 $5,524 Industrial $179 $335 $0 $900 $690 $421 $1,105 $0 $109 $3,740
EXEMPTIONS
California Government Code permits fee exemptions for affordable housing and senior housing at the discretion of local jurisdictions. Such fee exemptions are a policy matter that should be based on the consideration of the greater public good provided by the use exempted from the fee.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
December 31, 2019 ; -
2-.
117
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The City of Los Banos is a growing community with a current population of about 40,000.
Covering approximately 10 square miles of land in the western region of the San Joaquin Valley between San Francisco and Los Angeles, it is within a two-hour drive of Yosemite and Kings Canyon National Parks, as well as the scenic Central Coast. The City also sits near the San Luis Reservoir, San Joaquin River, and Merced National Wildlife Refuges, and its location between Interstate-5 and Highway 99 positions the City at the crossroads of California.
In order to adequately plan for new development and identify the public facilities and costs associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of this new development, OTA was engaged by the City of Los Banos to prepare an updated AB 1600 Fee Justification Study. The Fee amounts to be determined will finance Citywide facilities at levels required by various City departments as being necessary to meet the needs of new development through 2038.
OTA is updating elements of the impact fee study prepared in 2006 by Goodwin Consulting, as well as a 2010 Goodwin Consulting update and a 1999 traffic mitigation fee report prepared by KO Anderson. Revised impact fees are calculated here using updated information on development and City facilities and are intended to replace the corresponding existing impact fee. Moreover, the methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).
More specifically, the Fee Study is intended to comply with Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code, which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying additional public facilities required by new development {"Future Facilities") and determining the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of the Future Facilities.
Fee amounts have been determined that will finance facilities at levels identified by the various City departments as deemed necessary to meet the needs of new development. The Future Facilities and associated construction costs are identified in the Needs List, which is included in Section IV of the Fee Study. All new development may be required to pay its "fair share" of the cost of the new infrastructure through the development impact fee program.
The fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities needed to meet the needs of new development. The steps followed in the Fee Study include:
1. Demographic Assumptions: Identify future growth that represents the increased demand for facilities.
2. Facility Needs and Costs: Identify the amount of public facilities required to support the new development and the costs of such facilities. Facilities costs and the Needs List are discussed in Section IV.
3. Cost Allocation: Allocate costs via the equivalent dwelling unit methodology.
City of Los Banos December 31, 20_-_1,9_ / ~-~- - Development Impact Fee Justification- Study _ ,3: - -- -- --- 118
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
4. Fee Schedule: Calculate the fee per residential unit or per non-residential square foot.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study =- December 3.1, 2019 1- - _ 4 - -
119
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION II
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES
The imposition of impact fees is one authorized method of financing the public facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development. A fee is "a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project..." (California Government Code, Section 66000). A fee may be imposed for each type of capital improvement required for new development, with the payment of the fee typically occurring prior to the beginning of construction of a dwelling unit or non-residential building. Fees are often imposed at final map recordation, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or more commonly, at building permit issuance.
AB 1600, which created Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code, was enacted by the State of California in 1987.
In 2006, Government Code Section 66001 was amended to clarify that a fee cannot include costs attributable to existing deficiencies but can fund costs used to maintain the existing level of service ("LOS") or meet an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.
Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code thus requires that all public agencies satisfy the following requirements when establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of new development:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(1))
2. Identify the use to which the fee will be put. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(2))
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(3))
4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(4))
5. Discuss how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
This section presents each of these items as they relate to the imposition of the proposed fees in the City of Los Banos.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study- December3l2019 I ~- 5 120
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION II
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES
A. PURPOSE OF THE FEE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(1)) New residential and non-residential development within the City of Los Banos will generate additional residents and employees who will require additional public facilities. Land for these facilities will have to be acquired and public facilities and equipment will have to be expanded, constructed, or purchased to meet this increased demand.
The Fee Study has been prepared in response to the projected direct and cumulative effect of future development. Each new development will contribute to the need for new public facilities. Without future development many of the new public facilities on the Needs List would not be necessary as the existing facilities are generally adequate for the City's present population. In instances where facilities would be built regardless of new development, the costs of such facilities have been allocated to new and existing development based on their respective level of benefit.
The proposed impact fee will be charged to all future development. irrespective of location, in the City. First. the property owners and/or the tenants associated with any new development in the City can be expected to place additional demands on the City's facilities that are funded by the fee. Second, these property owners and tenants are dependent on and, in fact, may not have chosen to utilize their development, except for residential, retail, employment, and recreational opportunities located nearby on other existing and future development. As a result, all development projects in the City contribute to the cumulative impacts of development.
The impact fees will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of public facilities identified on the Needs Lists to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development in the City.
B. THE USE TO WHICH THE FEE IS TO BE Pl.IT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(2)) The fee will be used for the acquisition, installation. and construction of public facilities identified on the Needs Lists, included in Section IV of the Fee Study and other appropriate costs to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development in the City. The fee will provide a source of revenue to the City to allow for the acquisition. installation. and construction of public facilities. which in tum will both preserve the quality of life in the City and protect the health. safety, and welfare of the existing and future residents and employees. Actual needs are likely to change over time as a result of changing technology and approaches for delivering public services. The Needs List is illustrative of the required facilities if all the facilities were constructed and operational as of the date of this study. The fees may be used on (any) facility which serves a similar function and purpose as those facilities identified on the Needs List.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification -St-udy
121
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION II
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES
C. DETERMINE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEE'S USE AND THE
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP) (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001CA)(3))
D.
As discussed in Section A. it is the projected direct and cumulative effect of future development that has prompted the preparation of the Fee Study. Each development will contribute to the need for new public facilities. Without future development, the City would have no need to construct many of the public facilities on the Needs List.
For all other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing and new development based on their level of benefit. Consequently, all new development within the City, irrespective of location, contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth.
The fees will be expended for the acquisition, installation, and construction of the public facilities identified on the Needs List and other authorized uses, as that is the purpose for which the fees are collected. As previously stated, all new development creates either a direct impact on public facilities or contributes to the cumulative impact on public facilities. Moreover, this impact is generally equalized among all types of development because it is the increased demands for public facilities created by the future residents and employees that create the impact upon existing facilities.
For the aforementioned reasons, new development benefits from the acquisition, construction, and installation of the facilities on the Needs Lists.
DETERMINE How THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEED FOR THE
PUBLIC FACILITY AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (IMPACT RELATIONSHIP) (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(4)) As previously stated, all new development within the City, irrespective of location, contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development oh public facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth. Without future development, many of the facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary. For certain other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing and new development based on their level of benefit.
For the reasons presented herein, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities included on the Needs List and all new development within the City.
City of Los Banos _
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
122
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION II
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES
E. THE RELATIONSHIP BE1WEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE AND THE COST OF THE PUBLIC
FACILITIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED C-ROUGH PROPORTIONAlITY- RELATIONSHIP) (GOVERNMENT CODE 66001(A) As set forth above, all new development in the City impacts public facilities.
Moreover, each individual development project and its related increase in population and/or employment, along with the cumulative impacts of all development in the City, will adversely impact existing facilities. Thus, imposition of the fee to finance the facilities on the Needs Lists is an efficient, practical, and equitable method of permitting development to proceed in a responsible manner.
New development impacts facilities directly and cumulatively. In fact, without any future development, the acquisition, construction, and/or installation of many of the facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary as existing City facilities are generally adequate. Even new development located adjacent to existing facilities will utilize and benefit from facilities on the Needs List.
The proposed fee amounts are roughly proportional to the impacts resulting from new development based on the analyses contained in Section V. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
Decembe.
r_ 31, 2019 I 8
123
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION III
DEMOGRAPHICS
In order to determine the public facilities needed to serve new development as well as establish fee amounts to fund such facilities, the City provided OTA with projections of future population and development within the City. OTA categorized developable residential land uses as Single Family, Multi-Family, and Age Restricted. Oevelopable nonresidential land uses within the City's commercial, industrial, and office zones are categorized as Retail, Office, Industrial, and Institutional. Additional details are included in the table below. Based on these designations, OTA established fees for the following seven (7) land use categories to acknowledge the difference in impacts resulting from various land uses and to make the resulting fee program implementable.
Table 1: City of Los Banos - Summary of land Use Categories 'LAND USE 7
CLASSIFICATIONS I DEFINITION : --- ' ' ----~ - - - - ---- --~-- Single Family
Multi-family
Age Restrict~d
Retail
Office
Institutional
City of Los Banos
Includes single family attached and detached homes.
Includes buildings with attached residential units including apartments, townhomes, condominiums, and all other residential units not classified as Single Family.
For purposes of determining the impact fees due, any #second unit" or "accessory dwelling unit" (as determined pursuant to Section 65852.2 of the Government Code) shall be considered a separate residential unit and shall be subject to this fee.
Includes single family attached and detached homes which are developed, substantially rehabilitated, or substantially renovated for, senior citizens. At least 80 percent (%) of the occupied units include at least one resident who is verified to be over the age of 55, and the community follows a policy that demonstrates an intent to provide housinq for those aqed 55 or older.
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
• Retail
• Service-oriented business activities
• Department stores, discount stores, furniture/appliance outlets, home improvement centers
• Entertainment centers
• Sub-regional and regional shopping centers
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
• Business/professional office
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
• Professional medical offices and hospitals
• Schools
• Other public uses
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
124
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION III
DEMOGRAPHICS
--------- ------- --------- ------
LAND USE
CLASSIFICATIONS DEFINITION
-------- . - - ~ ---- ---- - --- --- - -- - -
Includes. but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
• Light manufacturing, warehouse/distribution. logistics, wholesaling Industrial • Wholesale and warehouse retail
• Service-oriented commercial activities
• Automobile dealerships
• Support commercial services
The City of Los Banos Housing Element was used to estimate the number of housing units and non-residential building square feet to be built within the City. These figures are generally confirmed by the City's 2030 General Plan (the "General Plan"), the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, and the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition. the forecasts and the General Plan were used to project the additional population generated from new development.
Notably, OTA attempted to utilize metrics (e.g. average household size) that standardized existing demographics with the projections found in the General Plan. Future residents and employees will create additional demand for facilities that cannot be adequately served by existing public facilities. In order to accommodate new development in an orderly manner, while maintaining the current quality of life in the City, the facilities on the Needs list (see Section IV), as presented to and reviewed by City Council and City staff, along with community stakeholders, will need to be constructed. For those facilities that are needed to mitigate demand from new development, facility costs have been allocated to new development only. In those instances when it has been determined that the new facilities will serve both existing and new development, facility costs have been allocated based on proportionate level of benefit {see Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") discussion in Section V).
The following sections summarize the existing and future development figures that were used in calculating the impact fees.
1. Existing Population for Land Use Categories
A. According to information provided by the City of Los Banos and obtained from the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, and generally confirmed by the U.S. Census Bureau, there are currently 34,251 existing Single Family, 4,922 Multi-Family residents, and 454 Age Restricted residents residing in 9,758, 1,753, and 239 units, respectively, within the City.
B. OTA has used the following demographic information from the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, which assumes a City resident-per-unit factor of 3.51 per Single Family unit, 2.81 per Multi-Family unit (approximately four-fifths of the Single Family rate), and 1.90 per Age City of Los Banos _ - D--"·-~~-~~--,~mber 31, 2019 / lQ Development Impact Eee Justification Study _ 125
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION III
DEMOGRAPHICS
Restricted unit. Therefore, the City population is generally comprised of 39,627 residents living in 11,750 Single Family, Multi-Family and Age Restricted homes. Importantly, many figures may not sum due to rounding.
C. Table 2 below summarizes the existing demographics for the residential land uses.
Table 2: City of Los Banos Estimated Existing Residential Development Residential Land Use
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Age Restricted Residential
TotaVAverage
Existing
Residents
34,251
4,922
454
39,627
Existing Housing
Units
9,758
1.753
239
11,750
Average Household
Size
3.51 2.81
1.90 NA
OTA has also utilized the following demographic information which estimates existing City employees using employees-per-thousand.;.square-foot factors of 4.00,
3.00, 1.50, and 1.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet of Retail, Office, Institutional, and Industrial, respectively. This results in a total of 13,982 existing employees, comprised of 2,221 Retail employees, 6,370 Office employees, 419 Institutional employees, and 4,973 Industrial employees within the City, as shown in Table 3 below.
Importantly, for many of the facilities considered in this Fee Study, EDUs are calculated based on the number of residents or employees ("Persons Served") generated by each land use class. Persons Served equals Residents plus 50% of Employees and is a customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees. For existing Persons Served estimates, please reference Table 3.
City of Los Banos __ _
Development lmpaet Fee Justification Study
126
2. dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION III
DEMOGRAPHICS
Table 3: City of Los Banos Estimated Existing Non-Residential Development Non-Residential
Land Use
Retail
Office
Institutional
Industrial
Total/Average
Employees
per 1,000
B.S.F.
4.00 3.00
1.50 1.00
NA
* May not sum due to rounding.
Existing
Employees*
2,221
6,370
419
4,973
13,982
Persons Served
per 1,000 B.S.F.
2.00 1.50
0.75 0.50
NA
(11 Persons Served equal Residents plus 50% of employees.
Future Population for New Land Use Categories (2038)
Existing Persons
Served [1]
1,110
3,185
210
2,486
6,991
A. According to information provided by the City and the Merced County Association of Governments, in 2038 (the time horizon utilized for this Fee Study} the City is projected to include an additional 4,155 Single Family units, 736 Multi-Family units, and 44 Age Restricted units.
B. OTA has used the following demographic information which assumes City future resident-per-unit factors of 3.51, 2.81, and 1.90 per Single Family unit, Multi-Family unit, and Age Restricted unit respectively. This results in an additional 16,735 residents living in 4,935 Single Family, Multi-Family and Age Restricted homes Citywide.
C. Table 4 summarizes the future demographics for the residential land uses.
Table 4: City of Los Banos Future Residential Development ' I , . . '
R •ct t· 1 L d U o!ProJected ProJected Average Household es1 en 1a an se 'R • •ct H · u ·t s· ,1 es1 ents ousmg m s 1ze Single Family Residential 14,584 4,155 3.51
Multi-Family Residential 2,068 736 2.81
Age Restricted Residential 84 44 1.90
Total/Average 16,735 4,935 NA
As noted previously, OTA estimated City employees using employees-per-thousandsquare-foot factors, provided by the City, of 4.00, 3.00, 1.50, and 1.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet of Retail, Office, Institutional, and Industrial, respectively.
This resulted in the projection of an additional 952 Retail employees, 2,731 Office City of Los Ba~11os ~ December 31, 2019/
DevelopmentJmpact Fee Justification Study -~ _-_. 12 -~ 127
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION III
DEMOGRAPHICS
employees, 180 Institutional employees, and 2,132 Industrial employees Citywide, as shown in Table 5 on the following page.
Again, for many of the facilities considered in this Fee Study, EDUs are calculated based on the number of residents or employees ("Persons Served") generated by each land use class. Persons Served equals Residents plus 50% of Employees and is a customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees. For future Persons Served estimates, please reference Table 5.
Table 5: City of Los Banos Future Non-Residential Development NonResidential
Land Use
Retail
Office
Institutional
Industrial
TotaVAverage
Employees
per 1,000
Building
S.F.
4.00 3.00
1.50 1.00
NA
Future
Employees
952
2,731
180
2,132
5,995
Persons Served
per 1,000
Building S.F.
2.00 1.50
0.75 0.50
NA
[1] Persons Served equal Residents plus 50% of employees.
Future
Persons
Served (11
476
1,365
90 1,066
2,997
3. Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) and Equivalent Benefit Unit CEBU) Projections EDUs are a means of quantifying different land uses in terms of their equivalence to a residential dwelling unit, where equivalence is measured in terms of potential infrastructure use or benefit for each type of public facility. Since nearly all of the facilities proposed to be financed by the levy of impact fees will serve both residential and non-residential property, OTA projected the number of future EDUs based on the number of residents or employees generated by each land use class. For other facilities, different measures, such as trip generation rates and water demand, more accurately represent the benefit provided to each land use type. The EDU projections for each facility are shown in the fee derivation worksheets in Appendix A.
City of L<J§. l:lanos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
DecemW 31, 2019 I 13
128
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION IV
NEEDS LIST
Identification of the facilities to be financed is a critical component of any development impact fee program. In the broadest sense, the purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. "Public Facilities" per Government Code Section 66000 includes "public improvements, public services, and community amenities."
Government Code Section 66000 requires the identification of those facilities for which impact fees are going to be used as the key financing mechanism. Identification of the facilities may be made in an applicable general or specific plan, other public documents, or by reference to a Capital Improvement Program ("CIP").
OTA has worked closely with City staff to develop the list of facilities to be included in the Fee Study (the "Needs usn. Additionally, the Needs Li.st was presented to and reviewed by City Council and has been introduced at numerous Stakeholders' Meeting. For purposes of the City's fee program, the Needs Li.st is intended to be the official public document identifying the facilities eligible to be financed, in whole or in part, through the levy of a development impact fee on new development within the City. The Needs Li.st is organized by facility element (or type) and includes a cost section consisting of six (6) columns, which are defined in Table 6 on the following page. Actual needs are likely to change over time as a result of changing technology and approaches for delivering public services. The Needs Li.st is illustrative of the required facilities if all the facilities were constructed and operational as of the date of this study. The fees may be used on (any) facility which serves a similar function and purpose as those facilities identified on the Needs List.
Table 6: City of Los Banos Needs List Explanation of Cost Section - ---- --- ---- ------ ------ ------- - ---------~--- Column Title Contents Source
---- ---- --- ----- ------
Total Cost for Facility
Offsetting Revenues to
New and Existing
Development
Net Cost to City
Percent of Cost
Allocated to New
Development
Net Cost Allocated to
New Development
City o'- L9s Banos
The total estimated facility cost including
engineering, design, construction, land
acquisition, and equipment (as applicable)
Share of Total Offsetting Revenues allocated to
new and existing development
The difference between the Total Cost and the
Offsetting Revenues (column 1 plus column 2)
Net Cost Allocated to New Development based
on New Development's Share of Facilities
The Net Cost to City Multiplied by the Percentage
Cost Allocated to New Development
Develepment Impact Fee Justification Study
City
City
Calculated by OTA
Calculated by OT A and City
Calculated by OT A
Decembe,,, ,o,. I
14 129
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION IV
NEEDS LIST
- -- --- --- ----- ----- --- - - ~- ---- - - - -,
Column Title Contents Source -~ -~ --- ----- ---- ----- - ----- ------------- Policy Background or
Objective
Identifies policy source or rationale for facility
need
City General Plan, Water
Master Plan, Sewer Master
Plan, Storm Drainage Master
Plan, Traffic Master Plan,
Capital Improvement Plan,
and Council Objective
DTA surveyed City staff and on the required facilities needed to serve new development as a starting point for its fee calculations. The survey included the project description, justification, public benefit, estimated costs, and project financing for each proposed facility. Through discussions between DTA and City staff, the Needs List has gone through a series of revisions to fine-tune the needs, costs, and methodologies used in allocating the costs for each facility.
The final Needs list is shown on the following pages and can additionally be found included as Appendix B.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study Decembe, 31, 2019 I lS 130
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
Ul {2)
Facility Name Total Cost for Facility Off.-setting
........,
A. FIRE PROTECT10H FACIUTJES
l Station 3 (Incl Training Facility and EOC) $9,579,938 ($5,000,000) 2 Fueling Station $545.000 so 3 Fire Vehicles $4,590,000 {$100,000) 4 Equipment (SCBA Bottles, Radio Equipment, Jaws of Life and rel. tools) $341.639 so S Station4 $4,800,000 so Measure P {$3,314,623)
Fire Facilities Revenues nof !!!: Committed ($1,429,937) TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION FACruTJES $19856577 lt!l.844,5601
8. POUCE FACIU11ES
l Primary Statton $34,800,000 so 2 Animal Shelter $12,500.000 so 3 Range Facility $500,000 so 4 F1Nt Vehicles $1845.732 {$100,000)
S Firearms Stock $150,335 so
MeasureP so
Police f'aalitiec ~, not er Committed £3£ 10
TOTAL POUcr fACILnttS ~9796.067 ,~100000!
C. PAHi FACUTlES (Non•OUilnbyl
1 Acres to Develop $32.768.223 so
2 Recreational Pool Facility $12.000,000 so 3 Skate Park $1.S00,000 so Parlcs and R«reation Faeflities Revenues not!!!! Comm.itted {$3,714? 58) TOTAL PARKS A.ND RECREATION FACnmES $46,268~3 ,~714.753) 0 . WA'l'ER FACU11ES
1 Surface Water Treatment Plant (Ind. Chromium 6 Testing) $260.615,333 ($108,421,423) 2 Groundwater SUstainability & Recharge Project $230,000 so 3 Valve Replacement $250,000 so
,f Water Unes $3,212.000 so
5 Well 16 $1,620,000 so 6 Water Meiers $398,5.28 so 7 Wel:I Rehabilitation $1,560,000 so 8 Equipment $479,000 so 9 Storage TanJcs and Boo$ter Pumps $2.3,460.000 so 10 Groundwater Wells $11.340.000 so 11 Well Manifold System $10,BlS,OOO so
Water Facilities Revenues rtot ~ Committed {~8 089498j
TOTAL WATER FACIUTJES $3131979,861 ($116,510192!2
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
(3)
Net Cost to City
$4,579,938
$545,000
$4,490,000
$341,639
$4,800,000
1$4,744,560)
$1~012..017
$34,800,000
$12,500,000
$500,000
$1.745,732
$150,335
l!l $49696.067
$32,768,223
$12.000,000
$1,500,000
1!37147581
$42~53465
$152,193,911
$Z30,000
$250,000
$3,212.000
Sl.6ZO,OOO
$398,528
Sl.560.000
$479.000
$23,460,000
$11,340,000
$10,815.000
!a089498)
$197,468.941
SECTION IV
NEEDS LIST
{4) [S) 16}
Percent of Cost
Allocated to Cost Allocated to Policy Background or Objective New New Development Development
89.22% $4,086,156 Capital Improvement Plan
29.74X $162.080 capital Improvement Plan
68.63" $3,081,473 Council Objective
59.48" $203,204 Council Objective
89.22X $4,282,492 Council Objective
MeU\lre P 20•Yr Expenditure P\an
($4,744,560)
70.62X $7,070,845
29.74X $10,349,356 Capttal !mprovement Plan
11.68X $L460,174 Council Objective
59.48X $297,395 Capital Improvement Plan
59.48% $1.038,345 Council Objective
59.48X $89,418 CouncU Objective
Measure P 20•Yr Expenditl.lre Ran
so 26.63" $13.234,688
100.00X $32,768,223 Council Objective
29.69" $3,563,020 Council Objective
59.SSX $890,755 Council Objective
!i3i714i758!
78.74" $31.507.240
56.95% $86,677,223 Water Master Plan
29.74% $68,401 Clpltallmprovement Plan
29.74X $74,349 Capital Improvement Plan
29.74X $955,234 capltal Improvement Plan
29.74% 5-48<700 capital lmprovement Plan
29.74X $118,520 capital Improvement Plan
29.74X $463,937 capital tmprovement Plan
29.74X $142.452 capital Improvement Plan
29.74X $6.976,893 W1ter Master Plan
29.74" $3,372.~ Water Master Plan
29.74¾ $3,216,330 Water Master Plan
1sa o89498~
47.83X $94-,458,084
D=mbe, 31, 2019 I 16
131
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
E. SEWERFAaU'llES
1 Sewer line Replacement $200,000 $0
2 Nantes Stonn Bastn $1.795,000 $0
J Central City Sub-basin $2.298.000 $0
4 BStreetStonn.Basin $1.230.000 $0
5 Pwrc, Station RehabUitation $350,000 $0
6 JeffenonStonnUne $567.000 $0
7 Munieta Storm Une S161.000 $0
8 P.adleeo Storm Line $453,000 $0
9 Citrus Second Stonn Une $100.000 $0
10 H • mtnots Storm Une $286.000 $0
U H - Nevada Storm Line $286,000 $0
l2 Jo-Une Park Manor Pump Station $312.000 $0
U Cresthllb. Pump Statton Rahabilltatton $350,000 $0
J-f WWTP Headworks $6,615.000 ($75,000)
15 GrQlffldwat.er Study $70.000 $0
16 WWTP - Sludge Rfflloval $250.000 $0
17 WWl'P - Cold Mix Ovett.y SlS-0.000 $0
JS Potable Water Une to WWTP $200,000 $0
19 Solar Bee Additions $1012.300 $0
20 Equipment $1055,000 $0
ZJ Wastewater Treatment Plant $4.183,000 $0
22 Pioneer Trunk $9,303,000 {$4,405,000)
2J NorthTrunk $31.681.000 {$5,500,000)
Z4 Me.cknlrlandt $160<,000 $0
25_,.._ $1.049,000 {$1049,0001
26 Southeast Trunk $822.000 !S82Z.000I
27 College Tnink $360,000 ($360,000}
28 WestTnnl $9,083,000 ($8,113,000}
Wufewatw Facilities Revenues not I!! Committed liSzg8!m TOTAL SEWER FAal.lTIES $75,825 6086,887)
F. StoRNDIWNAG£FJ.CLJ'T1U
l Aifpon Ho. 1 S~ $778.000 {$778.000)
2 AirportNo.iSub-basln $3,968.000 {$3,968.000)
3 CHnJsTerraceSU!).buln $67,000 ($67,000)
.f College 0-eens No. 1 Slw-basfn $12..fOLOOO 1$12.401,000} 5 College Q-eens No. i Sub-basfn $6,029,000 1$6,0Z9,000) 6 Creekside No. 1 Sub-basin $10,085,000 1$10,085,000)
7 Creekside No. i SUb~basin $63,923,000 1$53,560,000)
8 Crest Hills Sub-basin $3,015,000 {$3,015,000)
9 Gardens No.1 and Cn'dens Ho. 2 Sub-basin $7,580,000 1$7.401000) 10 Gardens No. 3 Sub-basin $11,597,000 ($11,597.000)
1J ;Johr,son neld SUb-baln. $20 . .f75.000 {520,475,0001 J2 MeadowwmNo. 1.S'ub-basift $5,126,000 ($5,126,000)
J! RanctrwoodNo.2Sti>-basffl $23,650,000 ($6,146.000)
J<f Skylark No. i SUb-bastn $12,145,000 ~12.145.000)
J5 Watmart No.1 S\11:,.-basln $7,230,000 ($7,Z30,000)
J6 Watmart No. 2 Sub-basin $12.792.000 {$12,792,000)
Storm Dram ReYenues not ttf Commftted 1':SJ.632!
TOTAL STORM DAAJHACilc FACIUTJ£S ~6!:.000 1~172,!!:66 632) G. TRAFFIC FAaUfflS
J Wa:rd Road l~cwemel\ts $8,095,566 $0
2 Place Road lmprcwements $512,709 $0
3 SR 165 Improvements $13,091,052 $0
.f Badg« Fial Road lmpravements $2,899,919 $0
5 Ca:pr( Avenue Jmpl'Ollenlllnb $2.429.922 $0
6 Dove Street lmprcwements $329,.fll $0
7 Pioneer Road lmp,rowments $2,613.483 $0
8 CMdoua Rd. Madison Ave. and Page Ave IJJ1J1011emenl.s $1,168,709 $0 9 Jntenectlon lmpcwements and Modifications SZ6.547,290 $0 JO Traffic Mas1er Plan $100,000 $0
JJ Utility Vehk:les and Eqa.pment $745,000 $0
Traffic Facilities Revenues not ~ Committed (~0809911
TOTAL TR.Ame FACJUTIES $58,539061 ($6,060,997)
H. GENERAL GOVERHMEN'T FACILmES IQ!)! Ha~ Cornmuntl)' Center Public: Factlltiet.. and ~ auon Yard ea~ ones have bHn col~Nd! 1 Ctty Han ~rtSion & Rehabl.Utation S7,249,0SO $0
z City Hall Pmdng Lot and LandscaJHTl9 $1,751.750 $0
3 CCUlcll Chamber Upgrade $200,000 $0
4 Network/Server Replac«nenl: $215.705 IS29,881l
5 Corporation Yard Expan:11ion $1.350,000 $0
Genera.I Gcwemment Fac,1/tia Revenues not ~ CommlttW (!2.144,238) TOTAL G£NERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES $10,766,505 ($2,174,119) TOTAL AU FACIUTIES $7751892,$94 IE;371
378 87.fl
111 2019 Needs List (Worldng Document)
121 Oevekipment Impact FUnd Batancaas ot f"GCal Year 2018-2019 End 01 AssumesMlljonty of Offsietttng Revenues will be applied to pay for debt 5er\'1Ce on the propoied Primal)' Sbltto!'I.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
S20o.ooo
$1,795.000
S>.29&000
$1.230,000
$350,000
$567,000
$161.000
$453,000
$100,000
$286,000
$28~000
$312.000
$350.000
S6.S40.000
S'J0,000
$250.000
$150,000
$200,000
$1012.300
SlOSS,000
$4.183.000
$4,898,000
$26,181000
SL604,000
$0
$0
$0
$910,000
l'SS.76~!!m
$49138413
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,363,000
$0
$179,000
$0
$0
$0
$11,504,000
$0
so
$0
IJ~Z!
~7.9!M.368
$8,095,566
S512.709
$13.097,0S:Z
$2..899,919
$2,429,922
$329,411
$2.613,ffl
$1,168.709
SZ:6.S47,290
$100,000
$745,000
t1§:080 !!1J
~2,458064
S7.2A9,0SO
$1.751.750
$200,000
$185.624
$13S0,000
l!Z,1441Z38!
$8,59~6
i:!38 5131121
59.48"
S9,48"
59.48X
59.48%
.......
59.48X
59.48"
59.48X
59.48"
59.48"
59,48X
59,48%
59.48X
59.48X
59.48X
59.48>:
S9.48X
59.48%
59,48%
59.48X
59.48X
59.48%
59.48X
59.48"
0.00"
o.oox
0.00,C
59.48X
54.78"
o.oox
o.oox
o.oox
o.oox
o.oox
0.00"
59.4!X
O.OOX
59'48%
o.oox
o.oox
o.oox
59.48X
O.OOX
0.00"
0.00"
59.40%
29.84"
29.84,C
29.84X
29.84%
29.84X
29.84X
29.84X
29.84X
29.84X
29.84X
29.84X
21.71"
Sl.27X
57.10X
59.381'
59.381'
29.691'
38.96"
47.18%
SECTION IV
NEEDS LIST
$118,958 Cs pit al Improvement Plan
$1,057,649 Capital Improvement Plan
$L366,Bl9 Capital Improvement Plan
$7Jl,$92 Capital Improvement Plan
$208,177 Capttal tmp,ovement Plan
$337,246 Capital fmprovem.nt Plan
$95.~1 Capital Improvement Plan
S269,440 Capital Improvement Plan
$59,479 Capital Improvement Plan
$170,UO Cspital lmprovement Plan
$170,110 Capital Improvement Plan
$185.575 Capital Improvement Plan
$208,177 Capital Improvement Plan
$3.889,930 Capital Improvement Plan
$4L6JS Capital Improvement Plan
$148,698 Capital Improvement Plan
$89,219 Capital lmpf'Ollefflfflt Plan
$118,958 Capital Improvement Plan
$602.106 Capital Improvement Plan
$627,504 Capital Improvement Plan
$2,488.009 Sewer Master~
S2.913,Z84 Sew-er Master Pian
$1S,S7Z,21Z SewerMastttPlan
$954,044 S.-rMastfffit.n
$0 sewe,MasterPl.ln
$0 Sewer Muter Plan
$0 Sewer Master fl!an
$516,947 Sewer Master Plan
l! S'16ias1.1
$27 48,762
$0 Stonn Drain Master Plan
$0 Storm Drain Master Plan
$0 Storm Dratn Muter Plan
$0 Storm DrainMastel"P\11.n
$0 Storm Dnifn Muter Aan
$0 Storm Dratn Master Plan
$6,163,815 StormDratnMasterPlan
$0 Stonn Drain.Master Plan
$106,468 Storm Drain Master Plan
$0 Storm Drain Master Plan
$0 Stonn Drain Master Plan
$0 Stonn Dra11'1 Muter Plan
$10,411.214 Storm Drain Master Plan
$0 Storm Dnllin Muter Aan
so Storm On,,in Ma.ster Ptan
so Storm DratnMasterAan
ISSl-63~
~629864
$2.415.633 Council Objective
$152,987 Council Objecttve
$3,908,025 Council Objective
$86S.306 Council Objective
$725,064 Council ObJecttve
$98,293 Council Objective
$779,836 Council Objective
$348,731 CounciObJective
$7,921.436 CouncilObJKtlve
$29.839 Capital Jmpr011ement Plan
$222.,00 Capital Improvement flan
li6Q!!Q22n
SU.3861
452
$3,861.379 Council Objective
$1.000,244 Council Objective
$118.767 Capital lmp,0\/e!Mf\l Plan
$110,349 Capital Improvement Ran
$400,840 Counci!Objec:ttve
Jg,144238)
$3.347.!"1
$206,883,276
December 31, 2019 / 17__:_
--
-
=
-
132
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
There are many methods or ways of calculating fees, but they are all based on determining the cost of needed improvements and assigning those costs equitably to various types of development. Each of the fee calculations, with the exception of parks and traffic, employs the concept of an Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") or Equivalent Benefit Unit ("EBU") to allocate benefit among the seven (7) land use classes. EDUs are a means of quantifying different land uses in terms of their equivalence to a residential dwelling unit, where equivalence is measured in terms of potential infrastructure use or benefit for each type of public facility. For many of the facilities considered in this Fee Study, EDUs are calculated based on the number of residents or employees ("Persons Served") generated by each land use class. Park Facilities have been evaluated according to the existing parks standard of
4.82 acres per 1,000 residents, as detailed in Section V and Appendix A-3. For Traffic Facilities, number of vehicle trips more accurately represent the benefit provided to each land use class and are demonstrated separately in Section V.
Table 7 below shows total existing and projected EDUs or EBUs by facility type. Notably, Persons Served equal Residents plus 50% of Employees and is a customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees.
Facility Type
Traffic
Fire
Police
Sewer
Storm Drainage
General Government
Water [11
Park Develo ment [2]
Table 7: Equivalent Dwelling Units
Service Factor
Persons Served and
/or Usage Factor
Acres per 1,000
Residents
Existing
EDU's/EBU's
13,282
30,853
11,290
Projected
EDU's/EBU's
5,622
17,571
4,768
(1) Special Case - the Surface Water Treatment Plant utilizes a separate sphere of influence EDU metric. 121 Park development fee calculations used only projected EBVs.
In determining a reasonable nexus for each specific type of public facility, OT A utilized one of the methodologies discussed below, depending upon the data and other information available from the City, and its current infrastructure policies. The fee methodologies employ the concept of an Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") to allocate benefit among various land use classes. EDUs are a means of quantifying different land uses regarding their equivalence to a residential dwelling unit, where equivalence is measured in terms of potential infrastructure use or benefit from each type of public facility.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
December 31, 2019/ is.
133
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
PLAN-BASED FEE METHODOLOGY
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
The Plan-based methodology used by OTA to establish the development impact fees used in this report is based on a "Plan," such as a Master Plan of Facilities, Capital Improvement Plan or City General Plan, which identifies a finite set of improvements. These facility plans generally identify a finite set of facilities needed by the public agency and are developed according to assessments of facilities needs prepared by staff and/or outside consultants and adopted by the public agency's legislative body. Using this Plan-Based approach, specific costs can be projected and assigned to all land uses planned, often with a specific time period in mind that reflects new development projections. By using population and commerciaVindustrial square footage numbers provided by the City and other sources, it is possible to assign development impact fee levels by percentage between new and existing development. This methodology was used to calculate Traffic, Fire, Police, Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage fees. In preparing an impact fee analysis, facilities costs can be allocated in proportion to the demand caused by each type of future development.
STANDARDS-BASED FEE METHODOLOGY
The Standards-based methodology used to establish the development impact fees used in this report are based on "standards" where costs are based on units of demand. This method establishes a generic unit cost for capacity, which is then applied to each land use per unit of demand. Park fees examined in this report are an excellent example of this type of fee structure. In this study, the Standards-based methodology is used to calculate Park Development fees. This methodology provides several advantages, including not needing to know the cost of a specific facility, how much capacity or service is provided by the current system or having to commit to a specific size of the facility.
The methodologies used for each specific facility are presented on the following page in Table 8. The Equivalent Dwelling Units for each specific facility are presented in Table 9.
The Facility Type of Traffic is not included in Table 9 because it is based on Trip Generation Rate rather than Equivalent Dwelling Units.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study _ ~ DecemW 3' 20191--19 134
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Table 8: City of Los Banos Methodology (By Facility Type) Traffic Plan-based Existing Infrastructure Plan Trip Generation Rate Fire Plan-based Existing Infrastructure Plan Persons Served Police Plan-based Existing Infrastructure Plan Persons Served Water Plan-based Existing Infrastructure Plan Persons Served Sewer Plan-based Existing Infrastructure Plan Persons Served Storm Plan-based Existing Infrastructure Plan Persons Served Draina e Parks Standards-based Existing Standard Acres per 1.000 residents General Plan-based Existing Infrastructure Plan Persons Served Government Table 9: City of Los Banos Equivalent Dwelling Units
Fire 13,282 5,622 42% 18,904
Police 13,282 5,622 42% 18,904
Parks 11,290 4,768 42% 16,058
Water* 13,282 5,622 42% 18,904
Sewer 13,282 5,622 42% 18,904
Storm Drainage 13,282 5,622 42% 18,904
General Government 11,290 4,768 42% 16,058
* Special Case - the Surface Water Treatment Plant utilizes a separate sphere of influence EDU metric.
The following sections present the reasonable relationship of benefit, impact, and rough proportionality tests for each fee element (i.e., fire facilities, police facilities, park facilities, water facilities, sewer facilities, storm drainage facilities, traffic facilities, and general government facilities) and the analysis undertaken to apportion costs for each type of facility on the Needs List. More detailed fee calculation worksheets for each type of facility are included in Appendix A
Importantly, given that the level of service ("LOS") requested for new development by the City is above the existing service level for certain types of facilities, the costs of the new City of Los Banos December 31, 2019/ -~
Development Impact Fee Justification Stud~- - _ 2 Q ____ - 135
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
facilities have been carefully apportioned between existing and new development in the following manner:
1. New development was assigned 100% of the cost for a LOS that is equivalent to the existing LOS within the City.
2. The cost of the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being requested by the City and the existing LOS was then allocated between existing development and new development, based on the relative number of EDVs assigned to existing development and new development.
City of l.os Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
136
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
A. FIRE FACILITIES
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
The Fire Facilities category includes those facilities required within the City to maintain adequate public safety services by the fire department. In order to serve new development through buildout. the City identified the need for additional Fire Station service points, an updated training facility, and vehicle and equipment replacements.
Table 10: Fire Facilities Element
Identify Purpose of Fee Fire Facilities.
To build additional fire facilities to service a growing area, Identify Use of Fee update training and refueling sites, and replace aging vehicles and equipment.
New residential and non-residential development will generate additional residents and employees who wm increase service Demonstrate how there is a calls and in tum increase the need for trained public safety reasonable relationship between personnel. Equipment and vehicles used to provide these the need for the public facility, the services will have to be purchased and replaced to meet this use of the fee, and the type of increased demand. Thus, a reasonable relationship exists development project on which the between the need for Fire Facilities and the impact of residential fee is imposed and non-residential development. The Fire Facility fees collected from new development will be used exclusively for public safety purposes as identified on the Needs List.
Table 11 identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the collection of Fire fees. The costs provided in Table 11 are based on estimates provided by the City.
Table 11: Fire Facilities Costs
Station 3 (Incl. Training Facility and EOC) $9,579,938
Fueling Station $545,000
Fire Vehicles $4,590,000
Equipment (SCBA Bottles, Radio Equipment, Jaws of Life and rel. tools) $341,639 Station 4 $4,800,000
Total $19,856,577
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
December 31, 20191
- 22
137
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
Calculation Methodology
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non-residential land uses as detailed in Appendix A-1. Each land use classification was assigned an EDU factor which was derived from the number of Persons Served, which again is defined as the persons per household (for residential units) and 50% of the number of employees per 1,000 building square feet of each category of non-residential development.
Importantly, given that the LOS requested for new development by the City is above the existing service level for certain types of facility, the cost of the new facilities has been carefully apportioned between existing and new development in the following manner:
1. New development was assigned 100% of the cost for a LOS that is equivalent to the existing LOS within the City.
2. The cost of the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being requested by the City and the existing LOS was then allocated between existing development and new development, based on the relative number of EDUs assigned to existing development and new development.
Fire Facilities
According to the City, it has been determined that these facilities are needed to serve new development. Station 3, importantly, has been allocated funding by the State of California pursuant to a desire to construct an Emergency Operations Center ("EOC") to serve the region. The EOC will be constructed in conjunction with a Regional Training Facility as an extension of Station 3. The costs of the new facilities have been allocated to new development and existing development based on their percentage of the expected facility usage at buildout. Consequently, the costs will be allocated to both existing development and new development, as outlined in the table below.
Table 12: Fire Facilities Cost Allocation Summary
Existing Development 29.38% $2,941,172
New Development 70.62% $7,070,845
Total 100.00% $10,012,017
City of Los Banos ~
Development Impact Fee Justification Study::_:___
December 31, 2019 I
/ -= 23
138
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
Fee Amounts
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Fee amounts to finance Fire Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table 13.
Please refer to Appendix A-1 for details regarding the derivation of this fee.
Table 13: Fire Facilities Fee Derivation Summary
EDUs per . Number of . . Fee per Umt/per . Cost Financed Land Use Type Umt/1,000 1 000 N -R SF Umts/Non-Res. B F Non-Res. S.F. • on es. • • 1,000 S.F. Y ees
Single Family Residential 1.00 $1,257.77 4,155 $5,225,927 Multi-Family Residential 0.80 $1,006.21 736 $740,867
Age Restricted Residential 0.54 $680.84 44 $29,957
Retail 0.57 $716.68 238 $170,610
Office 0.43 $537.51 910 $489,297
Institutional 0.21 $268.75 120 $32,191
Industrial 0.14 $179.17 2,132 $381,995
Total Facilities Cost: $19,856,577
Offsetting Revenues ($9,844,560)
Total Allocated to New Development: $7,070,845
Total Allocated to Existing Development $2,941,172
Net Cost to City: $10,012,017
Based on the development projections in Appendix A-1, the fee amounts presented in Table 13 will finance 70.62% of the net costs of the Fire Facilities identified on the Needs List. The remaining 29.38% of the net costs of facilities will be funded through other sources.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee J1:Jstification Study
December 31, 2019 . --~'-'- . I f 24
139
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
B. POLICE FACILITIES
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
The Police Facilities category includes those facilities required within the City to maintain adequate public safety services by the police department. In order to serve new development through buildout, the City identified the need for a new primary police station, a new animal shelter, and equipment and vehicle needs.
Table 14: Police Facilities Element
Identify Purpose of Fee Police Facilities.
Identify Use of Fee New primary police station, a new animal shelter, and replacement of vehicles and equipment.
New residential and non-residential development will
generate additional residents and employees who will
Demonstrate how there is a
increase service calls and in tum increase the need for reasonable relationship between trained public safety personnel. Equipment and vehicles the need for the public facility, used to provide these services will have to be purchased and replaced to meet this increased demand. Thus, a reasonable the use of the fee, and the type relationship exists between the need for Police Facilities and of development project on the impact of residential and non-residential development. which the fee is imposed The Police Facility fees collected from new development will be used exclusively for public safety purposes identified on the Needs List.
Table 15 below identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the collection of Police fees. The costs provided in Table 15 are based on estimates provided by the City.
Table 15: Police Facilities Costs
Primary Police Station $34,800,000
Animal Shelter $12,500,000
Range Facility $500,000
Fleet Vehicles $1,845,732
Firearms Stock $150,335
Total $49,796,067
City of Los Banos _
Development Impact F.ee Justification Study
December 31, 201·9_· I ~- -- 25
140
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
Calculation Methodology
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non-residential land uses as detailed in Appendix A-2. Each land use classification was assigned an EDU factor which was derived from the number of Persons Served, which again is defined as the persons per household (for residential units) and 50% of the number of employees per 1,000 building square feet of each category of non-residential development.
Importantly, given that the LOS requested for new development by the City is above the existing service level for certain types of facility, the cost of the new facilities has been carefully apportioned between existing and new development in the following manner:
1. New development was assigned 100% of the cost for a LOS that is equivalent to the existing LOS within the City.
2. The cost of the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being requested by the City and the existing LOS was then allocated between existing development and new development, based on the relative number of EDUs assigned to existing development and new development.
3. The Animal Shelter has been evaluated under a LOS methodology (#1 above) in an effort to conservatively allocate costs.
Police Facilities
According to the City, it has been determined that these facilities are needed to serve new development. Currently, existing facilities are generally operating at an appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore, the costs of the new facilities have been allocated to new development and existing development based on their percentage of the expected facility usage at buildout. Consequently, the costs will be allocated to both existing development and new development, as outlined in the table below.
Table 16: Police Facilities Cost Allocation Summary
D l t
~T Percentage·Anocated Facility Cost
eve opmen ype to New Development Allocated
Existing Development 73.37% $36,461,379
New Development 26.63% $13,234,688
Total 100.00% $49,696,067
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
December 31, 2019 /
c:-_ -=. 26
141
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
Fee Amounts
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Fee amounts to finance Police Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table 17.
Please refer to Appendix A-2 for details regarding the derivation of this fee.
Table 17: Police Facilities Fee Derivation Summary
EDVs per . Number of . . Fee per Umt/per . Cost Fmanced Land Use Type Umt/1,000 1 OOO N -R S F Umts/Non-Res. b F Non-Res. S.F. ' on es. • • 1,000 S.F. Y ees
Single Family Residential 1.00 $2,354.19 4,155 $9,781,506 Multi-Family Residential 0.80 $1,883.35 736 $1,386,701
Age Restricted Residential 0.54 $1,274.35 44 $56,071
Retail 0.57 $1,341.42 238 $319,336
Office 0.43 $1,006.07 910 $915,831
Institutional 0.21 $503.03 120 $60,252
Industrial 0.14 $335.36 2,132 $714,991
Total Facilities Cost: $49,696,067
Offsetting Revenues: ($100,000)
Total Allocated to New Development: $13,234,688
Total Allocated to Existing Development $36,461,379
Net Cost to City: $49,696,067
Based on the development projections in Appendix A-2, the fee amounts presented in Table 17 will finance 26.63% of the net costs of the Public Safety Facilities identified on the Needs List. The remaining 73.37% of the net costs of facilities will be funded through other sources.
City of Los Banos ~
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
142
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
C. PARK FACIUTIES
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
The Park Facilities category identifies facilities that will serve the City's residents by enhancing the community's appeal and quality of life. The Fee Study includes (i) the planning and design of parkland and recreational areas needed for park and recreational facilities, and (ii) the construction and development of park and recreational facilities, including sports fields, ball fields, soccer fields, trails, restrooms, and park beautification needed to serve new and existing residential development through buildout. Notably, DTA's analysis does not include park acquisition costs, which are determined separately by the City's Quimby Ordinance.
For purposes of this Study, the Park Facilities will serve only the residents of the City by providing facilities for recreation while enhancing the community's appeal and quality of life.
Table 18: Park Element
Identify Purpose of Fee Park Facilities.
The design, construction, and development of public park Identify Use of Fee and recreational facilities, including a recreational pool facility and skate park.
New residential development will generate an increased
Demonstrate how there is a
demand for Park Facilities.
reasonable relationship Population growth has a direct impact on the need for Park between the need for the public Facilities. New development and the consequential increase facility, the use of the fee, and in demand will necessitate the improvement/expansion of the type of development project existing Park Facilities. Fees collected from new development on which the fee is imposed will be used exclusively for park, recreational, and open space facilities identified here in Section V.
1. level of Service for Park Facilities
There are many methods or ways of calculating fees, but they are all based on determining the cost of needed improvements and assigning those costs equitably to various types of development. Fees for recreational and park facilities have been calculated utilizing both the "Standards-Based Approach" and the "Facility-Based Approach." The Standards-Based Approach utilizes a facility "standard" established for future development, against which facilities costs are determined based on "units of demand" or a "level of service" from a development. This approach establishes a generic unit cost for capacity, which is then applied to each land use type per unit of demand. This standard is not based on the cost of a specific existing or future facility, but rather on the cost of providing a certain standard of service, such as the 4.82 acres of park and recreational facilities per 1,000 residents, which is the current level City of Los Banos -; e::ber 31, 2019/
28 Development Impact Fee-.Justification Study
--
143
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
of service for the City. To meet the standard of service required, the City will need to develop new park land and open space. Therefore 100% of the costs of land acquisition and development will be allocated to new residential development. The table below summarizes the existing park and recreational facilities located within the City that meet the required standard of 4.82 acres of park and recreational facilities per 1,000 residents.
Table 19: City of Los Banos Existing Level of Service
Community Parks 88.71 2.24
Neighborhood Parks 90.94 2.29
Pocket Parks 11.38 0.29
Total: 191.03 4.82
2. Land Acquisition and Park Development Costs
Notably, land acquisition costs are dependent on the real estate market at the time of acquisition. Location, demand for land, encumbrances, comparable acquisitions, and construction costs are a few of the many variables that play into appraisals and negotiations. Each park has its own location and improvement requirements. OTA was able to identify general cost assumptions for new park development based on comparable data for the region. Please see Table 20 for more detail regarding the costs for new parks in the City.
Table 20: City of Los Banos Cost Assumptions for New Park Development $23,841
$23,119
$1,321
Park Development {Rounded)
Community Parks $406,265 / acre
Nei hborhood Parks $369,332 / acre
Pocket Parks $21,105 / acre
Additional Costs
Administration 5%
* In light of the City's Quimby Fee, Land Acquisition Costs have been excluded from this analysis at this time.
Using both the level of service and cost assumptions, OTA calculated a total of City of Los Banos ~ cember 31, 2019 /
Devel~1>-7:1ent Impact-Fee Justification Study _ -:; . 2 9 144
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
$32,768,223 for park development costs. Please see Appendix A-3 for more information.
3. Additional Park Improvement Costs
Furthermore, the City intends to expand and enhance existing City-owned facilities to accommodate increased demand. The Capital Improvement Plan and the Public Works Department have identified the need for the following park facilities improvements to serve the 16,735 total new residents within the City - a new recreational pool facility and skate park. The total cost for these facilities is currently estimated at $13,500,000. Please see Appendix A-3 for more detail on the costs and LOS associated with these facilities.
Table 21: Park Facilities Costs
Parks Cost
Recreational Pool Facility $12,000,000
Skate Park $1,500,000
Total $13,500,000
Calculation Methodology
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for residential land uses only, as detailed in Appendix A-3. Each land use classification was assigned an EDU factor which was derived from the number of persons per household.
Importantly, given that the LOS requested for new development by the City is above the existing service level for certain types of facility, the cost of the new facilities has been carefully apportioned between existing and new development in the following manner:
1. New development was assigned 100% of the cost for a LOS that is equivalent to the existing LOS within the City.
2. The cost of the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being requested by the City and the existing LOS was then allocated between existing development and new development based on the existing and future number of facility units per 1,000 residents.
Based on the development projections in Appendix A-3, 29.69% of the costs of the Recreational Pool Facility will be allocated to new development, and the remaining
70.31% will be allocated to existing development. Also based on the development projections in Appendix A, 59.38% of the costs of the Skate Park will be allocated to new City of Los Ban2s
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
Decem .... ,uo,. I 30
145
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
development, and the remaining 40.62% will be allocated to existing development.
Fee Amounts
Fee amounts to finance Park Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table 22.
Further details on the derivation of this fee are included in Appendix A-3.
Table 22: City of Los Banos
Fee Derivation Summary (Net of Administrative Component} Single Family 1.00 $7,028 4,155 $29,200,209 Residential Multi-Family 0.80 $5,622 589 $4,139,645 Residential
Age Restricted 0.54 $3,804 24 $167,387 Residential
Cost Allocated to New Development: $33,507,240
Based on the development projections in Appendix A-3, the fee amounts presented in Table 22 will finance $33,507,240 of Park Facilities.
City of Los ~§!nos
~ DevelopmeiiUmpact Fee Justification Study
Decembe'31, 2019 I 31
146
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
0. WATER FACILITIES
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
The Water Facilities category includes those facilities used by the City to provide basic water supply and distribution services to residents and employees within the City.
Table 23: Water Facilities Element
Identify Purpose of Fee Water Facilities.
Identify Use of Fee Improvements to certain facilities including but not limited to, water storage, supply, and distribution facilities.
Demonstrate how there New residential and non-residential development will generate an is a reasonable increased demand for Water Facilities.
relationship between the Population and growth have a direct impact on the need for Water need for the public facility, the use of the Facilities. Therefore, new development and the consequential increase in demand will necessitate the improvement/expansion of fee, and the type of existing facilities. Notably, fees collected from new development development project on will be used exclusively on Water Facilities identified in the Needs which the fee is imposed List.
Table 24 on the following page identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the fees. The costs provided in Table 24 are based on estimates provided by the City.
City of [ps Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
Decembe< 31, 2019 I 32
147
dta www. Finance OT A.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Table 24: Water Facilities Costs
Surface Water Treatment Plant (Incl. Chromium 6 Testing) $260,615,333 Groundwater Sustainability & Recharge Project $230,000
Valve Replacement $250,000
Water Lines $3,212,000
Well16 $1,620,000
Water Meters $398,528
Well Rehabilitation $1,560,000
Equipment $479,000
Storage Tanks and Booster Pumps $23,460,000
Groundwater Wells $11,340,000
Well Manifold System $10,815,000
Total $313,979,861
Calculation Methodology
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non-residential land uses as detailed in Appendix A-4.
The specific facilities required within the City were identified by the City and the Water Master Plan. OT A was able to determine the appropriate allocation of costs to new development based on the expected of usage of facilities at buildout. Accordingly,
52.17% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 47.83% of the costs will be allocated to new development as shown in Table 25 on the following page.
The Surface Water Treatment Plant, constituting approximately eighty-three percent (83.00%) of the Water Facilities Needs List, has been identified by the City as an essential item moving forward to meet growth demands and to ensure the continued livelihood of local residents. Included in the costs of the item are the anticipated costs of Chromium 6 testing and treatment. The state of California, and more specifically the State Water Resources Control Board, has identified the need to establish a hexavalent chromium maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water. While the Superior Court of Sacramento County invalidated the MCL established by the CDPH in 2017, the court also ordered the State Water Board to adopt a new MCL for hexavalent chromium.
It is anticipated that the new MCL will accompany a new timeline for compliance akin to Senate Bill 385 (SB385) which established said timeline in 2015 prior to the actions of City_of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study Decembe'31, 2019 I 33 148
dta
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
www.FinanceDTA.com
the Superior Court.
Table 25: Water Facilities Cost Allocation Summary
Existing Development 52.17% $103,010,857
New Development 47.83% $94,458,084
Total 100.00% $197,468,941
Fee Amounts
Fee amounts to finance Water Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table 26.
Further details regarding on derivation of this fee are included in Appendix A-4.
Table 26: Water Facilities Fee Derivation Summary
•••I
. II.
Land Use Type
EDUsper
Unit/1,000
Non-Res. S.F.
_ 'Fee per
,Unit/per
1,000 NonRes. S.F.
SWTP Fee
per Unit/per
1,000 NonRes. S.F.
Number of
Units/NonRes. 1,000
SWTP
Number of
Units/NonRes. 1,000
Cost Financed
by Fees
S.F. S.F.
Single Family 1.00 $1,384.06 $4,932.91 4,155 13.466 $72,177,444 Multi-Family 0.80 $1.107.25 $3,946.33 736 2,419 $10,361,980 Age Restricted 0.54 $749.21 $2,670.24 44 330 $913,662
Retail
Office
Institutional
Industrial
=
0.57 $788.64 $2,810.77 238 75 $398,430
0.43 $591.48 $2,108.08 910 2,771 $6,379.403
0.21 $295.74 $1,054.04 120 163 $207,684
0.14 $197.16 $702.69 2,132 5,122 $4,019,479
Total Facilities Cost: $313,979,861
Offsetting Revenues ($116,510,921)
Total Allocated to New Development: $94,458,084
Total Allocated to Existing Development: $103,010.857
Net Cost to City: $197,468,941
Based on the development projections in Appendix A-4. the fee amounts presented in Table 26 will finance 47.83% of the net costs of the Water Facilities identified on the Needs List. The remaining 52.17% of the net costs of facilities will be funded through other sources.
~pty of Los Banos Decembe, ,,, 2019 I
34 -Development Impact Fee Justification Study
149
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
E. SEWER FACILITIES
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
The Sewer Facilities category includes those facilities used by the City to provide basic water supply and distribution services to residents and employees within the City.
Table 27: Sewer Facilities Element
Identify Purpose of Fee Sewer Facilities.
Identify Use of Fee Improvements to certain facilities including but not limited to, wastewater storage, supply, and distribution facilities.
Demonstrate how there New residential and non-residential development will generate an is a reasonable increased demand for Sewer Facilities.
relationship between the Population growth has a direct impact on the need for Sewer need for the public facility, the use of the Facilities. Therefore, new development and the consequential fee, and the type of increase in demand will necessitate the improvement/expansion of development project on existing facilities. Notably, fees collected from new development which the fee is imposed will be used exclusively on Sewer Facilities identified in the Needs List.
Table 28 on the following page identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the fees. The costs provided in Table 28 are based on estimates provided by the City.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
December 31, 2019/ 35 __ -,
150
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Table 28: Sewer Facilities Costs
Sewer Facilities Cost
Sewer Line Replacement $200.000
Nantes Storm Basin $1,795.000
Central City Sub-basin $2.298.000
B Street Storm Basin $1,230,000
Pump Station Rehabilitation $350,000
Jefferson Storm Line $567,000
Murrieta Storm Line $161,000
Pacheco Storm Line $453,000
Citrus Second Storm Line $100,000
H - Illinois Storm Line $286,000
H - Nevada Storm Line $286,000
Jo-Line Park Manor Pump Station $312,000
Crest Hills Pump Station Rehabilitation $350,000
WWf P Headworks $6,615,000
Groundwater Study $70,000
WWfP - Sludge Removal $250,000
WWf P - Cold Mix Overlay $150,000
Potable Water Line to wwrP $200,000
Solar Bee Additions $1,012,300
Equipment $1,055,000
Wastewater Treatment Plant $4,183,000
Pioneer Trunk $9,303,000
North Trunk $31,681,000
Meadowlands $1,604,000
Vineyard Trunk $1,049,000
Southeast Trunk $822,000
College Trunk $360,000
West Trunk $9,083,000
Total $75,825,300
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
December 31, 2019/
3-6-.
151
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
Calculation Methodology
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non-residential land uses as detailed in Appendix A-5.
The specific facilities required within the City were provided by the City's engineer. OTA was able to determine the appropriate allocation of costs to new development based on the expected usage of facilities as well as numerous discussions with City staff.
Accordingly, 45.22% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 54.78% of the costs will be allocated to new development as shown in Table 29 below.
Table 29: Sewer Facilities Cost Allocation Summary
Existing Development 45.22% $22,489,651
New Development 54.78% $27,248,762
Total 100.00% $49,738,413
Fee Amounts
Fee amounts to finance Sewer Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table 30.
Further details regarding on derivation of this fee are included in Appendix A-5.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study Decembe, 31, 20191 37 152
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Table 30: Sewer Facilities Fee Derivation Summary
Land Use Type
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Age Restricted Residential
Retail
Office
Institutional
Industrial
EDUs per
Unit/1,000
Non-Res.
S.F.
1.00 0.80
0.54 0.57
0.43 0.21
0.14 Fee per Unit/per
1,000 Non-Res.
S.F.
$4,847.02
$3,877.62
$2,623.74
$2,761.84
$2,071.38
$1,035.69
$690.46
Number of
Units/Non-Res.
1,000 S.F.
4,155
736
44 238
910
120
2,132
Total Facilities Cost:
Offsetting Revenues
Total Allocated to New Development:
Total Allocated to Existing Development
Net Cost to City:
Cost
Financed by
Fees
$20,139,042
$2,855,065
$115,445
$657,477
$1,885,595
$124,052
$1,472,087
$75,825,300
($26,086,887)
$27,248,762
$22,489,651
$49,738.413
Based on the development projections in Appendix A-5, the fee amounts presented in Table 30 will finance 54.78% of the net costs of the Sewer Facilities identified on the Needs List. The remaining 45.22% of the net costs of facilities will be funded through other sources.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
DecemW 31, 20191-
38 -
153
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
F. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
The Storm Drainage Facilities category includes those facilities used by the City to provide storm drainage services to residents and employees within the City.
Table 31: Storm Drainage Facilities Element
Identify Purpose of Fee Storm Drainage Facilities.
Identify Use of Fee Improvements to certain facilities including storm drainage facilities.
Demonstrate how there New residential and non-residential development will generate an is a reasonable increased demand for Storm Drainage Facilities. relationship between the Population growth has a direct impact on the need for Storm need for the public Drainage Facilities. Therefore, new development and the facility, the use of the consequential increase in demand will necessitate the fee, and the type of improvement/expansion of existing facilities. Notably, fees development project on which the fee is imposed collected from new development will be used exclusively on Storm Drainage Facilities identified in the Needs List.
Table 32 on the following page identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the fees. The costs provided in Table 32 are based on estimates provided by the City.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
December 31, 2019 I ··~ I 39)~
154
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Table 32: Storm Drainage Facilities Costs
Airport No. 1 Sub-basin $778,000
Airport No. 2 Sub-basin $3,968,000
Citrus Terrace Sub-basin $67,000
College Greens No. 1 Sub-basin $12,401,000
College Greens No. 2 Sub-basin $6,029,000
Creekside No. 1 Sub-basin $10,085,000
Creekside No. 2 Sub-basin $63,923,000
Crest Hills Sub-basin $3,015,000
Gardens No.1 and Gardens No. 2 Sub-basin $7,580,000
Gardens No. 3 Sub-basin $11,597,000
Johnson Field Sub-basin $20,475,000
Meadowlands No. 1 Sub-basin $5,126,000
Ranchwood No. 2 Sub-basin $23,650,000
Skylark No. 2 Sub-basin $12,145,000
Walmart No. 1 Sub-basin $7,230,000
Walmart No. 2 Sub-basin $12,792,000
Total $200,861,000
Calculation Methodology
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non-residential land uses as detailed in Appendix A-6.
The specific facilities required within the City were provided by the City's engineer. DT A was able to determine the appropriate allocation of costs to new development based on the expected usage of facilities at buildout. Accordingly, 40.60% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 59.40% of the costs will be allocated to new development as shown in Table 33 on the following page.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
December 31, 2019. ;-:=-
::: 4t>
155
'
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Table 33: Storm Drainage Facilities Cost Allocation Summary Existing Development 40.60% $11,364,504
New Development 59.40% $16,629,864
Total 100.00% $27,994,368
Fee Amounts
Fee amounts to finance Storm Drainage Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table 34. Further details regarding on derivation of this fee are included in Appendix A-6.
Table 34: Storm Drainage Facilities Fee Derivation Summary EDUs per Fee per Unit/per Number of Cost Financed Land Use'Type Unit/1,000 1,000 Non-Res. Units/Non-Res. by Fees Non-Res. S.F. S.F. 1,000 S.F.
Single Family Residential 1.00 $2,958.13 4,155 $12,290,816 Multi-Family Residential 0.80 $2,366.50 736 $1,742,440
Age Restricted Residential 0.54 $1,601.27 44 $70,456
Retail 0.57 $1,685.54 238 $401,257
Office 0.43 $1,264.16 910 $1,150,775
Institutional 0.21 $632.08 120 $75,709
Industrial 0.14 $421.39 2,132 $898,412
Total Facilities Cost: $200,861,000
Offsetting Revenues ($172,866,632}
Total Allocated to New Development: $16,629,864
Total Allocated to Existing Development $11,364,504
Net Cost to City: $27,994,368
Based on the development projections in Appendix A-6, the fee amounts presented in Table 34 will finance 59.40% of the net costs of the Storm Drainage Facilities identified on the Needs List. The remaining 40.60% of the net costs of facilities will be funded through other sources.
City of Los Banos =
Development Impact Fee Justification Study "'""
December 31, 2019/
41 156
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
G. TRAmC FACILITIES
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
The Circulation Element of the General Plan includes facilities necessary to provide safe and efficient vehicular access throughout the City. In order to meet the traffic demand of new development through buildout, the City identified the need for new road construction and equipment as shown in the Needs List.
Table 35: Traffic Facilities Element
Identify Purpose of Fee Traffic Facilities.
Various roadway improvements including, but not
Identify Use of Fee limited to, intersection and road widening modifications.
New residential and non-residential development will
Demonstrate how there generate additional residents and employees who will is a reasonable create additional vehicular and non-vehicular traffic relationship between within the City limits. Streets will have to be improved or extended to meet the increased demand and traffic the need for the public signals will have to be installed to efficiently direct facility, the use of the increased traffic flow. Thus, there is a relationship fee, and the type of between new development and the need for new development project on traffic facilities. Fees collected from new development which the fee is imposed will be used exclusively for traffic facilities on the Needs List.
Table 36 on the following page identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the fees collected for Traffic Facilities. The costs provided in Table 36 are based on estimates provided by the City and validated by TJKM Transportation Consultants.
City of Los Banos ""---
Development Impact Fee Justification Studi~ D=mW 3> 2019 I 42 157
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Table 36: Traffic Facilities Cost
Ward Road Improvements $8,095,566
Place Road Improvements $512,709
SR 165 Improvements $13,097,052
Badger Flat Road Improvements $2,899,919
Capri Avenue Improvements $2,429,922
Dove Street Improvements $329,411
Pioneer Road Improvements $2,613,483
Cardoza Rd, Madison Ave, and Page Ave Improvements $1,168,709 Intersection Improvements and Modifications $26,547,290 Traffic Master Plan $100,000
Utility Vehicles and Equipment $745,000
Total $58,539,061
Calculation Methodology
As discussed previously, Traffic Facilities benefit residents and employees by providing safe and efficient vehicular access throughout the City. As a result, the traffic fee is calculated for both residential and non-residential land uses, details of which may be found in Appendix A-7.
Fees for roads and traffic signals were calculated for each of the seven (7) land use categories based on the number of PM Peak Hour Trips generated by each land use.
Total average trips were calculated by applying these trip rates to the various dwelling unit counts and non-residential square feet identified in the demographics section of this report. The total facilities cost was then divided by the total number of trips to establish a uniform cost per trip. This unit cost was then applied to the various land uses and their respective trip generation rates to determine the proposed fees.
Expected revenue from new development was also calculated as a check, ensuring that collected fees match the calculated cost responsibility of new development.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual provides trip generation rates for the different land uses. These rates are estimates and subject to change; rates have been generally confirmed and approved by TJKM Transportation Consultants.
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification.Study
158
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Table 37: Traffic Facilities Cost Allocation Summary
Existing Development 78.29% $41,071,612
New Development 21.71% $11,386,452
Total 100.00% $52,458,064
Fee Amounts
Fee amounts to finance Traffic Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table 38 below.
Again, details regarding the analysis related to Traffic Facilities are included in Appendix A7.
Table 38: Traffic Facilities Fee Derivation Summary
$1,303.58 $5,416,294
Multi-Family Residential $903.11 $664,953
Age Restricted Residential 0.54 $703.93 44 $30,973
Retail 4.98 $6,495.18 238 $1,546,230
Office 1.00 $1,300.86 910 $1,184,184
Institutional 1.21 $1,574.04 120 $188,535
Industrial 0.85 $1,104.71 2,132 $2,355,283
Total Facilities Cost: $58,539,061
Offsetting Revenues ($6,080,997)
Total Allocated to New Development: $11,386,452
Total Allocated to Existing Development: $41,071.612
Net Cost to City: $52,458,064
Based on the development projections in Appendix A-7, the fee amounts presented in Table 38 will finance 21.71% of the net costs of the traffic facilities identified on the Needs List.
The remaining 78.29% of the net costs of facilities will be funded through other sources.
City of Los Banos __
Development Impact Fee Justification Study
December 31, 20 19 I ~ =- ; 44
159
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
H. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
The General Government Facilities category includes library facilities and other facilities used by the City to provide general governmental services.
Table 39: General Government Facilities Element
Identify Purpose of General Government Facilities. (Combined fee for Corporate Fee Yard, City Hall, Public Facilities and Community Center).
City Hall expansion and rehabilitation, plus other facilities used by the City to provide general governmental services.
Identify Use of Fee Table 40 identifies those facilities that serve all residents, employees, and development within the City, regardless of location.
Demonstrate how New residential and non-residential development in the City there is a reasonable will generate additional residents and employees who will relationship between increase the demand for City Hall and general government the need for the functions. Population and growth have a direct impact on public facility, the the need for government services and facilities, thus a use of the fee, and reasonable relationship exists between new development the type of and government facilities, which will have to be acquired to development project meet the increased demand. Fees collected from new on which the fee is development will be used exclusively for General imposed Government Facilities on the Needs List.
Table 40 below identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with fees.
Table 40: General Government Facilities Element
City Hall Expansion and Rehabilitation $7,249,050
City Hall Parking Lot and Landscaping $1,751,750
Council Chamber Upgrade $200,000
Network/Server Replacement $215,705
Corporation Yard Expansion $1,350,000
Total $10,766,505
City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justifiaation Study
160
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
Calculation Methodology
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
According to the City, it has been determined that these facilities are needed to serve new development. Currently, these facilities are generally operating at an appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore, the costs of facilities have been allocated to new development and existing development based on their percentage of their expected facility usage at buildout.
Importantly, given that the LOS requested for new development by the City is above the existing service level for certain types of facility, the cost of the new facilities has been carefully apportioned between existing and new development in the following manner:
1. New development was assigned 100% of the cost for a LOS that is equivalent to the existing LOS within the City.
2. The cost of the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being requested by the City and the existing LOS was then allocated between existing development and new development, based on the relative number of EDUs assigned to existing development and new development.
General Government Facilities
According to the City, it has been determined that these facilities are needed to serve existing and new development. The costs will be allocated to both existing development and new development, as presented in Table 41 below.
Table 41: General Government Facilities - Buildings Cost Allocation Summary Existing Development 61.04% $5,245,045
New Development 38.96% $3,347,341
Total 100.00% $8,592,386
Fee Amounts
Fee amounts to finance General Government Facilities on the Needs List are presented in Table 42. Details regarding the analysis related to General Government Facilities are included in Appendix A-8.
City of Los Banos
Development:Impact Fee Justification Study
Decem_ber 31, 2019/
-~· 46
161
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTIONV
METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
Table 42: General Government Facilities Fee Derivation Summary EDUs per Fee per Unit/per Number of C t F' d . . os 1nance Land Use Type Umt/1,000 1,000 Non-Res. Umts/Non-Res. b F y ees Non-Res. S.F. S.F. 1,000 S.F.
Single Family Residential 1.00 $702.07 4,155 $2,917,072 Multi-Family Residential 0.80 $561.66 736 $413,546
Age Restricted Residential 0.54 $380.04 44 $16,722
Retail 0.00 $0.00 0 $0
Office 0.00 $0.00 0 $0
Institutional 0.00 $0.00 0 so
Industrial 0.00 $0.00 0 $0
Total Facilities Cost: $10,766,505
Offsetting Revenues ($2,174,119}
Total Allocated to New Development: $3,347,341
Total Allocated to Existing Development $5,245,045
Net Cost to City: $8,592,386
Based on the development projections in Appendix A-8, the fee amounts presented in Table 42 will finance 38.96% of the net costs of the General Government facilities identified on the Needs list. The remaining 61.04% of the net costs of facilities will be funded through other sources.
City of Los Banos ___
Development Impact ~e Justification Study "2mbe, 3' 2019 I 47 162
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SECTION VI
SUMMARY OF FEES
The total fee amounts required to finance new development's "fair share" of the costs of facilities in the Needs Lists are summarized in Table 43 below.
Table 43: City of Los Banos Development Impact Fee Summary Single Family $1,258 $2,354 $7,028 $6,317 $4,847 $2,958 $1,304 $702 $803 $27,571 Multi-family $1,006 $1,883 $5,622 $5,054 $3,878 $2,367 $903 $562 $638 $21,913 Age Restricted $681 $1,274 $3,804 $3,419 $2,624 $1,601 $704 $380 $435 $14,923 Retail $717 $1,341 $0 $3,599 $2,762 $1,686 $6,495 $0 $498 $17,098 Office $538 $1,006 $0 $2,700 $2,071 $1,264 $1,301 $0 $266 $9,146 Institutional $269 $503 $0 $1,350 $1,036 $632 $1,574 $0 $161 $5,524 Industrial $179 $335 $0 $900 $690 $421 $1,105 $0 $109 $3,740 City of Los Banos
Development Impact Fee Justification Study .
-~ December 31, 2019/
-. 48
163
APPENDIX A
Fee Derivation
Worksheets
164
dta/
l
,_1·· :; , !'I
11111:
i 111· 1, ,.1
I' I i'
1 l
1 1iil 1r:
"'"' .
Land Use Tvoe
MU ifamily
Sln~·Ie Family
AQ Restricted
Retail
Office
lnstltut!onal
Industrial
Total
........ , .... . . -~1•11 ~ . ~ . Factlltv Tvoe
Station 3 (Incl. Training Fac!llty and EOC)
Fueling Station
Fire Vehicles
Engines
Specialized Vehicles
Command Vehicles
Trallers
Equipment (SCBA Bottles, Radio Equipment. Jaws of Life and rel. tools) SCBA Air Bottles
Breathing Apparatus
Defibrillator
Hurst Cutters
Hurst Pumps
Hurst Ram
Hurst Spreader
Hurst Combo T oo/s
Mask
Radio Equipment
Radio
Mobile Radio
Portable radio-Bendix King
Portable Radio (price point 400)
Portable Radio 2 (price point 933)
Portable Radio J (price point BOO)
Station 4
Offsettlna Revenues
T otaf Cost or Fire Facllltles
. ; ... . ,. •1 ■ •t1 •1i1 1:.:,,au• ~1••~111 '
A.1 Station 3 (Incl. Training Facility and EOC)
[al
Existing
Integrated Faclllty
1,000 EDUs
015
[a]
Number of Units
/ 1,000 Non-Res. SF
4,155
736
44 238
910
120
2,132
auantttv
1 20,000
5 2
4 2
105
40 5
3 3
3 2
3 50
4 2
8 9
23 21
7 1
tl..-r 11 J
lnJ Total Future
EDU's
b,622
APPENDIX A-1
CITY OF LOS BANOS
FIRE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
[bl lei Residents per Unit/ Employees EDUs per Unit
cer 1,000 Non-Re. SF / oer 1 000 Non-Res. SF
3.51 1.00
2.81 0.80
1.90 0.54
200 0.57
1.50 0.43
0.75 0.21
0.50 0.14
Facllltv Units Facllll'Y Cost
Integrated Facility $4,579,938
Square Feet $545,000
Units $4,490,000 I
$2,400,000
$1,800,000
$90,000
$300,000
Units $341,639 I
$126,000
$14,000
$6,500
$33,000
$3,000
$21,000
$15,000
$30,000
$32,000
$2,232
$706
$14,736
$9,072
$9,200
$19,593
$5,600
Integrated Facility $4,800,000
1$4 744,5601
$10,012,017
icl \di
Integrated Facility Allor.•tod 100';(, Proposed ;",P.tVICt~ To Ne.w ()ev"l)lopment r3] $~ ncjard Per
rat•lbl 1,000EDU'•
0. 8!-. C,18
A2 Integrated Faclllty Beyond Existing Service Standard split Between New and Extsttng, plus Facility UT'lltS allocated 1009Ei to New Oevelopmem lntogreted Fadllty :;put
Number of Perr..eota5Je ofTot,tl 9"tw,,<m NP.wand Existing DeveinfVnent EDUs EDU~ o.w.1--m,t
Exi!>ting 13.2R2 10. ?.(,'/I, o,, NAW DevelmJm~nt !},h21 2'174')1', 0.0~- Total 1890'.{ 100 0(..1';"1 011'
~
~.3 cost Allocated Between Existing and NeiN ~~ent . t:.: ,,, Total Number or f'erc:«llage nl
Develnrvn°nt lnt~ ed raclll•u Cost AllncatBd Facilll" cost Existing 0.11 1Q 7g'lf, $493,782
Nev,, Develoament OG9 ll9.2ZX. $4,086.156
I l'ol~I i.M . 10iioo<L '4 51'/0 JR
[d]
Total
Number of EDUs
lal'lcl
4,155
589
24 136
389
26 304
5 622
ouanmv per 1 000 EDU's
0.18 3,557.61
2.31 0.89
0.36 0.71
0.36 61.23
18.68 7.12
0.89 0.53
0.53 0.53
0.36 0.53
8.89 0.71
0.36 1.42
1.60 4.09
3.74 1.25
0.18 fci 111 !:,I
lntoqratoo rocmty ~, EDU Integrated Faclllty Beyond ExlstlnQ Total Prop0:.ed Beyond Exl~,Ung StJrvlce Standard [,C.) New lntegratlffl Faclllty lcil--lai lbt l,,111000 1;,1, 111
oo, 01!-i 1.00
Integrated F""lllty
Allocated 100,,. To Total lnt49rat~ Feclllty
N~ Dew-lnNnflnt Allocated
NI/\. r:i.11
Q.R~ (J.A9
100
165
dta/
l ii
C.1 Fueling Station
APPENDIX A-1
CITY OF LOS BANOS
FIRE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
[a] [bl [c] [d] [e] [fj [g]
.. Existing Total Future Allocated 100% Proposed Service Square Feet per EDU Square Feet Beyond Existing Total Proposed 'l·I Square Feet EDU's To New Development (31 Standard Per Beyond Extstlng Service Standard {4J New Square Feet I ~ 1.000 EDUs a *lb 1,000 EDU's Jd -la b • e / 1000 c +
0.00 , ,1122. 0.00 3,557.61 20,000.00 20,000.00
C.2 Square Feet Beyond Existing Service Standard Spilt Between New and Existing, plus Faclllty Units allocated 100% to New Development Square Feet Split Square Feet
Number of Percentage of Total Between New end Existing Allocated 10011 To Total Square Feet Develonment EDUs EDUs DeveloDment New Oevetonment Allocated Existing 13.282 70.26% 14,052.09 N/A 14.052.09
New Oevelot::.ment 5,622 2974% 5,947.91 0.00 5,947.91
II:2!•1 18903 100.00% 20,000.00 20000.00
C,3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of Devell"\ftment Scuare Feet Cost Allocated Faclllt'II Cost Existing 14,052.09 7026% $382,920
New Develooment 5,947.91 29 74% $162,080
Total 20 000 00 100.00% $545 .. 000
I)?~ Vetuc,e f:ieptacAment
[al [bl Ir] [d] [el Ill [gJ
Existing Total Future UnltS; Allocated 1~ Proposed Sofvlce Units per EDU Units Beyond Existing Total Proposed Units EDU's T n New Developm..nt [3] Standard Per Beyond Exl<tlng Service Standard [~! New Units 1 000 EDUs la l•l b l 1 OOOEDU's ld l-la l lblRlf'! l /1000 lc:J-. lf'r
1.2ll 5.612 7.'l.C .,_31 1,03 580 13.00
0.2 Square Foot Beyond Exl~tlng Service Standard Split Between New (Ind Existing, plus Facility Units alkx:ated 100" to New Oevetopment Units Split Units
Number a( Powtntoge QI' Total Between Ne.w and Exlstlrl{I AIIOC8ted 100% To Total Units Dcvelooment EDUs mu, Dev-•- ent New0..,,""""'ent Allocated f-xisting 13,282 70 16% 4.08 N/A 408
,NcY,, Dcvcloomenl 5,622 ;,1,1 -, , ~ 173 7.20 891
rot~I 18903 100 00% 5.80 1300
I I ii 1 · 1111 li!il!i lj:
I_D.3 ~ost Allocatod Betweefl Existing end New Development jDc\ll!lnoment
Total Number cl Percentage rA
New Units Cost Allocated Faclll"'Cost
11£:<lsllrlq 408 31 3711 $1,408.527
: ~-N,..'w Dc..-vcloprncnt 8.92 68.63% $3,081,473
- r'l"lrilL - 1100 1 J
j ;i
166
l11:I r•fita /
i;l\i 1!1i11I 11
'
E,1 Equipment
• '11 [a]
Existing
Units
1 000 EDUs
21 68
[bl
Total Future
mu·,
,., 5622
APPENDIX A-1
CITY OF LOS BANOS
FIRE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
!t:J Id)
Units Allocated 1oo,; J,-oposedSO<vice
To New Development f3l Standard Per ,1.,l•lt,1 1 OOOEDU's 121 QQ 51l3
E.2 Square Feet Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units ••=•ed 1oo,; to New Developmenl Units Spill
Number of hrCBntegc ol T ot, 1 Betw11r.n New and Ex~ tlng Develnft!"ent EOU. FDIJ•
Existing °"""""""""' $ " 13,282 10,o'l< 11 6 10
New Dev~roriment 5,622 ~ 49 40
t otal 18,<103 ,,- • 10(} t ~ ! ~ 10
E.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Pe«:entAge ot
Develol)fnent New Units COS! Alloc4ted FecllltVCost
Exi~ting ._..,_, 11 6.70 ,. 4052% :, t'l ~ ,n ~
New Develooment 171 .30 5948% iio:u o-t
Total ,288.00 100,0<l'l' . D 41 63~
f I ~tallo.~ 4
la! fb] le) [d)
Exlstlng Total Fllture cost Allocated Allocated 100% Proposed Service Integrated Facility EDU's To New Development [3] Standard Per 11 000 EDUs l•l'lbi 11000EDU's
0.15 56;/_2 _ 0.85 0.18
F.2 Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Service Standard Spllt Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development I' l
·\ii
iii
I
Integrated Facility Spill
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing
Develo001ent EDUs EDUs Devel,_..,..ent
Existing 13.262 70 261!!\ 011
New Develo11rnent s.6:.a :LY74% 0,05
Total 18,903 100.00% 0.15
ii I" ·1·1 I 'I' lii 1 lt: F.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Number of Percentage of
Oevelonment lnt~ ted Fecllltv Cost Allocated Facllltu Cost Existing 0.11 10.18% $&17,508
New Develor:iment 0.89 89.22% S<,282 492
Total 1.00 100.omr $4 800000
.. , .... Cost Allocated 100% Total
Faclllt"Y Type To New Oevelocrnent Future EDUs
Fire Facllltles $11,815.405 5,622
OffsettlM Revenues f$4 744 560} 5,622
Total $7,070,846
• UH t . • , ,-.,1•
EOU, per Unit/ Fees per Unit/ Number of Units/
Land Use Time 1.000 Non-Res. SF 1 000 Non-Res, SF 1 000 Non-Res. SF Single Family 1.00 $1,251.77 4,155
Multifamily 0.80 $1,006.21 736
Age Restricted 0.54 $680.84 44
Retail 0.57 $716,68 238
Office 0.43 $537,51 910
Institutional 0.21 $268.75 120
Industrial 0.14 $179.17 2,132
Total Allocated to New Development
Outside Fundinri Responsibilit'I'
Total Cost of Fire Facllltles
1l
1•1 ID lg! Units per EOU Units Beyond Existing Total Proposed Beyond Existing ' Service Standard [41 New-Units
Mi-lal lbl•fel 11000 khlff )955 16610 28800
Ur>lts
Allocated 1oo-Jg To Total Units
New Develcoment Allocated
NIA 116.10
i 2L90 17L30
.:t8800
l•I 1r1 [g]
Cost Allocated per EDU Cost Allocated Beyond Existing Total Proposed Beyond Existing Service Standard [-41 New Integrated Faclllty ldl-1•1 ibl'l•l 11000 lcH!I 0.03 0.15 - ___ .l_Q()_
Integrated Faclllty
Allocated 100% To Total Integrated Faclllty
New Development Allocated
NIA 0,11
0.85 0.89
100
Cost per
EDU
$2,101.73
<$843.96l
$1 267,77
Cost Financed by
DIF
$5,225,927
$740,867
$29,957
$170,610
$489,29)
$32,191
$381,995
$7,070,845
$2,941,172
$10 012,017
167
Ii, IHI id.ta/
l\1 11i,1.111 ,:
1 :i 111
1 \
,1, II'' '
Faclllt\' Tv~ Ou•n!l!v
Primary Station 0
Animal Shelter 2,600
Ranqe Facility 2
Fleet Vehicles 50
Firearms Stock 250
Police Facilities
,_ OH i . [a]
Number of Units
Land Use Tvoe I Non-Res. 1,000 SF
Single Family 9.758
Multifamily 1,753
Age Restricted 239
Retail 555
Office 2,123
I nstitutlonal 279
Industrial 4,973
Total
FacllllV Tvoe Quantltv
Primary Station 0
Animal Shelter 2,600
Range Facility 2
Fleet Vehicles 50
Firearms Stock 250 I I
Police Facilities
• . . lal Number of Units
Land Use Tvoe I Non-Res. 1,000 SF
I i ' i r ~ ! I
S11"\Q le Family 4,155
~.~ t!family 736 1 ft:9t Restricted 44
Retail 238
Office 910
Institutional 120
Industrial 2,132
Total
• • I 11,,-,::,,.1 . . .. • 1. I
Facllltv Tvoe auantuv
Primary Station [1] 42,000
Animal Shelter 12,943
Range Facility 2.25
Fleet Vehicles 50
Firearms Stock 250
Offsettlno Revenues 11 1
Total Cost of Pollce Facllltles
1/
APPENDIX A-2
CITY OF LOS BANOS
POLICE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Facllltv Units
Square Feet
Square Feet
Acres
Units
Units
[bl [cl
Persons Served per Unit EDUs per Unit
/ 1,000 Non-Res. SF / Per 1,000 Non-Res. SF
3.51 1.00
2.81 0.80
1.90 0.54
2.00 0.57
1.50 0.43
0.75 0.21
0.50 0.14
Ouantltv
Facllltv Units per 1,000 EDUs
Square Feet 0.00
Square Feet 195.76
Acres 0.17
Units 3.76
Units 18.82
lbl lei Employees per EDUs per Unit
Non-Res. 1,000 SF / ner 1,000 Non-Res. SF
3.51 1.00
2.81 0.80
1.90 0.54
2.00 0.57
1.50 0.43
0.75 0.21
0.50 0.14
Faclllrv Units Facllltv Cost
Square Feet $34,800,000
Square Feet $12,500,000
Acres $500,000
Units $1,745,732
Units $150,335
$0
$49 696 067
Id! Total
Number of EDUs
lal'lcl
9,758
1,402
129
316
907
60 708
13,282
Id]
Total
Number of EDUs
lal' lcl 4,155
589
24 136
389
26 304
6622
Quantity
per 1,000 ED Us
7.470.98
2,302.31
0.40 8.89
44.47 168
'
dta/
:11 ,II
•lllf'".JlliliI•ll .:i.•
k l Pi'lrimrv Station 111
lal
Extst109 SQuare Feet
IK!f l,OOOEDUs
·o.oo
.. lbl
Total Future
EDUs
S.6-.n
APPENDIX A-2
CITY OF LOS BANOS
POLICE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
kl SQuore Feet Allocated 100%
To New Development
hrl .. 1!21 O._QQ
ldl Proposed Service
Standard per
1&9()EOUs
7 470.98
A.2 Square Feet Beyond Existing Service Standard Spilt Between New and Exlstlnq, plu,, F•cllltv Units allocatod 100'l! to New o...,elopmenl sauoro Fent SPIit
Number or PercentaQa of rota! B&rw.-n New and histtnu
Oevelot>ment EDU's EDU'• Oevetooment
Existing 13,,/87 ;o :u,~ :!9 0!n4O
New Deve!ol!1ment .6 2 2? 1'4 11: 17,490.60
Total 18.903 10000,-,, 42.000.0G
A.3 Cost Allocated Between Exlstlnq and New Development TotatNumberof PercMtaoe of
Develor,ment SQuare Feet Cost Allocated Fad ll!Y Cost
Exl\tlng 29.~i09.-40 10 L6,._ Sl~ASO,644
New Development 12.490.60 ,? ff!> Slt').:'.4Q :~56
Tpral 42000·= lOO'OO'll, D•.800.000
8 .1 AnlmalShelter
[a] [bl !cl [d]
1l
ExlstlnQ Total Future Allocated 100% Proposed Service
Square Feet per EOU's To New Development Standard per
1,000 EDU's a'b 1,000EDU's
195.76 5,622 110052 2 302.31
B.2 Square Feet Beyond ExlstlnQ Service Standard Spllt Between New and ExlstlnQ, plus Facllltv Units allocated 100'6 to New Development Square Feet Split
il·!1H, ""'-elooment
Number of PercentaQe of Total Between New and ExlstlnQ
EDUs EOUs Develonment
Existing 13.282 70.26% 8,320.59
New Develonment 5,622 29.74%
Total 18 903 10000% 8 320.59
B.3 Cost Allocated Between ExlstlnA and New Development Total Number of Percentajle of
DevelotJ,ment ~ uareFeet Cost Allocated Faclll"' Cost
Existing 8,320.59 88.32% $11,039.826
New Development 1,100.52 1168% $1.460.174
942110 1001!0?1. t 1.,.t:OO,QOO
I• I' iii ii
liiH i, ,;:,, ;;// i
lei
5Quare Feet per EDU
Bevond Exlstiro
!ill.:.[al 70470.9"
5Qul!l:re Foot
Allocated 100'll To
New{)eve4nfW'nllnt
NiA
000
Square Feet
Allocated 100% To
New Develooment
NIA
1,100.52
ff1 Square F011t Bevond Exlstlro
Servlc,, Standard
Ihl"I•,[ 11000
41,JlOO.rJO
Total SQIJare Feet
Allocated
79.S09.4O
17,49060
-42,000.00
1n
Square Feet Bevond
Existing Service Standard
b' e /1000
Total SQuare Feet
Allocated
8,320.59
1,100.52
9 421.10
Total Pror,osed
New Square Feet
[cl+ln
42.00000
[Q]
Total Proposed
New Square Feet
C + .
12,943.00
w
169
,
1 dta / 11 1 it:!'! 1
1 1\ . /;i
~.l ~•iiga Fll(tliltv
lal
Exlstlni:1
Acres per
1,000EDU's
0.17 lbl
Total Future
EDU's
.!>a622
APPENDIX A-2
CITY OF LOS BANOS
POLICE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
(CJ
Acres Allouted 100%
lo New Develooment
lal'·lbl
Q95
fdl
Pro~ed Service
Standard oer 1,000EDU's
0.<Q
C.2 Acres Bevond Exlstlnq Service Standard Split Between New and Exlstlnq, pl1J3 Vehicles allocated 10006 to New Development Numwor PercentaQe of Total Acres Split Between New
DeveloDrnent EDUs EOUs and Exlstlnll Devel-t
E.xi,;,tinq 13182 7026% 091
New D,wnloomcnt 5,62L 19.74% 0.39
Tot<1l 18 903 100.00% 1.30
)
C.3 Cost Allocated Between Exlsll~ and Ne,..v Development Total Number or Percenta~ of
Development Ac.res Cost Allocoted Faclllt.Y COst
Fxisl!nq 091 4052% S202,605
New Develot>ment I 34 5948% $797,395
Total Zitib SoQOllOO
0 ,1 Fleet Vehicles - ~ ~
11 I
):.,..,,
1•1 fbl fcl Id]
Exlstln~ Total future Units Allocated 100% Propcsed service Units per EDU's To New Oevelooment Standard oer. 1,000EDU's l>l"lb! 1,000 EDU's
3.76 s ~ :J:f ll1 8.89
0.2 Facllltv Units Beyond Exlstlll!l Service Standard Split Between New and ExlstlnQ, plu.s Facllltv Units alloc-.ated 100,, to New Develooment ,1,1· 1, ,i, I· 'I'' i F.Kllltv Units St,IO
Number of Porcont,tt1e. of T ota1 Between new er'ld Exlstlnq DevalorvriPnt EDUs EDUs Develonment
ExlstlnQ 13,281 '/026l4< 2026
Nf!w DevelODmFmt 5.622 297'':1, 8 58
Total 18903 1oooi:n.. 28.0~
D.3 Cost Allocated Between ExlStlnQ and New Development Total Number or Percent3lJ& cl
DevelOomAnt Faclll"' Units Cost Allocated f"aclllr.v C.ost Exlst!n!'.l , 20.26 40 529' $l07.387
New Devcloament 2974 59.48% S1.(:;3.8,345
Total SA_ 100:oo,(, ' l 745.n .t
)ill
1 1i11;I 1
1 : :i:, ,Ji·
l•I Acr~-S per EDU
Bevond ExlstlnQ
ldl-1• 1
0.23 Acres Allocatrd 10006 To
New DevelnrvnAnt
N/A
0,1)5
lei Units oer EDU
Bevond Exlstlnq
ldl-}11 5.n
Far.llltv Units
AUocated 1~ To
New Devolo1ment
NIA 21 it
!ti AcTes Bevond
ExlsllnQ Service Standard
Lbl' lcl i1000
1 30
Total Acre..-.
Alloceted
0.91 1.:~4
2.25 !fl Units Beyond
Exl~tlna SP.rvlr:;A Standard
lb!'i,,! !1000
1R.84
To1•1 Facility Units
Allocated
20.26 2974
• 5000
!qi Total Prooosed
New Facllltv Acres
lcldll 2.45
l~I Total Prooosed
New Fa<:llltv Units
lr.J•I~ 50()'.)
170
il!i~~a/
E.1 Firearms Stoc~
[a] [bl
Exlstlno Total Future
Firearms Stock per EDU's
1,000 EDU's
1882 5,622
APPENDIX A-2
CITY OF LOS BANOS
POLICE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
[c] [d]
Units Allocated 100% Proposed Service
To New Development Standard per
lal'lbl 1,000 EDU's
105.82 44.47
E.2 Faclllty Units Beyond ExlstlnQ Service Standard Split Between New and Exlstlnq, plus Facllltv Units allocated 100% to New Development Facllltv Units Spilt
Number of Percentaqe of Total Bet\oYeen new and Existlno Oevelo" ment EDUs EDUs Oevelonment
Existing 13,282 7026% 10130
New Development 5.622 29.74% 42.88
Tota! 18 903 100.00% 144.18
E.3 Cost Allocated Between ExlstlnQ and New Development Total Number or Percenta11e of
Development New Units Cost Allocated Fac111r,,, Cost
Exlst!nq 101.30 4052% $60,917
New Devetdnment 148 70 59.48% $89.418
Total 250.00 10000% $150,335
li1I i1
, 1.,1 • • : ·11.
Cost Allocated Total
Faclllt,, Tw e to New Develoament Future EDU's
Potiqe F_acilities $13,234,688 5.622
Offsettl'nd Revenues $0 5622
Total $13 234 688
'
1ii11I i1::t '" .. .. ~ ... •i••- ...... ". .. ii EDU.s per Unit/ Fees per Unl LI Land Use Type 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
Sinqle Family 1.00 $2,354.19
Multifamily 0.80 $1,883.35
Aae Restricted 0.54 $1,274.35
Retail 0.57 $1,341.42
Office 0.43 $1.006.07
Institutional 0.21 $503.03
Industrial 0.14 $335.36
Total Allocated to New Development
Outside Fundlna Resp0nsibl1itv
Total Cost of Police Facllltles
Note:
[1] Assumes Offsettlnq Revenues will be applled to pay debt service on the proposed Primary Station. Includes Measure P 11 I •· 1
1 11
[el 1n [g]
Units per EDU Units Beyond Total Prooosed
Bevond Exlstlno Exlstlno Service Standard New Facility Units ldl-lal [b]"[el / 1000 k h lfi
25 65 144.18 250.00
I
Facility Units
Allocated 100% To Total Facllltv Units I New Development Allocated N/A 101.30
105.82 148.70
25000
I
---- j
Cost per
EDU
$2,354.19
$0.00
$2 354.19
Number 0r Unll!i/ Cost ~lnanced bv 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. DIF 4,155 $9,781.506
736 $1,386,701
44 $56,071
238 $319,336
910 $915,831
120 $60,252
2,132 $714 991
$13,234,688
$36461.379
$49 696 067
171
,,
11,,
ii,!
11 I·
dta/
F•clll!t_
Community Parks
Neiqhborhood Parks
Pocket Parks
... .. Land Use Tvoe
Sinqle Family
Multi-family
Ace Restricted
Total
Facilitl'. T:z:ee
Community Parks
Neighborhood Parks
Pocket Parks
... . . Land Use T, pe
SinQle Family
Multi-family
AQe Restricted
Total
. . •.
FscllllyUnUs
Acres
Acres
Acres
• Number of Residents
34,251
4,922
454
39,627
Facilit:z: Units
Acres
Acres
Acres
. ... _ • Number of Residents
14,584
2,068
84 16,735
Ouanllly
88.71 90.94
1)38
Number of Units [1]
9,758
1,753
239
11,750
Quantit:z:
88.71 90.94
11.38 •n •
Number of Units [1]
4,155
736
44 4,935
APPENDIX A-3
CITY OF LOS BANOS
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Total
Residents per Unit [2] EDUs per Unit Number of EDUs
3.51 1.00 9,758
2.81 0.80 1,402
1.90 0.54 129
NA NA 11,290
Facility Units
eer 1,000 Residents
2.24 2.29
0.29 Total
Residents per Unit [2] EDUs i:;;ier Unit Number of EDUs
3.51 1.00 4,155
2.81 0.80 589
1.90 0.54 24
NA NA 4 768
iii, ljiill I •I • i F~cili Type [3] Facili.!}'._ Units Facility Units
~er 1,000 Residents
Facllltles Units
Funded by New Devet~ ment
1:I !i
Community Parks
Neiqhborhood Parks
Pocket Parks
... ~ .... .. . .
Acres
Acres
Acres
, ..
2.24 2.29
0.29 37.46
38.40 4.81
Facility Type [4] Facilitv Units Acres Bein □ Acauired Land Acauisltion Der Acre (5] Acres Belna Developed Community Parks Acres 37.46 $0
Neiqhborhood Parks Acres 38.40 $0
Pocket Parks Acres 4.81 $0
Total
-~· • ~U l f . Facil!tv Type Facility Units Current Development Future Development Recreational Pool Facili lnteQrated Facility 0 1
Skate Park lnte!=)rated Facility 1 2
Offsettina Revenues
Total
l'iclles:
[1] Population estimates based on California Dept. of Finance, Demoqraphic Research Unit - Report E-5 May 1, 2017. (2] Residents per Unit based on American Community Survey (ACS) 2015; data comes from the U.S. Census Bureau. (3] Estimates based on current Parks Inventory as identified within the Los Banos General Plan.
37.46 38.40
4.81 Buildout Population
56,362
56,362
Park Development per Acre (6)
$406,265
$369,332
$21,105
Facility Units
OPr 1,000 Residents
0.02 0.04
[4] Estimates based on cost assumptions for park improvement costs In other areas of the Central Valley as identified by Goodwin Consuttinq Group Fee Study. [6] In liqht of the City's Quimby Fee, Land Acquisition Costs have been excluded from this analysis. [6] Park development costs have been escalated accordinq to the Construction Cost Index (CCI) for Fiscal Years 2006-2017. (7] Planninq and Desiqn Costs have been estimated to be approximately 6% of development costs, as seen in other California communities. [8] Administration costs have been estimated at 5% to appropriately reflect City Staffs time. 1111i 1
1 11
Total Facility Cost
Plannlno and Desl~n (per Acre) [7) Administration (5%) [SJ for New Develooment Cost Der EDU $23,841.33 $20,313 $16,874,137 $3,539.20
$23,118.87 $18,467 $15,781,239 $3,309.97
$1 321.08 $1,055 $112,847 $23.67
$32 768,223 $6,872.84
Facilities Funded Total Facilities
bv New Oevetooment Facititv Cost for New Develof)ment Cost per EDU
29.69% $12,000,000 $3,563,020.30 $747.31
59.38% $1,500,000 $890,755.08 $186.83
{$3,714,7581 1$779.W
$13,500,000 $739 017 $155.00
[Parks 1..OS and Facllltles_Fee_]"_otal g o21.84 I
172
1: Ill 11 :;" i'il . ! ..
dta/
. ' Focllltv Type Ouan\11\'
Surface Water Treatment Plant (Incl. Chromium 6 T
Groundwater SUstalnablllty & Recharge Project
Valve Replacement
Waterlines
We!l 16
Water Meters
Well Rehabilitation
Equipment
Storage Tanks and Booster Pumps
Groundwater Wells
Wei I Manifold Svstem - Water Facilities
• . . (a(
Number of Units
Land Use Tun.o I Non.Res. 1,000 SF
,.,j
ii' 1,1
Single Family 9,758
Multifamily 1,753
Age Restricted 239
Retail 555
~:;~~~!10~~1
2,123
279
Industrial 4 973
Total
l!iil:I !i ' ,TI Fac/111y Tvoe Ouantltv
Surface Water Treatment Plant (Incl. Chromium 6 T
Groundwater Sustainability & Reeharge Project
Valve Replacement
Water lines
Well 16
Water Meters
Well Rehabltltatlon
Equipment
Pipellnes
Storage Tanks and Booster Pumps
Groundwater Well s
Well Manifold Svstem
Water Fac111tles
I . . l•l Number of Units
Land Use TVoe / 1,000 Non-Res. SF
Single Family 4,155
Multlfamlly 736
Age Restricted 44
Retail 238
Office 910
Jnstltullonal 120
Industrial 2132
Total
... .. . .. . ·-. Facllltv Tvne OuantU'II'
Surface Water Treatment Plant (Incl. Chromium 6 T 1
Groundwater Sustalnablllty & Recharge Project 1
Valve Replacement 1
Water Unes I Well,16 1
Water Meter.,; 1
Well-Rehabilitation 1
Equipment 1
Storage Tanks and Booster Pumps 1
Groundwater Well s 1
ill II Wei ' Manifold s;:stem 1
o """tllna Revenues
Total Cost
APPENDIX A-4
CITY OF LOS BANOS
WATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
F.acllltv UnlLSIntegrated Faclllty
Integrated Facility
Integrated Facility
Integrated Faclllty
Integrated Faclllty
Integrated Facility
Integrated Facility
Integrated Facility
Integrated Facll11y
Integrated Facility
lntMrated Facllll
Jdl
lb) (c) Total
Persons Served per Unit EOUs per Unit Number or EDUs
/ 1,000 Non-Res, SF I Per 1,000 Non-Res. SF 1a1•1c1
3.51 1.00 9,758
2.81 0.80 1.402
1.90 0.54 129
2.00 0.57 316
1.50 0.43 907
0.75 0.21 60
0.50 0.14 708
13 282
Quantity
facllltv Units oer 1.000 EDU's
Integrated Facl1Hy
Integrated Faclllty
Integrated Facility
Integrated Faclllty
lnlegrated Faclllly
lnlegrated Faclllty
Integrated Facility
Integrated Facility
Integrated Facility
Integrated Faclllty
Integrated Facility
lnt91':1 rated Factlltv
Jdl
[bl [c) Total
Residents per Unit / Employees EDUs per Unit Number or EDUs oe, 1,000 Non-Re. SF I oer 1 000 Non-Res. SF lal'lcl
3.51 1.00 4.155
2.81 0.80 589
1.90 0.54 24
2.00 0.57 136
1.50 0.43 389
0.75 0.21 26
0.50 0.14 304
6 622
ouantltv
Facllltv Units Faclllt\lCost oer 1 000 EDU.
Integrated Faclllty $152,193,911 0.18
Integrated Facility $230,000 0.18
Integrated Faclllty $250.000 0.18
Integrated Faclllly $3,212.000 0.18
Integrated Faclllty $1,620,000 0.18
Integrated Faclllty $398,528 0.18
Integrated Faclllty $1,560,000 0.18
Integrated Faclllty $479,000 0.18
Integrated Facility $23,460,000 0.18
Integrated Faclllty S 11 .340.000 0.18
Integrated Faclllty $10,815.000 0.18
1$8.089 4981
$197 468 941
Total Estimated within
Snhere of Influence tson 111
23,224
3.338
308
359
2,091
95 1 438
,nR'1
38189
54426
Total Estimated within
SDhere of Influence (SOI] 111
13.466
1.935
179
43 1.184
35 730
17 571
173
dta/
APPENDIX A-4
CITY OF LOS BANOS
WATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Iii
l/1,
l11l ,i
I :or,~r,:,s:w•-~1L~,
Al SUr.tlir:e,W.n:ler'frmrtme.nt·pjfll'.IJ (Pn~. Cfl,ornlurn 6 Te:siur,g) [a)
Existing
Integrated Facility per
1,000EDU's
0.00 !!Um
[bl
Total Future
EDU's
17!"i71
[r:J
Integrated Fadllty Allocated 1fJOC:lf,
To Now Oev<>lopment
l•l•M
0.DU
[d:
Proposed-~
Standard po,
IOOOEOU'<
0 le
A.2 Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Service Standard Spllt Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100,C, to NON l>P.lelcpmont FadlUy T~
Existing
New Devet.J?.E_-ment
Total
A.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development F~
Existing
~
New Develotiment
8.1 Grb undwater Sustalnablllty & Recharge Project
Numbefof
EDlfs
11,282
17_,_571
~O_&!i~
Total Number of
lntdtJ,:a.ted Faclllt)'
0.,4j
O.!i"/
7 rarcentegf!: ot Total
EDU's
.l05 '¥.
M <l'1'lf,
1_QQOO%
PmcenteQ6 or
COll~Allocated
4:1.::!::."W.
_j_b l',15').
!
Integrated Facility Spilt
Between New and
£xl,;tl~ Devel.opment
04.1 OS7
100
Fa~~ ("..o:rt
$t>!i.S1t,,6~
~
\86Ar>.2n
1 \\ 111· [! ;I, !i l•I f l 1 Existing
[bl
T otat Future
EDU's
[Cl
Integrated Faclllty Allocated 100%
To New Development
l•!'lbl
ldl
Proposed Service
Standard per
1,000 EDU's
·iii:I 1·1
Integrated Faclllty per
1,000 EDU's
0.00 ~.@_ 0.00 _O_lR
B.2 Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Bet¥18en New and Existing, plus Faclllty Units allocated 100% to Nf!Ni Development lntB(Jrated Fsclllty Spilt
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and
Facllll~ TYllO EDU's EDU's Exlstlna DevelnNnent
Existing 13,282 70.26% 0.70
New Develo~ment 5,622 29.74% 0.30
Total 18,903 100.00% 1.00
B.3 Cost Allocated Between Exlsttng and New Development To'tal Number of Percantage of
FacllllV Tvoe lnt..,rated Facllltv Cost Allocated Foclll!Y Cost Exi~tlng 0.70 70.26% $161.599
New Develoomen1 0.30 29.74% $68.401
Total , 100,00% $230,000
C.1 Valve Replacement
lal lbl lcl Id! Existing Total Future Integrated Faclllty Allocated 100'JI ProposedServlco I tntegrated Faclllty per EDU's lo New-Devefopment Standard per ' 1,000 EDlfs lal' lbl 1,000EDU's
[ 0.00 5622 0.00 0.18
c.2 lnteqrateQ Facility Beyond tx.lstlng service Standard Split Betwoen New and ExkUng, plus Faclllty Units iillocated 100% to N&W" Development lnV~grated re:clllty Split
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and
Facllltv T'lloo EDU'~ EOU's EXl$tli1b Develnnmillnt
Fxistlng 13,282 7026% 0 70 New Devdo!m1cnt 5622 29.74% 0.30 •Total 18903 100.00% 100
; ,, j! 1: I
1 : I , ,IC.3 Cost I\Hocated Between Existing and New Development •11. II' 11 'I rt!
.IC.3 Cost I\Hocated Between Existing and New Development :1
'rl~oclll!Y Tyr,o --'TOtal Number of
Jnregrated Facility
Percentaae of
Co-st Allocated
70.26%
29.74%
·- ,~
Exio;tlng
NP.w ~VP-lopment
,,l,otal o
tnrearated FaclllN
0 70
030
.
Co-st Allocated
70.26%
29.74%
~ 100
Facilllv Cost
$175,651
$74,349
tlY
{rj
lri-tegr.11tftd faclllty per E.DU
l!<!yond tx!Stlng
ltJI-M
0 lR
Integrated F&elllty
AIIOCltted 1~ Tot-.lAW OP.wlopmenr
NIA
coo
[ej
Integrated Faclllty per EDU
Be.yond Existing
l<:i l·lal
0.18 Integrated Faclllty
Allocated 10()% To
New Develnnment
N/A
0.00 l•I Integrated rnclllty per EDU
Beyond Existing
ldl-I•I
018
Integrated Facility
Allocated 100% To
New Develooment
NIA
0.00 !rJ lntcgnted F•olllty l!<!yond Existing
SCtrv1c~St1tl'ldMd
lol"l,,J /1000
l._QQ
Total lntegr,tteiri Facility
Allocated
rn
0.f3
0.S7
1.00 Integrated Faclllty Beyond Existing
Service Stand!lrd
lbl"lel /1000
1._QQ_
Total Integrated FftCllity
Allocated
070
0.30 100
111 Integrated Faclllty Beyorw;t Existing
Service Standara
lb i"lel 11000
1.00 Total lntegreted Faclllty
Allocated
0 70
030
100
[g]
Total Proposed
New Integrated Facility
1,1-m
i.OD
[g]
Total Proposed
New Integrated Faclllty
[ch[lj
1.00 [g)
Total Proposed
New
lcl dll
1.00 174
dta/
0.1 Water Lines
fa]
Existing
Integrated Facility per
1,000EDU's
P,QQ.
lbl
Total Future
EDU's
li._6'?.
APPENDIX A-4
CITY OF LOS BANOS
WATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
1,1 ldi .1•1
Integrated Facility Alloc•ted 100% Proposed Servlcl:' Integrated Facltlty per EDU To New OevaJopment Standard per •• Beyond Exls.tl~
l•l·lbl 1,ooomu·, • •. jctl-la l
0 01 0.18
D.2 Integrated Faclllty Beyond Existing service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Faclllt.v Unll5 anocated IOOl! to Now O.veloprnent Integrated Foclllty Spl!t lrtttJgratad Facility
Number of' Pe«:entago of Total a.tween New and Allocoted 100% To Faclll!YT""" EDU's EOtr1. b:lsttnn QfM!il,_,,,.,erta: NeNtna..-~ ent Existing 13,282 f· 10 '..: 6'S 0}() NIA
New Develoi=iment 5.622 Z97-4"'i- (}30- 0.00
Total 18903 . 100 00"- ' 00
D.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Total Numb,t.!rof Percentage Of
Faclllty T'.lnR 1n1..nrated Facllltv Cost AtlOCOled Faclflr,,, Cost Existing 070 70.26% $2,256.766
New bevelopment 030 2974% $955,234
T.o tar I ,on~ ~,n ~
(I/ IHI
Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Total Propased
Service Standard New lntegrated Faclllty
IW le\ 11000 Jcl,m 100 100
Total Integrated Faclllty
Allocated
010
{P◊
1.00 11,1 1-,~·~ HL~· ~,,1;,- 6 - ----------- --- ----- ------, I ·1
!II
[a]
Existing
Integrated Faclllty per
1,000EDU's
0,00
[b]
Total Future
EDU's
5,622
[cl
Integrated Faclllty Allocated 100%
To New Development
tal•lbl
0.00 E.2 Integrated Faclllty Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Faclllty Units allocated 100% to New Development Facility T'it>e
Existing
New Develomnent
Total
E.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development !
Faclll!YTVoo
Existing
New Oeve!oClf'l"lent
lntill
Fl-\ft(,'ater ~ tP.rs
fa]
Existing
Integrated Faclllty per
1.!.000 EDU's
000
Number or
EDU~
13,282
5,677
18903
Total Number or
lntearated FaclllN
070
0.30 1
(bl
Total Future
f0l111
b~622
Percentage of Total
EDU's
70.26%
?9 74%
100.00%
PercentaQt! or
Cost Allocated
70.26%
29.74%
100-
le!
Integrated Faclllty Allocated 100'6
To New Development
l,tl'lbJ
000
Id!
Proposed Service
Standard per
1,000 EDU's
0.18 Integrated Facility Split
Betv,,ieen New end
Exlstll'VI Develo- -nt
070
030
100
Fac1111v Cost
$1,138.220
$481,780
$1620000
luJ Proposed Service
Standard per
1,000 EDU's
0.13 t
lf.2 Integrated Faclllty Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Exlsth'lg, plus Facility Units allocated 1Dmri to New Development Integrated Facility Split
, Number of Pel"centage o<Tottil Between New and
I Facllltv Tvao EDU's EDU's ExlstlM Dewlooment
I
Ex,silng
New Oevulocfn€nt
Total
F.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Faclll~
Existing
Nf'.W D~VP.lotiment
Total
13,282
5,62?
18903
Total Number of
Integrated Faclllty
0.70 0.30
70.26%
29.74%
100.00%
PercentaAe rA
Cost Alloasted
70.26%
2974%
070
0.30 1.00
FN:IUty Cost
$280,008
$118,520
[eJ
Integrated Facility per EDU
Beyond Existing
1C!l:lal
0.18 Integrated Facility
Allocated 100% To
New Develo~ent
NIA
0.00 (el
Integrated Facility per EDU
Beyond Existing
!<!l:@l
0.18 Integrated Faclllty
Allocated 100% To
New Develooment
NIA
0.00 I~ Integrated Facillty Beyond Existing
Service Standard
lbl'!eJl1000
1.00 Total lntegroted Facility
Allocated
070
030
1,00
,,, Integrated Faclllty Beyond Existing
Service standard
lb]•(cl 11000
100
Total Integrated Facility
Allocated
070
0.30 100
lg]
Total Proposed
New Integrated Faclllty
lcl•lrl
1.00 lg!
Total Proposed
NeY,1 Integrated Faclllty
lcH~ 1.,QQ_
175
dta/
APPENDIX A-4
CITY OF LOS BANOS
WATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
G.1 Well R:ehabllltetlon
lei Existing
Integrated Faclllty per 1&QQ_EOU's
000
lbl Total Future
EDU's
bb2'
lti 11.!i
Integrated hclllty Allocated 100"1 ProposedServlce
To New Development Slanderd per
1•1·1°1 1,000EDU',
000 018
G 2 Integrated Facility Beyond txtsllng Servloa Stendard Spllt Between New ond Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 1001' to New Devolopment Faclll"- TExisting
1li1
New OeveloDmf>flt
Total
G.3 Cost Allocated Betv.N!en Existing and New Development Facll[IY 'Io/o<I
, ~ xtstlng
I I
~ . , New Development
! : ii:: Tall! I r-:
H 1 Equipment
{al
Existing
Integrated Faclllty per 1.000EOU's
=
Numbwof
EDU's
13.187
5.6}2
,a.903
TOIBI Number of
lntegnttM Faclllty
0/0
n . .30
lb! Total Future
EDU's
5622
""'"""!age of Total
EOU's
10 '6~
..!'I :'4'K>
100 00,,
Pera,ntege of
COS1 Allocated
70 26%
~ 74%
tel
Integrated Faclllty Alloca.t9d 10096
To New Dellelopment
laJ·lbl Q,_QQ_
lntegrate<J i:ac!llly Split
Between New- and
Ew1'tlna "'-"-f
OiC
03C
!OU
Facility Cos!
Sl ,096,063
$463,93]
{di
Proposed Service
Standard per
1,000 EDU's
0.18 H.2 Integrated facility Beyond Existing Service Standard Spilt Between New and Existing. plus Faclllty Units elloceted 100% to New Development ,, , , ., 111,, ii
I I I Ii! ii I i ~ I
FacllllV TVDO
Existing
New DevelOJJment
Total
H.3 Cost Allocated Between ExJstlng and New Development faclll lV Tvon
Existing
New Develooment
Total
J.1 Storage Tant, and tlooster Pumps
lal Exlsllng
Integrated Faclflty per
1,000 EDU's
0.00 Number of
EDU's
13,282
5,622
18903
Total Number or
rn,earated FacllllY
070
0.30 1
lbJ Total Future
EDITS
~2
""'°""tageot'Total EDU's
7026%
29.74%
100.00%
Percentage of
Cost Allocated
7026%
29.74%
,oooos
{Cl
Integrated facility Allocated 1009'
To New Dellelopment
laJ'lbl 000
~J.2 Integrated. Facility Beyond Existing service SUl.ndllrd Spllt Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 1~ to New Development I
racHltv T'fllfl
Existl nq
NC!'IN' ncvcioomcnl
Total
J.3 Cost Allocated Between ExlstlnQ and New Developmenl l•acmtyT_ypo
Exislh"'\Q
New Oeve1opment
Totc1I
Number of
EDU~
13,282
5.622
18903
"'Total Number of
t.mcgrated Fadllt,Y
0/0
0.30 Percentage r:A Total
EDU's
7026'1,
2974%
100.00%
""'centegeof
Cost Allocated
7026%
2974'3b
~
l'ltegn,ted Facility Split
Between New and
Exlstlno Develnrvnanf
0.70 0.30
1.00 FacllllY Cost
$336,548
$142,452
$.479000
Id(
Proposed Service
~tandard per 1,000EDU's
QJij
lntcgratro Faclilty Spilt
Between New and E11:IsH- ~~t
010
OlO
1.00 Facllliy Cos!
S16.48J.107
S6.976.893
m ,60
l<I Integrated Faclllty per EDU
Beyond Existing
l,t,l·i"I
1 Integrated Faclllty
,lllocal..:t 100l!, To
- o-t<,oment W I-,.
OCMl
{e]
Integrated Faclllty per EDU
Beyond Existing
_Ml:lal
018
lntegn,ted Facility
Allocated 1009' To
New t>evelnnrn,i,nt
NIA
0.00 !el lntegroted Facility per EDU
Beyond histing
(di-Jal
01!
lntogratod Faclllty
Allocated 1qo% T'o
New!le\lQl,,.,,.,,,nt
NIA
0.00 111
Beyond Eldsllng
Service Standard
i01'H /1000
100
Total Integrated Fadllty
I~ Beyond Existing
Service Standard
.M:1.•I 11000
1.()0
Atloca!Ad
010
OJO
100
Total Integrated Faclllty
Allocated
070
030
1.00 Ill Integrated Facility Beyond Exlstlnq
service Standard
lbrJe)/ 1000
1.00 Total Integrated Facility
Allocated
0.70 030
100
l!JI Total Proposed
Now Integrated Facmty
lcl•III 1._Q()_
191 T otel Proposed
New Integrated Facility
k l•I~ I.CO
(gJ
Tota, Proposed
New Integrated Factllty
lcJ•!n
1._QQ_
176
dta/
!II
} ,J
1 )!111 It
APPENDIX A-4
CITY OF LOS BANOS
WATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
K. 1 Grol.Jhdwater wens
[al
Existing
lntegn,ted Facility per
h_OOOEDU's
0.00 lbl Total Future
EDU's
!>6n
lei
Integrated facility Allocated 100'JI,
To New Development
lal'll;I•
ooc
K.2 Integrated Factllty Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Eidstlng, plus rac;ntty Untts alloc8ted 100!I to New oev,,topment [di
Propo,edSerVlce
Standord po<
1,000 EDlfs
{j1lj
lrt'tegrated Faclllty Splft
FacillNT'n>o
Eldsting
New Oevelooment
Total
K.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Dewtopmenl
Fac1iu, Tvoo
Exisllng
New Devetnnment
Total
L.1 Well Manifold System
l•I
Existing
Integrated Faclllty per
1,000 EOU's
0.00 Number Of
EDU's
13,282
5.6n
10 903
Total Number of
'"'°"'"'"" racnliv 070
030
1 [bl Total Future
EOU's
_!j_622.
P«cenUio,. or Total
EDU'•
10 16~ ::9 , .. ,.,
10000-.
Percenl.ol
CostAltocated
70.26%
29.74%
l"r'".rr,oi;:_
lcl
Integrated Fsctllty Allocated 100%
To New Developmenl
lal'lbl JtOO
L.2 Integrated Facility Beyond EidsUng Service Standard Spllt Between New and Existing. plus Facility Units allocated lOO'li to New Development Faclllry Tvr,e
!
Existing
New Development
Total
L.3 Cost Allocated Between Exlstln!l and New Development Faclllly•'TY!!O
Exi'itlna
New Development
Total
Facilllv Tvne
Water Facllltles
.1.... ••r.a••·
SUrface Water Treatment Plant [11
Olfsdtln~ Revl:!nues
Total
•- ,,., .. . . . Land Use T'YDe
~ ~:a~~~t~~ilv
Aqe.Restricted
Retail
Office
Institutional
lndustrlal
Total Allocated to New Development
Outside Fundlnn Resnnnslbllltv
Total Cost of Water Fac!IIU&S
Note:
. .. ... . ..
Number of
EDU's
13,282
5,622
~
Total Number of
m1eiiroted Faclllt~
070
0.30 Percentage ol Total
EDU's
70.26%
29.74%
100.QO'l(,
Percentaae of
Cost Allocated
70.26%
29.74%
100,,
Cost Allocated to New Oeve/ooment
S 15.870,358.79
$86,677.223.03
!:1.8089 498)
S94468 08<
EOUS per Unit/
1 000 Non-Res. S.F.
1.00 0.80
0.54 0.57
0.43 0 .21
0.14 a.tween New and Exist ... __ ,
(J }[
!J .10
·,.oo
racttttv COSI
$7,967.538
S3.372,462
.SU.l "'IVW,,
}d}
ProposedSelvl<e
Standard per
1,000EDU's
0.18 lntegnsted Facility Split
Between New and
Existing Dewlopmenl
0.70 0.30
1.00 Faclll~ Cost $7,598,670
$3,216,330
l}~-.OOC
Total
Future EOU's
5,622
17,571
5622
Facllltles f ees oer Unit/
1 000 Non-Res. S.F.
$1,384.06
$1,107.25
$749.21
$788.64
$591.48
$295.74
$197.16
tel
lnte(lr•led Facility per F.011
Beyond Eidstlng
ldl·l"I 0IP.
lnlOgroted F1<:lllty
Allocated 100,,. To
-n.,..,,.-t
NIA
0.00 lei
Integrated Faclllty per EDU
Beyond Eidstlng
J<tl:1tl
Q.!!
Integrated Feclllty
Allocated 100'1(, To
Nw., Development
NIA
0.00 Cost per
EDU
$2,823.03
S4.932.91
1$1 438.961
S6 316,97
SWTR FIM! oer Unit/ 1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
$4,932.91
$3,946.33
12.670.24
S2,810.77
$2,108.08
$1,054.04
5702.69
[1J The Surface Water Treatment Plant is expected to service the enlire SOI; total future users assumption has been adjusted to renecI develoomenI estimates contained within the Waler Master Plan. t•I Integrated ractllty Beyond Eldstlng
Service Standard
il;I 'lei I 1000
1._QQ_
Total Integrated Facurty
Allocated
070
0 .10
100
m Integrated Facility Beyond Existing
Service Standard
lbl'lel 11000
1.00 Total Integrated Faclllty
Allocated
070
030
l._QQ_
Number of Units/
1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
4,155
736
44 238
910
120
2132
lgl Total Proposed
New Integrated Faclllty
1, l•t't
L0Q.
[g]
Total Proposed
Now Integrated Facility
tcl,m t .00
{SWTP} Number of Units/
1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
13,466
2,419
330
75 2,771
163
5122
Cost Financed by
DIF
$72,177,444
$10,361,980
$913,662
$398,430
:1.6,379,403
$207,684
$4 019 479
$94,458.084
$103 010.857
S197 468 941
177
dta/
1 ,:1 :., . !'!
il:I
,, I .il'I' '1' I" i·
Replacement
,n. ; 111•
Land Use Ty pe
SingfeiFamlly
Multifamily
Age Restricted
Retail I Offiae
lns,tljutional
lndJstrlal
Total
Facility Type
Wastewater Facility Replacement
I ..
Land Use Tvpe
Single Family
Multifamily
Age Restricted
Retail
Office
Institutional
lndustrlal
Total
• • .. ■ ~ I . . Facllitv Tvne
Wastewater Facility Replacement
Offsettlno Revenues
Total Cost of Facllltles
I
'I
1111\11 ir:r,, i11I I
. . . . ...
APPENDIX A-5
CITY OF LOS BANOS
SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Quantl
[a]
Number of Units
/ Non-Res. 1,000 SF
9,758
1,753
239
555
2,123
279
4,973
auantl
1.00 [a]
Number of Units
/ Non-Res, 1,000 SF
4,155
736
44 238
910
120
2,132
Quantltv
1 [bl
Residents per Unit/ Persons Served
per 1,000 Non-Res. SF
3.51 2.81
1.90 2.00
1.50 0.75
0.50 Facility Units
lnteqrated FaciHt
[bl
Residents per Unit/ Persons Served
ner 1,000 Non-Res, SF
3.51 2.81
1.90 2.00
1.50 0.75
0.50 Facllltv Units
Integrated Facility
[cl
EDUs per Unit
/ 1,000 Non-Res. SF
1.00 0.80
0.54 0.57
0.43 0.21
0.14 Quantity
r1,000 EDUs
0.08 [cl
EDUs per Unit
/ 1,000 Non-Res, SF
1.00 0.80
0.54 0.57
0.43 0.21
0.14 Faclll tv Cost
$55,501,300
1$5,762,8871
$49,738,413
[d]
Total
Number of EDUs
[a]'[c]
9,758
1,402
129
316
907
60 708
13,282
[di
Total
Number of EDUs
laJ•[cl
4,155
589
24 136
389
26 304
5,622
Quantity
per 1 ,ooo EDUs
0.18 178
dta/
11 11 •1 ■■ • ) . , . .;....... . .. ... /\. 1 Wastewater Facility Replacement ta)
Existing
Integrated Facility
11 1,000EOU's
0,08
APPENDIX A-5
CITY OF LOS BANOS
SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
. . •
)bi icl Id!
Total Future Integrated Fae.lilly Allocated 100'6 Proposed Service EOU's To New Development Standard per
l• J'lbl 1,000 ED\J's
5,622 042 0,1~
A,2 Integrated Faclllty Beyond Existing Service Standard Spill Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated lOO'l!, to New Oeotetopment Integrated Facility Split
ii f If
Number of Percent•ge of Total Between New and
Facllltv Tv"" EDU's EDU's ExtstlM Develoliment
• Exi5ting H 282 70.]6% ,. .. .,.:-;, 0 .t1
Ne->N Development 5,622 29.N 'X. 017
Total 18,903 100 OO'l<, 0,58
A3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage ol
Faclll T e Int Cost Allocated Faclll Cost
Existing 40 S2'X- $22,489,651
New Development 5? 48% $33,011,649
Total t00.00% $55 501300
.. , .. Cost Al located Total
Faclllrv T~ to New DeveloPment Future EDU's
Wastewater Facilitv Reolacement $33,011,649 5,622
Offsettino Revenues ($5,762,887] 5,622
Total $27 248,762
II Development Impact Fee per Unit or er 1,000 Non-Res S F EOUs per Unit/ Fees per Unit/
Land UseT e 1,000 Non-Res, S,F, 1,000 Non-Res, S,F,
Sinqle Family 1.00 $4,847,02
Multifamily 0.80 $3,877,62
A~e Restricted 0,54 $2,623,74
Retail 0,57 $2,761 ,84
Office 0,43 $2,071-38
Institutional 0,21 $1,035.69
Industrial 0,14 $690.46
I Total Allocated to New Development
Outside Fundln Res onslblllt
Total Cost of Waste Water Facilities
·,' it :r
1,,1 If! lg!
Integrated Facility per EDU Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Total Proposed I Beyond Existing Service Standard New Integrated Facility [di-la] lbl°lo]/1000 lc:J+iii 0,'10 i'J.58 100
Integrated F3clllty
Allocated 100')(; To Total Integrated Facility
New Develonment Allocated
NIA -, 0,41
'1.42 0,59
1.00 Cost per
EDU
$5,872.13
fSl,025,lOl
$4,847,02
Number of Units/ Cost Financed by
1,000 Non-Res, S,F, OIF
4,155 $20,139,042
736 $2,855,065
44 $115,445
238 $657,477
910 $1,885,595
120 $124,052
2,132 $1,472,087
$27,248,762
$22,489,651
$49,738.413
179
dta/
facUt
... I ll 1 ••· .
!
1l·j 11
Land Use Tvoe
Sing/e Family
M~lt1ifamily
Agel Restricted
Retail
Office
Institutional
Industrial
Total
Facility Type
Storm Drainage Facilities Replacement
Storm Drain
: .... ~Ill•
Land Use Tvne
Single Family
Multifamily
Age Restricted
Retail
Office
Institutional
Industrial
••••""!:~I ""'" •---.i; •i1 1 ,
Ii:
1· j · I"' ,11. 1:1
Facility Type
Storm Drain Facllitles
Offs'ettlnCI Revenues
Total Cost of Storm Drain Facilities
.. I i ' 11
i-ll, 11
111,1 if :1 1
1 11 !
APPENDIX A-6
CITY OF LOS BANOS
STORM DRAINAGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Quan,
[a]
Number of Units
/ Non-Res. 1,000 SF
9,758
1,753
239
555
2,123
279
4,973
Quantll
1.00 NA
[a]
Number of Units
/ Non-Res. 1,000 SF
4,155
736
44 238
910
120
2,132
Quantll\'
1 Int
[bl
Persons Served per Unit
/ 1,000 Non-Res. SF
3.51 2.81
1.90 2.00
1.50 0.75
0.50 Faclllty Units
lntei::irated Faclli
NA
[bl
Persons Served per Unit
/ 1,000 Non-Res. SF
3.51 2.81
1.90 2.00
1.50 0.75
0.50 Facllltu Units
Integrated Facility
!cl
EDUs per Unit
/ Per 1,000 Non-Res. SF
1.00 0.80
0.54 0.57
0.43 0.21
0.14 Quantity
r 1,000 EDUs
0.08 NA
[cl
EDUs per Unit
/ Per 1,000 Non-Res. SF
1.00 0.80
0.54 0.57
0.43 0.21
0.14 Faclll lV Cost
$28,046,000
1$51,632)
$27,994,368
Id]
Total
Number of EDUs
[a]'[cl
9,758
1,402
129
316
907
60 708
13,282
[d]
Total
Number of EDUs
[a]"[c]
4,155
589
24 136
389
26 304
5,622
Quantity
per 1,000 EDUs
0.18 180
dta/
APPENDIX A-6
CITY OF LOS BANOS
STORM DRAINAGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
•a~: A.1 Storm Drainage Facllltles Replacement
l•l
Existing
Integrated Facility
1,000 EDU's
_()__()_8
•i~ :l[•J1
lbl Total Future
EDU's
6.112 2
[cl
Integrated Facility Allocated 100%
To New Development
(df[b!
0.-4,i'
idl
Proposed Ser.llee
Standard per
1,000EDU's
01P.
'I I ,_, IA.2 Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100" to New Development 1' ,,, • f ' ' lntAgrnted Faclltl y Split
Facillly Tvne
Existing
New Dew~lopment
Total
A.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New D<M!lopment Facili ty. Noe
Existing
New Development
fTota
... ' '; ;:
Faclll tv Tv""
Storm Drain Facilities
Offsettln'l Revenues
Total
• A A •• .. A A .A •1-• ·A t 11 1. 1• · -
Land Use Tvoe
Single Family
Multifamily
Age Restricted
Retall
1111 ·;
Office
Institutional
Industrial
Tota_l Allocated to New Development
Outside Fundina Responsibilltv
Total Cost of Storm Drain Facilities
·I r ,., 'Ii
Number of
EDU's
13.282
5.622
18,903
Total Number or
Integrated FacllllY
0 41
0.5?
L~-~ -
Percelllage of Total
EDU's
702Mf•
29 74'K,
100.00?!,
Percentage of
Cost AIIOCOted
40.52% • ·59.48%
100.llW,
Cost Allocated
to New Develocment
$16,681,496
1$51 6321
$16,629,864
EDUs per Unit/
1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
1.00 0.80
0.54 0.57
0.43 0.21
0.14 B@lween New and
Exlstlrlg_ Development
0 41
0 17
_()_,58
Faclljty Cost
$11,364,504
$16.~81,496
128.0,6.000
Total
Future EDU's
5,622
5.622
Fees per Unit/
1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
$2.958.13
$2,366.50
$1,601 .27
$1,685.54
$1.264.16
$632.08
$421 .39
lei
Integrated Facility per EDU
Beyond Existing
ldl-l•l
0.10 Integrated Faclltty
Allocated 100'1!, To
New Development
NIA
0.42 Cost per
EDU
$2,967.31
($9.18)
2,958.13
Number of Units/
1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
4,155
736
44 238
910
120
2,132
1r1
Integrated Facility Beyond Existing
Service Standard
[bl'[oJ/1000
0.58 Total Integrated Facility
Allocat9<1
Cost Financed by
DIF
$12.290.816
$1,742.440
$70.456
$401.257
$1 .150,775
$15,709
$898.412
$16,629.864
$11,364,504
$27 994 368
041
Ofi9
1.00 lgl Total Proposed
New Integrated Facility
Jcl!lli
1._QQ_
181
dta
l,
',
I. Existing EDU Calculation
,I 1, Ii 11\I
Land Use Type
Single Family
Multifamily
Age Restricted
Retail
Office
Institutional
Industrial
Total
II. F_uture_EDU Calculation
Land Use Type
Single Family
Multifamily
Age Restricted
111
Iii
I' I \ii. j,i
Retail
Office
I nstitµtional
lndU$trlal
Total
1, lii1l1! 11:ii 11j\
Ill. Proposed Facilities Cost
Facility
Transportation Facilities Cost
Offsettinq Revenues
Total Facllltles Cost
APPENDIX A-7
CITY OF LOS BANOS
TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Total
Trip Generation Rate per
Unit/ PM PHTs Per Non-Res. 1,000 Number of Units/ NonS.F. Res.SF (per Unlt/1,000 SF)
1.00 9,758 9,758
0.69 1,753 1,214
0.54 239 129
4.98 555,240 2,767
1.00 2,123,183 2,119
1.21 279,366 337
0.85 4,972,718 4,214
20,538
Total
Trip Generation Rate per
Unit / Per Non-Res. 1,000 Number of Units/ Non- PM PHTs S.F. Res.SF (oer Unlt/1,000 SF)
1.00 4,155 4,155
0.69 736 570
0.54 44 24
4.98 238,058 1,186
1.00 910,310 908
1.21 119,778 145
0.85 2,132,041 1,807
8,735
Facility
Cost
$58,539,061
($6,080,997)
$52,458,064
182
dta APPENDIX A-7
CITY OF LOS BANOS 11 i' TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION ii! II
rl
11! 1i
IV,_f.lloca_tion of Facilities to Existing and New Development (based on PM PHTsl Total
Develo · ment Number of PM PHTs
Existing Development 20538
New Develo ment 8,735
Total Facilities Cost 29,273
IV Allocation of Facilities to Existing and New Development (based on PM PHTs) Develo ment
Existing Development
New Develo ment
Total Facilities Cost
Deve\op_rn_e rrt·
Existing Development
New Development
Total Facilities Cost
Total
Number of PM PHTs
20,538
8,735
29,273
Total
Number of PM PHTs
20,538
8,735
29,273
IV-1 hllqcation of Facilities to Existing and New Development (based on PM PHTs) ~-~ ~ Total Develoomenr Number of PM f!HTs
Existing Development 20.538
New Devetooment 8.135
Total Facllltles Cost 29.273
IV Allocation of Facilities to Existing and New Development (based on PM PHTs) Total
Develooment Number of PM PHTs
Existing Developmenl 20,538
New Development 8,735
Total Facilities Cost 29,273
Per cent~ e of Faclll1y
Cosl Allocated cost
70.16% $5,679.933
29.84% $2.415.633
100% $8,095,566
Percentage of Facility
Cost Allocated Cost
70.16% $359,722
29.84% $152,987
100% $512,709
Percentage of Facility
Cost Allocated Cost
70.16% $9,189,027
29.84% $3,908,025
100% '$1 3,097,052
Percentage of Faclllty
,Cosl Alloca!ed c ost
70,16% $2,034,613
29 84% $865,306
JOO% S2..899,919
Percentage of Faclllty
Cost Allocated Cost
70.16% $1,704,858
29.84% $725,064
100% $2,429,922
Ward Road Im rove.
$8,095,566
I
Place Road Im rove.
$512,709
I
I
_j
SR 165 lmorove.
$1 3,097,052
Bad . er Flat Road Im rove.
$2,899,919
I
Ca ri Avenue Im rove.
$2,429,922
I
J
183
ldta
l ··•
APPENDIX A-7
CITY OF LOS BANOS
TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
~.,.l•11-fflli'E1ili ~r:ml•li1'l:1t'olm1li11hli,@l#t,lifi'l:.ll'iJPHTs I Total Percentage. of Facllity
D.evel.oement Number of PM PHTs Cost Allocated Cost !
Existing Development 20,538 70.16% $231,118
New Dcvelol)mcnt 8,735 29 84% $98,293
Total Facilities Cost 29,273 100% $329,411
•Iot<Jll•.Io •l il>lollllll:l-'tll• :t:tJ.'11111!111::lll• lll'1.','At~(.•fi'1il:•IeJd:1$ 4=•4 I Total Percentage of Facility
Develoement Number of PM PHTs Cost Allocated Cosq
Existing Development 20.538 70.16% $1,833.647 ·• i~
New Development 8,735 2984% $779,836
Total Facllltles Cost 29,273 100% $2,613,483
. , . . . • . • . . . ~ .. t evelopment (based on PM PHTs) Total Percentage of Facility
Develoement Number of PM PHTs Cost Allocated Costl
Existing Development 20,538 70.16% $819,978
11 l New Develo ment 8,735 29.84% $348.731
Total Facllitles Cost 29,273 100% $1,168,709
IV.' Ailocatlon of Facilities to Existing and New Development (based on PM PHTs) i,111 lji ,I ii Total Percentage of Faclllty
Dell'elo ment Number of PM PHTs Cost Allocated Cost
Existing Development 20,538 70.16% $18,625,854
New Develo ment 8,735 2984% $7,921,436
Total Facllltles Cost 29,273 100% •$26,547,290
IV Allocation of Facilities to Exlsllng and New Development (based on PM PHTs) Total Pertentage of Facility
Oevelo ment Number of PM PHTs Cost Allocated cost
Existing Development 20,538 70 16% $70,161
New Develo men! 8,735 29 84% $2~.839
Total Facilities Cost 29,273 100% $100,000
.l
Dove Street 1m2rove.
$329,411
Pioneer Road Improve.
$2.613,483
Cardoza I Madison Ave/ Pa e Ave Im rove .
$1,168,709
Intersection & Modification Im rove.
$26,547,290
I
Intersection & Modification Im rove.
$100,000
I
184
t1
dta
1 i,! 11 :: ,iii
APPENDIX A-7
CITY OF LOS BANOS
TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
IV Allocation of Facilities to Existing and New Development (based on PM Pl-11s) Intersection & Modification Improve.
Total Percentage of
Develo merit Number of PM PHTs Cost Allocated
Existing Development 20,538 70.16%
New Develo ment 8,735 29.84%
Total Facllltles Cost 29,273 100%
'!ll[ilif;JffiltD '..I_4j~~"l~
I I· iii ii
Facility
Traffic Facilities Cost
Offsetting_ Revenues
Total
• Land Use Type
Single Family
Multifamily
'o!!Y-'..a)~"•il;f;J..'111•.
I\! il:i' ii lt g,~I ~estricted
·' , 't Retail
I ·1
Office
Institutional
Industrial
Total Allocation to New Development
Total Allocated to Existinq Develofl_ment
Total Facllltles Costs
Average Dally PM PHT per
Total
Number of PM PHTs
8,735
8,735
Unit / per 1.000 Non-Res. Fees per Unit / 1.000 NonSF Res. SF
1.00 $7,303.58
0.69 0.54
4.98 1.00
1.21 0.85
$903.71
$703.93
$6,495.78
$7,300.86
$1,574.04
$1 ,104.71
Facility
Cost
$522,100
$222,300
$745,000
Facility Cost
Allocated to
New Develo_l)_ment
$17,467,449
($6,080,997)
Number of Units / Non-Res.
Cost Per
PM Peak Hour Trip
$1,999.77
($69619)
$1,303.58
SF Cost Financed by_ DIF
4,755 $5,416,294
736
44 238,058
970,370
11 9,778
2,132,041
$664,953
$30,973
$1,546,230
$1,184,184
$188,535
$2,355,283
$11 ,386.452
$41,071,612
$52,458,064
$745,000
I
185
1lidta/
!l:i I . . ~ .... FacllllV Type
City Hall Expansion and Rehabilitation
City Hall Parking Lot and Landscaping
Councll Chamber Upgrade
Network/Server Replacement
Cor~oration Yard Exoansion
General Government Facilities
. .. 3. ■ :111•
Land Use Tvne
Single Family
Multifamily
Age Restricted
Retail
Office
Institutional
Industrial
Total
FacllltyTvpe
City Hall Expansion and Rehabilitation
City Hall Parking Lot and Landscaping
Council Chamber Upgrade
I' p1, 11 '
!fl! I
Network/Server Replacement
Corporation Yard Expansion
;
11 -- · ' ~ .....
!! ; I 1 ~ Land Use Tvne
Singl,i Family
Multifamily
Age Restricted
Retail
Office
Institutional
Industrial
Total
• I I • ~ I ' . . . . . . Facllltv Tvn<>
City Hall Expansion and Rehabilitation
City Hall Parking Lot and Landscaping
Council Chamber Upgrade
Network/Server Replacement
Corporation Yard Expansion
Offsettlnc Revenues
Total Cost of General Government Facllltles
ilJ \:i
APPENDIX A-8
CITY OF LOS BANOS
GENERAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
QuantllV Facllllv Units
31,800 Square Feet
33,000 Square Feet
1 Integrated Facility
1 Integrated Facility
. lntearated Facility
[a] [bl [C]
Number of Units Persons Served per Unit EDUs per Unit
/ Non-Res. 1,000 SF 11,000 Non-Res. SF / per 1,000 Non-Res. SF 9,758 3.51 1.00
1,753 2.81 0.80
239 1.90 0.54
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Quantity
Ouantlrv Facllltv Units oer 1,000 Non-Res. SF
31,800 Square Feet 2,816.71
33,000 Square Feet 2,923.00
1 Integrated Facility 0.09
1 Integrated Facility 0.09
lnteArated FacililV .
[al [bl [cl
Number of Units Residents per Unit/ Employees EDUs per Unit / Non-Res. 1,000 Units per Non-Res. 1,000 SF I per 1,000 NonRes. SF 4,155 3.51 1.00
736 2.81 0.80
44 1.90 0.54
0 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00
Ouantltv Facllltv Units Facllltv Cost
40,050 Square Feet $7,249,050
35,750 Square Feet $1,751,750
1 Integrated Facility $200,000
1 Integrated Faclllty $185,824
1 Integrated Facility $1,350,000
1$2144 2381
$8 692,386
[d]
Total
Number of Units
[a]"[c]
9,758
1,402
129
-
-
-
- 11,290
[d]
Total
Number of Units
[a]'[c]
4,155
589
24 0
0 0
0 4,768
OuantllV
per 1,000 EDUs
8,400.13
7,498.24
0.21 0.21
0.21 186
I
dta/
APPENDIX A-8
CITY OF LOS BANOS iii if
I
' ' ,, I I. "!
111 it
HI GENERAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
A1 City Hall Expansion and Rehabllllatlon
[al
Existing
Square Feet
1,000 EDU's
2,816.71
tl;l'l'ijf.jfilili
[bl
Total Future
EDU's
4,7fill_
•1m :11•:
tel
Square Feet Allocated 100%
To New Development
l!!)' [b'
1~.429.46
A.2 Square Feet Beyond Exlstlrl!l Service Standard Split Between New and ExlstlnA, plus Faclllty Units allocated 100% lo New Development Number of Porcent11ge or Total
FacllltvTv"" EOU's EDU>:
Existing ·11790 7031%
New Devetooment 4,768 2969%
Total 16,058 l (l{JOQ'i<,
A3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total
Faclll lY Tv.... Square Feet Cost Allocated
Existing '18,716.42 ... ·;.. '~- 46.73%
New Develooment 21,333.58 "' 53.27%
Total 40.050.00 1M l '&.\
B,1 City Hall Parking Lot and Landscaping
[a) [bl [cl
Existing Total Future Square Feet Allocated 100'6
Square Feet EDU's To New Development
1,000 EDU's fa]•[b]
2,923 00 4,768 13,936 23
8.2 Square Feet Beyond ExlstlnA Service Standard Split Between New and ExlstlnQ, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development Faclllt~Woe
Exlsllng
New DeveloprTlent
Total
B.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Faclllt~ l'loe
Existing
NP.w Develobment
Total
·,:;., Council Chamber Upgrade
[aJ
Existing
Integrated Facility
1,000 EDU's
0.09 Number of
EDU's
11,290
4,768
16,058
Total
Souare Feet
15,336.86
20,41314
35,750.00
[bl
Total Future
EDU's
4,763
Percentage of Total
EDU's
7031%
2969%
100.00%
Cost Allocated
42.90%
5710%
10000%
(,:J
lntegrntf!d Faclllty Allocated 100%
To New Development
@tlli
0.42 C.2 Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Faclllty Units allocated 100% to New Development Facllll,t Tvoo
Exlsling
New Dev~opmP.nt
Total
C.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Facility'Tvne
Fx1slinq
New 1)eveloprnc111
lotal
Number of
EDU's
11,290
4,768
t6,058
1'~Iru
Integrot<4Faclll1y
0 dl
0.59 1.00_
Percentage or Total
EDU's
70.31%
2969%
10000%
Cost Allocated
4062%
5938%
LOOj)(l'ih
Id!
Proposed Service
Standard per
1.000_!:DU's
8.4_QQ 13
Square feel Spill
Betw~n New an'1
E.xistinn De~locment
l t ;716 4]
1.9041 3
26.620.54
Facllltv Cost
$3,387,671
$3,861,379
$7.2.49.0511
[di
Proposed Service
Standard per
1,000 EDU's
7,498 24
Square Feet Split
Between New and
Exlstlno Develooment
15,336.86
6.476 91
21 813,77
Faclll l\' Cost
$751,506
$1,000,244
$1 ,751 750
Id!
Proposed Service
Standard per
1,000 EDU's
0.21 Integrated Facility Split
Between New and
Exlstlf11'1 Development
041
017
0.58 F~r.llltv Cost
$81,?:l3
$118,767
$200,!!_00
[el
Square Feet per EDU
Beyond Existing
ldl-fal
S,583.42
Sq•.Jare F~t
Allocated 100% To
N~ Develoom~nt
NI~
13,4 29.46
[e]
Square Feet per EDU
Beyond Existing
[d)-[a)
4,575.24
Square Feet
Allocated 100% To
New Develooment
N/A
13,936.23
----
fe)
Integrated facility per EDU
Beyond Existing
ldl-I•1
Q,12
Integrated Facility
Allocated 100% To
New Development
N/A
0.42 rrJ
Square Feat Beyond Existing
Service Standard
~ [1 1000
26 620 s1
Total Square Feet
Allocated
18,716.4]
21.333 58
40,050 O'}
!fl
Square Feet Beyond Existing
Service Standard
IWleJ11000
21,813.77
Total Square Feet
Allocated
15,336 86
20.413.14
35,750.00
ill
Integrated f aclllty Beyond Existing
Service Standard
l~/HXJ<l
0.58 Total Integrated Faclllty
Allocated 0.41
O.S9
1.00 lnl
Tutal Proposed
New square Feet
!tlilll
40,050,00
[g)
Total Proposed
New Square Feet
[cJ+ln
35 750.00
lg!
Total Proposed
New Integrated Faclllty
fc],_lr]_
1.00 187
ii
.dta/
I H !'
'[) f Network/Server Replacement
[a]
Existing
Integrated Facility
1,000 EDU's
0.09 APPENDIX A-8
CITY OF LOS BANOS
GENERAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
[bl
Total Future
EDU's
4,768
lei
Integrated Facility Allocated l()()'l(,
To Now Development
Jitl:illL
0.41 ldl
Propooed Service
Stdnd11rdper
1,000 EDU'•
02 1
D.2 Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Unit, ailor.atttd 100'11, !(> New Devolopment ' N't Number of
Facllltv T""" EDU's
Existing 11.290
New Develooment -~ 4,768
Total 16,058
D.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Faclll
Existing
New Development
Total
E , Corporation Yard Expansion
P<>tcent&ge of Total
mu·,
lO j 1'N,
-;:.? 69%
1()0 00%
Cost Al_located
40.62%
59.38%
Integrated Facility Spilt
Between New and
Exlstloa Develooment
0.41 0,17
0.58 Facility cost
$75,475
$110,349
:l'a(t!1A
lei
Integrated Faclllty per EDU
Beyond Existing
J<!1±j_
012
lntegratoo Facility
Allocated 100% To
New De"lopment
NIA
0.42 [fl
Integrated Facility Beyond Existing
Service Standard
_lb]'[HJ /HJOO
058
l otal Integrated Facility
Allocated
f.)_4 ·1
059
1.00 lql
Total Proposed
NllW Integrated Facility
lcl+l<I ·1 QC
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [fl [g]
Existing Total Future Allocated 100% Proposed Service Integrated Facility per EDU Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Total Proposed 1 .11 ,_ #REF! EDU's To New Development Standard per Beyond Existing Service Standard New Integrated Facility ,I: I ;:I 1,000 EDU's [al•[b] 1,000 EDU's [d]-[a] [b]"[e] / 1000 [c]+[f] 11 I·, I 0.00 4 768 0.00 0.21 0.21 _______Ll1Q_ 1.00
E.2 Integrated Facility Beyond Existing Service Standard Spill Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development 11,1 It Faclllr; Tvoe
Existing
New Development
Total
E.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development Faclllt,,, Tvn<>
Existing
New DevetorJment
Total
..... •)•• ·.>;.HJ
Faclllty Tvne
General Govt. Facilities
Offsettlnn Revenues
Total
, .... .. .. .. ....
Land Use TvnA
Sinple Family
Multifamily
A9e Restricted
Retail
Office
Institutional
Industrial
Total Allocated to New Development
,. , 'I iii.
Outside Fundinn ResnonsibiliN
Total Cost of Police Facllltles
11 I
I
. : I 1
iiill11:i:P,fil
.. ••• , 1. , "
Number of Percentage of Total
EDU's EDU's
11,290 7031%
4,768 29.69%
16,058 100.00%
Total
lnteorated Facllltv Cost Allocated
0 70 7031%
0.30 29.69%
1.00 cost Allocated
to New Develonment
$5,491,579
1$2 144,238\
$3,347,341
. .. EDUs per Unit/
1,000 Non-Res. S.F.
1.00 0.80
0.54 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Integrated Facility Spill Integrated Facility
Between New and Allocated 100% To Total Integrated Facility Exlstloo Develooment New Develogment Allocated
0.70 N/A 0.70
0.30 0.00 0.30
1.00 100
Faclfttv COst
$949,160
$400,840
S1 350,000
Total Cost per
Future EDU's EDU
4,768 $1,151.81
4,768 1$449.731
$702.07
Fees per Unit/ Number of Units/ Cost Financed by
1,000 Non-Res. S.F. 1,000 Non-Res. S.F. DIF
$702.07 4,155 $2,917,072
$561.66 736 $413,546
$380.04 44 $16,722
$0.00 0 $0
$0.00 0 $0
$0.00 0 $0
$0.00 0 $0
$3,347,341
$5,245,045
$8 592 386
188
APPENDIXB
2019 Needs List
189
. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES
1 Stauon 3 (Incl. Training Faclllty and EOC)
2 Fueling Station
J fire Vehlcles
FecllltyNe.me
, Equipment (SCBA Bo11/es, Radio Equfpmenl, Jaws of Lite and rel. tools) 5 Statfon4
Fire Fsc/1/tles Revenues not yet Committed
TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES
B. POLICE FACILITIES
I Primary Station
2 Anlmal Shelter
J Range Facility
4 Flee1 Vehicles
5 firearms Stock:
PD/Ice Fac/111/e.s Revenues nnt vet Committed /JI TOTAL POLICE FACILITIES C, PARK FACILITIES CNon-OlllmtN}
1 Acres to Deveklp
2 RQQ'eatlonal Pool Faclllty
J Skate Pan.
Perks and Recreation F11clllt!BS /?Ii venues nor "(!t Committed
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
D. WATER FACILITIES
1 Surface Water Treatment Plant (Incl. Chromium 6 Testing) 2 Groundwater Sustainability & Recharge Project
J Valve Replacement
4 Water Lines
5 Well16
6 Water Meters
7 Well Rehabllltatlon
8 Equipment
9 Storage Tants and Booster Pumps
10 Groundwater Wells
,, Well ManlfOkl System
Weter Fscllltles Revenues not yet Ccmmlltlld
TOTAL WATER FACILITIES
. S R FACILITIES
1 Sewer Line Replacement
2 Nantes Storm Basin
J Central City Sub-basin
4 B Street Storm Basin
5 Pump Sletlon Rehabllitatlon
6 Jefferson Storm Line
7 Murrieta Storm line
8 Pectleco Storm line
9 Cllrus Second Storm Line
10 H - llllnols Storm Line
11 H - Neva<:te Storm Line
12 Jo-line Park ManOf Pump Slatlon
13 Cresthllls Pump Station Rehabllltatlon
1-f WWTP Headwort:s
15 Groundwater Study
16 \NWTP - Sludge Removal
17 \NWTP- Cold Mix Overlay
18 Potable Water Line lo WWTP
19 Solar Bee Add111ons
20 Equipment
21 Wastewater Treatment Plant
22 Pioneer Trunk
23 North Trunk
24 Meadowlands
25 Vineyard Trunk
26 Southeast Trunk
27 College Trunk
28 West Trunk
W11stewster Fee/I/ties Revenues net yet Ccmmmed
TOTAL SEWER FACILITIES
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
CITY OF LOS BANOS
PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS UST THROUGH 2038
(1)
Total Cost for Feel Illy
19.579,938
$545,000
$4,590.000
$341,639
SU00.000
M885Ure P
$19856577
S34,800,000
S12.500,000
$500,000
S1 ,8 5.732
S150,335
Measure P
$49,796.067
S32,768,223
S12,000,000
$1,500,000
S-16.268,223
$260,615,333
S230,000
$250,000
$3,212,000
S1,620,000
$398,528
S1.560.000
$479,000
$23.460,000
$11,340.000
Sl 0,815.000
$31 3,979,861
$200,000
$1,795,000
$2,298,000
$1,230,000
SJS0.000
S567,000
S161,000
S453,000
S100,000
$286,000
$286.000
SJl l ,000
$350.000
$6,615.000
$70,000
S250,000
$150,000
S200,000
$1,012,300
$1,055.000
$4,183.000
$9,303,000
S31,681,000
Sl.604,000
$1.049,000
S822,000
$360,000
$9,083,000
S75 82S.JOO
(2)
Off-setting
Revenues
{SS,000.000)
so
($100,000}
so
$0
{$3,314,623)
($1,429.9371
1$9844560]
$0
so
so
($100,000)
so
so
so
1s100000I
so
so
so
$3,71 4.758
!S3,714.758 t
($108.421.423)
$0
10 so
so
so
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
,s.a.089,498.
($116,510,921)
so
so
$0
so
10 10
10 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($75,000)
10 10
$0
$0
so
$0
10 ($4,405,000)
($5,500,000)
10 ($1,049,000)
($822,000)
($360,000)
($8,113,000)
$5,762887
'$26,086,8871
(3)
Net Cost to City
$4.579.938
$545,000
$4,-490,000
S341,639
$4,800.000
($4,744,560)
Sl0,012017
$34,800,000
$12,500,000
$500,000
S1.745,732
$150,335
so
$49,696067
$32,768.223
$12,000,000
$1,500,000
!S3,714,758
$42,553,465
$152.193.911
$230,000
$250,000
$3,212,000
$1,620,000
$398,528
$1,560,000
$419.000
$23.-160,000
S11,340,000
Sl0.815,000
1$8.089.498
$197.468 .9 1
$200,000
S1,795,000
12,298,000
$1,230,000
$350,000
$567,000
S161.000
$453,000
$100.000
$286,000
$286,000
$312,000
$350.000
$6,540,000
S70.000
$250,000
$150,000
$200,000
$1,012,300
$1,055,000
14.183,000
$4,898.000
$26,181,000
$1,604,000
$0
so
so
$970,000
($5762,8871
$49,738,413
(4) (5)
:i~~=,~~ ~foci;~ Cost Allocated to
Development New Development
89.22:lb $4,086.156
29.74% $162,080
68.63'li. S3,081.473
59.48% $203,204
89.22% S4.282.492
(S4.744,560
70.62% $7,070,845
29.74% $10,349,356
11 .68% $1,460,174
59.48% $297,395
59.48% S1.038,345
59.48% $89,418
so
26.63% $13,234,688
100.00% $32,768,223
29.69% S3,563,020
59.38% $890,755
$3714,758
78.74% $33,507,240
Sb.95% $86,677,223
29 .7 % $68.401
29.74% $74,349
29.74% S955.234
29.74% S481.780
29.74% S118,520
29.74% $463.937
29.74% S142.452
29.74% $6,976,893
29.74% S3.372.462
29.74'!1. S3,216,330
1$8,089,498
47 .83% $9 ,458,084
59.48% $118.958
59.48% $1.067,649
59.48% $1,366,829
59.48% $731,592
59.4 8% $208,177
59.48% S337,246
59.118% S95,761
59.48% S269, 40
59.48'if. $59,479
59.48% $170.110
59 8% $170,1 10
59.48% $185.575
59.48% $208.177
59.48% $3.889.930
59.48% $41,635
59.48% Sl-18,698
59.48% $89,219
59.48% $118,958
59.48% $602.106
59.48% $627,504
59.48% $2,488,009
59.48% $2,913.284
59.48% $15,572.212
59.48% $954.044
0.00% $0
0.00% $0
0.00% $0
59 8% S576,947
S5.762.887'
54.78% $27248,762
(6}
·Polley Background or Objective
Capita! lmprovemenI Plan
Capllal Improvement Plan
Counci I Objecuve
Council Objeclive
Council Objective
MeasLre P 20-Yr Expenditure Plan
Capital Improvement ?Ian
Council Objective
Capital Improvement ?Ian
Council Objective
Council ObJec!lve
Measure P 20-Yr Expenditure Plan
Councll Ol>Jecl lve
Council Ot)Jecttve
Courx:ltOIJJecttve
Water Master Plan
Captlal Improvement Plan
Cap!tal lmprow!ment Plan
Capital lmprovrmen1 Plan
Capital lmprovemen1 Plan
capital lmproV1HT10n1 Plan
capital Improvement Plan
Capita! Improvement Plan
Waler Mru.ler Plan
Waler Masler Plan
waIer MasIerPlan
Capital ITTlprovement Plan
Capital lmprow,ment Plan
Capital lmprovemer,t Plan
Capital Improvement Plan
Capital lmprovemer1t Plan
Capital Improvement Plan
Capital Improvement Plan
Capital lmproV1NT1en1 Plan
Capital lmprovP.ment Plan
capital lmprowmE!nl Plan
capital Improvement Plan
Capllal Improvement Plan
Capllal lmprovPmenl Plan
Gapll al lmprove-menl Plan
Capllal Improve-men! Plan
Capllal Improvement Plan
Capital lmprovemem Plan
Cap/la l lmprowimen\ Plan
Capita l Improvement Plan
Capital lmprovamen! Plan
SewerMasterPlaI1
SewerMas1erPlan
Sewer Master Plan
Sewer Master Plan
Sewer Master Plan
Sewer Master Plan
Sewer Master Plan
Se'NE!rMasterPlan
190
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
CITY OF LOS BANOS
PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS LIST THROUGH 2038
{1} (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
F&elllty Name Total Cost for Faclllty Off-setting
Revenues
Percent of Cost
Net Cost to City Allocated to New ;:;' ;~~~~~e~:~, Polley Back.ground or Objective Development
F. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
1 Airport No. 1 Sub-basin
2 Airport No. 2 Sub-basin
3 Citrus Terrace Sub-basin
4 College Greens No. 1 Sub-basin
5 College Greens No. 2 Sub-basin
6 Creekside No. 1 Sub-basin
l Creekside No. 2 Sub-b&Sln
B Crest HIiis Sub-basin
9 Gardens No. t end Gerdens No. 2 Sub-basin
10 Gardens No. 3 Sub-basin
11 Johnson Fleld Sub-basin
72 Meadowlands No. 1 Sub-basin
13 Ranchwood No. 2 Sub-basin
14 Skylark No. 2 Sub-basin
15 Walman No. 1 Sub-besln
16 Walman. No. 2 Sub-basin
Storm Onfn Revenues nol rt'f Commffted
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
G. TRAFFIC FACILI IES
7 Ward Road Improvements
2 Place Road Improvements
3 SR 165 Improvements
.f Badger Flat Road rmprovements
5 C8prl Avenue lmpn:>vements
d Dove S1,ee1 lmprovemenls
7 Pioneer Road Improvements
B cardoza Rd, MadlSon Ave, and Page Ave Improvements
9 In1ersectlon Improvements and Modifications
10 Traffic Master Plan
11 UtllltyVehlclesend Equipment
Trstrlc Facilities Revenues not WI Committed
TOTAL TRAFFIC FACILITIES
$778,000 ($778,000)
SJ,968,000 ($3,968,000)
$67,000 ($67,000)
$12,401,000 {$12,401,000)
$6,029.000 ($6,029,000)
$10,085.000 ($10,085,000)
$63,923.000 {$53,560,000)
$3,015,000 {$3,015,000)
S?,580,000 ($7,401.000)
S11.597,000 {$11,597,000)
$20,475,000 ($20.475,000)
SS,126,000 ($5,126,000}
$23,650,000 ($6,146,000}
$12,145,000 {$12,145,000)
$7,230,000 ($7,230,000)
n2,192,ooo ($12,7'n,OOO)
$51630
$200,861 ,000 ($172,866.632)
$8,095,566 ,o $512,709 so $13,097.052 $0
$2,899,919 so $2.429.922 $0
$329,411 $0
$2,613.483 so Sl.168.709 so $26,547,290 so $100,000 so $745,000 so [S6080997)
$58,539,061 iS60809971
H. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES (Clrv Hall Cgmmunl!Y Cenler PubllC. Fac.llltles, and Corporatlgn Yard Cettoorfes have been COllapuldj 7 City Hall Expansion & Rehabllltatlon
2 City Hall Parking Lot end Landscaping
3 Council Chamber Upgrade
4 Network/Server Replacement
5 Corporation Varel Expansion
Ge~ral Government Fael/ftfes Revenues not p t Committed
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
TOT Al ALL FACILITIES
(1] 2019 Neem LISI (INorklng Document)
[2] Oevelopn1e11t Impact Fund Balances as of Fiscal Vear 2018-2019 End [3] Assumes Majority of Offsetting Revenues w!II be app!led to pay for debt service on the proposed Primary Stal Ion. $7,249,050 so $1.751.750 $0
$200,000 $0
$215.705 ($29,881)
$1,350,000 $0
S2144238
s,o,766.505 ($2174.119)
$175.892,594 (S337 378 874)
so 0.00%
so 0.00%
so ('1.Q{l'X,
so 0.00%
so 0.00%
so 0.00%
$10,363,000 59.48%
so 0.00%
S119,000 59.48%
so o.ooo,;,
so 0.00'!-,
$0 0.00%
S11.504,000 59.48%
so 11.00'X.
so 0.00%
so 0.00%
1]516321
S27.994,368 69.40%
SS.095,566 29.84%
$51 2,709 29.84%
S1 3.097,052 29.84%
$2,899,919 29.84%
$2,429,922 29.84%
$329.411 29.84%
S2.613.483 29.84'iC.
$1,168,709 29.84%
$26,547,290 29.84%
$100,000 29.84%
S745,000 29.84%
fS608099n
$52,458,0!>4 21.71%
$7.249,050 5321%
S1 ,751,750 57.10%
$200,000 59.38%
$185,824 59.38%
$1,350,000 29.69%
jS21.ll.11238
$8,592,386 38.96%
S438 §13 721 47.lB'K,
so
so
$0
$0
so
so $6,1 63.815
$0
$106.468
$0
$0
$0
Sl0.411,214
so
$0
$0
1S51632
$16,629,864
$2,4 15,633
$152,987
$3,908,025
$865,306
$725,064
$98.293
$779,836
$3-48,731
$7.921,436
129,839
$222,300
fS6080997,
$11386,452
SJ.861 ,379
$1,000,244
$118.767
$110,349
$400,840
S2144,238
$3,347,341
$206,883,276
Storm Drain Master Plan
Storm Drain Master Plan
Storm Drain Master Plan
Storm Drain Master Plan
Storni Drain Master Plan
Storm Dralr,MasterPlan
Storm Drain Master Plan
Storm Drain ~ler Plan
Slorm Drain Mal.I er Plan
Storm Drain Master Plan
Storm Drain Master Plan
Storm Drain Master Plan
Storm Drain Master Plan
Storm Drain Master Plan
Storm Drain Master Plan
Storm Drain Master Plan
Council Objective
Cot.ncll Objective
Council Objective
COIXlCtlObjectlve
COU"lcilObjecUve
COU"lcilObjectiVe
COU"1Cil0bjeclive
Cou-.ctrObjecrtve
COl.l'\C!IObJectlve
Capital Improvement Ptm
Capital Improvement Plan
COU"ICIIObjectlve
Council Objective
Capital Improvement Plan
Capital lmprovPment Plan
Council Objective
191
192
RESOLUTION NO. 6764
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LOS BANOS APPROVING AN INCREASE IN
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO REFLECT
INCREASES IN THE ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX FOR 2024
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6163, approving a development impact fee justification study to be collected from new development projects as authorized by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code § 66000, et seq.,); and Los Banos Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 6163 establishes the process for the annual adjustment of development impact fees based on the change in the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index as reported for the twelve-month period ending in April of each year; and WHEREAS, the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco area indicates that construction costs increased 1.1 percent for the twelve- month period ending in April 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City of Los Banos complied with the notice requirements of the California Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held and conducted a public hearing on April 17, 2024, in accordance with applicable public notice, to review and consider the increase in development impact fees, and the updated Development Impact Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS; the City Council now wishes to adjust the fees in accordance with the increase in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco area and adopt the fees at the revised rates set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Banos does hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. In light of the increases in the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index for the twelve-month period ending in April 2024, the City Council approves an adjustment to increase development impact fees by 1.1 percent and adopts the increased development impact fees as shown on Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. The increased development impact fees as set forth in Exhibit A and adopted Resolution shall become effective on July 1, 2024.
SECTION 3. This Resolution adjusts only the amount of development impact fees to be collected from new development and does not modify any other provisions of Resolution No. 6163, which shall remain in full force and effect.
The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 17th day of April 2024, by Council Member Lambert who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member Jones and the Resolution adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Council Members Begonia, Jones, Lambert, Lewis, Mayor Llanez None
None
APPROVED:
p
i~~-~ Lucille L. Mallonee, City Cieri<'
193
Exhibit A
j , I I Fire I Police I Parks & I Water
I
Sewer I
Storm
I
Traffic- I
General I Admln Total Fees Rec. Drain Go~. :(3%)
Single Family I ~ 1.s20.48 ] s 2,845.18 I s 8.494.41 I s 1,635.06 I s s,8s8.33 l s 3,s1s.19 I s 1,516.08 I s 848.47 I s 910.54 $ 33,323.74 I 11 ,, 1111 I ,I •I 1Multi-family $ 1,215.90 $ 2,275.86 $6,795.04 $ 6,108.53 $ 4,687.16 $2,860.88 $ 1,091.40 $ 679.26 $ 771.12 $26,485.16 !Age Restricted $ 823.10 $ 1,539.82 $4,597.71 $4,132.71 $ 3,171.51 $1,935.06 $ 850.90 $ 459.29 $ 525.77 $18,035.87 !Retail $ 866.60 $ 1,620.80 $ - $4,349.93 $ 3,338.29 $ 2,037.78 $ 7,850.20 $ - $ 601.91 $20,665.52 Office I $ 650.2s I s 1,215.90 $ - $ 3,263.37 $ 2,503.11 $ 1,527.73 $ 1,572.46 $ $ 321.50 $11,054.32 Institutional I S 325.13 Is 607.94 $ - $ 1,631.67 $ 1,252.16 $ 763.86 $1,902.42 $ - $ 194.60 $ 6,677.79 Industrial I S 216.34 Is 404.91 $ - $ 1,087.80 $ 833.97 $ 508.85 $1,335.57 $ - $ 131.74 $ 4,519.18 .I
,, ':!•
194
ENR
Engineering News-Record
City Cost Index - San Francisco -As of April 2024
.......... The building and construction cost indexes for ENR's individual cities use the same components and weighting as those for the 20-city national indexes. The city indexes use local prices for portland cement and 2 X 4 lumber and the national average price for structural steel. The city's BCI uses local union wages, plus fringes, for carpenters, bricklayers and iron workers. The city's CCI uses the same union wages for laborers.
To find more recent cost index data, go to this webpage (link below) and click on the link for the year you need, and then navigate to the week you need. Keep in mind that the city cost index figures are always published in the second weekly issue of the month.
http://www.enr.com/economics/current costs
Go back to view all Ci!}.'. Indexes.
Year
Month
BC!
%CHG
CCI
!%CH~
ENR COST INDEXES IN SAN FRANCISCO (1978-2024)
2024
April
10804.99
+7.8
15488.96
+I.I
195
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
196
ORDINANCE NO.1178
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
AMENDING TITLE 9 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 6 OF
THE LOS BANOS MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING A GENERAL GOVERNMENT
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS, the City Council enacts this ordinance pursuant to the authority granted cities by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the City of Los Banos' (hereinafter "City") 2030 General Plan update "requires new development to pay its proportionate share of the costs of public infrastructure, services, and transportation facilities. This shall include parks, fire, and police stations, schools, utilities, roads, and other needed infrastructure"; and
WHEREAS, to help finance needed public facilities within the City, the City has adopted Ordinances to establish appropriate development impact fees pursuant to Government Code sections 66000 et seq; and
WHEREAS, the City has not updated or revised its development impact fee program since October of 2006; and •
WHEREAS, in accordance with policies established in the 2030 General Plan update, staff has taken steps to conduct a comprehensive review of the City's development impact fees to determine whether those fees are adequate to defray the cost of public facilities related to the development project; and WHEREAS, OTA (previously known as David Taussig & Associates, Inc.) was engaged by the City to prepare an updated AB 1600 Fee Justification Study; WHEREAS, as a part of the update effort the City has held a number of stakeholder's workshops attended by interested community members and the development community; and
WHEREAS, OTA. has prepared a report, entitled Development Impact Fee Justification Study, dated December 31, 2019 that calculates the maximum fee levels that may be imposed on new development and sets forth the nexus/basis for the imposition of the fees on new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held and conducted a public hearing on January 15, 2020, in accordance with applicable public notice, to review and consider the Development Impact Fee Justification Study, and the updated Development Impact Fee Schedule and this proposed ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to amend Chapter 2 Title 9 Article 6 of the Los Banos Municipal Code relating to development impact fees in the City of Los Banos by combining the Corporate Yard Development Impact Fee; City Hall Development Impact Fee; and Community Center Development Impact Fee; and establishing a General Government Facilities Development Impact Fee consistent with the above referenced Development Impact Fee Justification Study, and the updated Development Impact Fee Schedule.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to Resolution 6163 the City Council using its independent judgment found and determined that the Development Impact Fee Justification Study prepared bY OTA and dated December 31, 2019, complies with California Government 197
Code section 66001 by establishing the basis for the imposition of fees on new development. The City Council hereby incorporates those findings by reference herein in that the Development Impact Fee Justification Study:
(a) Identifies the purpose of the fee;
(b) Identifies the use and the public facilities to which the fee will be put; (c) Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
(d) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; and (e) 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. The City Council of the City of Los Banos does hereby add the following section to Title 9, Chapter 2, Article 6 of the Los Banos Municipal Code.
Sec. 9-2.614 General Government Facilities Development Impact Fee.
The City hereby establishes a fee for general government facilities to serve new residential and nonresidential land uses in the City and the City Council does hereby impose a general government facilities development impact fee to be paid at the rate set forth by City Council resolution.
Section 3. To the extent that the terms and provisions of this Ordinance may be inconsistent or in conflict with the terms or conditions of any prior City ordinance, motion. resolution, rule or regulation governing the same subject, the terms of this Ordinance shall prevail with respect to the subject matter thereof and such inconsistent or conflicting provisions of prior ordinances, motions, resolutions, rules or regulations are hereby repealed.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase added by this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions 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 phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases are declared unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective.
Section 5. The proposed amendments to the Los Banos Municipal Code do not propose any changes to City policies or regulations that would result in a direct or indirect physical environmental impact; therefore it has been determined that this ordinance amendment is covered by the general rule that the California Environmental Quality ·Act applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061(b)(3) and is not subject to environmental review. Alternatively, the proposed amendments to the Los Banos Municipal Code were contemplated as a subsequent implementation measure to address impacts on public facilities contemplated in the Los Banos 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2006121055)("GP Program EIR") and the Los Banos General Plan Land Resources Amendment Subsequent EIR (SCH #2016051033)("GPA SEIR"), and are generally consistent with the anticipated public facilities contemplated in the GP Program EIR/GPA SEIR; therefore it has been determined that this ordinance amendment falls within the scope of the project covered by the GP Program EIR/GP SEIR pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15162 and is not subject to further environmental review.
2 198
Section 6. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation sixty (60) days after its final passage and adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be posted and published once within fifteen days after passage and adoption as may be required by law: or, in the alternative the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the Office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance: and, within fifteen days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published, the aforementioned summary and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk.
Introduced by Council Member Lewis and seconded by Council Member Jones on the 15th day of January, 2020.
Passed on the 5th day of February, 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Faria, Johnson-Santos, Jones, Lewis, Mayor Villalta •
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
~I. ~
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
3 199
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
200
ORDINANCE NO. 844
AN ORDINANCE OF TilE CITY OF LOS BANOS AMENDING SECTION 9-2.1413 OF CHAPTER 2, TITLE 9~ OF THE LOS BANOS MUNICrPAL
CQDE PERTAINING TO PARK IMPROVEMENT FEE AND PARK DEDICATION FEE AMENDIN.G ORDINANCE NO. 769, EFFECTIVE JUNE l, 1991 • The .City.Council of the City of Los Banos does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Article 14, Sections 9-2.1401 through 9-2.1419, are hereby added to .Title 9, Chapter 2, of the Los Banos Municipal Code relaUµg to planning and zoning regarding subdivisions to provide as follows:
Section 9-2 . 1401. Authority, General Purpose and
Definitions.
This Chapter is adopted pursua~t to California
Government .Code Section 66477 and the general police power of the city, for the purpose of executing .and implemepting the parks and recreation. element of the General Plan of the City of Los Banos, .adopted by the City. of Los Banos in.
August, 1964. It is the purpose of this Chapter for (l) the acquisition of ·park land for neighborhood parks through d.edica.tiori of land or payment of fees in lieu thereof l;llld (2) the development of park and recreation facilities by imposition of fees in connection with the development of new dwelling units.
Except ·where the context otherwise requires, the
definitions given in ·this section govern the construction of this Chapter.
·(a) • The term. "developer" includes ·every · person, :f,'irm, or corporation constructing a. new dwelling unit, directly or through the services of any employee, agent, independent contractor, or otherwise.
(b) The term "new dwelling. unit" includes each
structure of permanent character, places in .. a pe:pnanent location, which is planne.;l, designed or used :for residential occupancy, including, but ' not limited .to, one"'family, • two-family, and multi-family dwellings, ··ap.artmertt houses and complexe:;; and mobile home :spaces, but not including hotels, . motels, and boarding houses for transient guests. : ; . _·. - ( c) The tei:m "subdivision" includes any type of
construction, ·land division or improvement ·of land which provides for .dwelling units identified .under the provisions of Section 66424 of the California Government Code.
''Subdivisi~n'' shall also include any increase in the number of mobile home spaces.
(d) The term "city;service area" shall .refer to the
geographical area of beneficial use. of one or more parks.
The boundaries of said service areas shall. be determined by resolution adopted by the :City Council ·of the City of Los Banos. •
(e) The term 0 park! service area" shall refer to the
geographical area of beneficial use of one. park;·as .
determined by the ·Recreation, Parks, and Community• Services.
Director .
• ·(f) The term "Land' value" means fair 111<1rket value of a buildable acre of land, as determined by the Los Banos C.ity Council.
i
I
.I
i
201
Section 9-2_.1402. Requirements.
At the time of approval of the tentative inap, parcel
map, ·or_ final map, or upon issuance of a building permit, the .Recreation, Park, and Community Service Director shall deter;mine pursuant_' to Section 9-2.1404 -hereof · the land requirecl for dedication or in lieu -fee payment; As a
condition of approval of a final subdivision map or parc;el map, or upon issuance · of a building permit,. the subd;ivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at. _the option of the City, for neighborhoodpark ·or
recreational purposes at the time and according to the
standards and formula contained in this ordi,nance.
Section 9-2.1403. Park Acreage Standard. ,
It is hereby found and determined that the public
interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety require that 3.:.- 6 acres of property for each 1,000 pe·rsons resid:i,ng within this City be devoted to local park and recreational purposes/ Said 3.6 acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000 i;-esidents ·irt the City .of Los Banos, and _ the cur?:ent maximum utilization·of·said acreage by the residents of Los Banos.
Section 9-2.1404. Formula for Dedication of Land.
Where a park or recreation facility has been
designated in the Recreation and Park Element of t;:he General Plan of the City, and is to be located in whole or ·in part within the proposed subdivision for the purpose of serving the µrimecliate and future needs Of the residents of the • s1.1bdivision, the developer shall dedicate land fora local pai::11: . sufficient in size and topography that·: bears a reasonable relationship to serve the present .and future' needs of -the residents of the subdivision. The amount of land to be provided shall be determined ' pu~suant .to th~ • following formula.
The formula for determining acreage to be dedicated shall be as follows:
Average No. of
Persons/Unit
park acreage standard·.
x 1,000 population .
Example for single-family dwelling unit (DU):
minimum . acreage
dedication/DU
3.0 X 3.6
1,000 .0108acres/DU .
The following table of population density has been
established pursuant to Section 66477(b) of the Government ·Code: .
Park Land Dedication Formula Table
Types of Dwellings
Single~Family Detached
Duplex
Multi-Family
Mobile Homes
Average Population
Density/DU
3.0 2.5
l.8
1.8 Acreage/DU
(3.6 acre std.)
.0108
.009
.00648
.00648
Dedication of the land·shall be made in accordance
with the procedures contained in Section -9-2.1412 hereof.
For the purpose of this section, the number of .new
dwelling units shall be based up.on the number of parcels indicated on ·the ·tentative or parcel map .when in an area· zoned for one <lwelling unit per parcel. -When all or part of 2 202
the subdivision is located in an ,area zoned for more than · one dwelling unit per parcel, the· num_ber of proposec!. · • dwelling units in the area so zoned shall equal the maximWII ·,illowed under that zone, including any applicable density incre;:ises. _ ·rrt the case of a condomin:hJJ11 projec;t; the number of new dwelling units shall be _the number. of condominiwri ilrtits. The term "new dwelling unitll does not include · dwelling units lawfully in place prior to the date on which the .. parce1 or final map is filed.
The developer. shall, without credit: (1) provide full
street improvements and utility connections incl_uding. but not limited to, curbs, gutter, street paving, t .raffic • . control ·devices, street trees, and sidewalks to land which is dedicated pursuant to this section; (2) provide for
fenc i ng along the property line of that portion ·of the subdivision contiguous to the dedicated land; · (13) provide improved drainage through the site; and (4) provide other minimal improvements: which the City determines to be
essential to the acceptance of the land for recreational purposes.
The larid to be dedicated and the improvements to be
made pursuant to this section shall be reviewed at the
tentative map stage in accordance with the criteria set; _ forth in Section 9-2.1410 and approved by the Director of Recreation and Parks.
Section 9-2.1405. Formula for Fees Irt Lieu of Land
Dedication,
(a) General .. Formula. if there is no park. or
recreation .facility designated in the Recreation ap.d Parks Element of the General Plan to be located-in whoie or .iii part within the proposed subdivision for -the purpose of serving the immediate· and future needs of the residents of the subdivision; the developer shail, · frilieu' of dedicating land,· pay a fee equal to the value of that larid, plus 20% towards costs of. off-site improvements, prescribed for - cledication in Section 9-2.1404 hereof and in .an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-2.1407hereof.
·For the purposes of this ordinance, off-site
imprQvements _. are defined as those improvements which would have been required if land had been dedicated using the · provisions .of Section 9-2 .. 1404. •
(b) Fees' in Lieu of Land; 50 Parcels or Fewer, If
the proposed subdivision contains fifty (SO) parcels or - fewer, ·the subdivider shall pay a fee ·equal tq the land value,· plus . 20% toward costs of off-site 'i!nprovements, of the portion of. the local park ·requirecl to serve the needs of resid_ents of the proposed subdivision as prescribed. in Section 9-2 . 1404 hereof and in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-2.1407 hereof.
However, nothing in this section ·shall prohibit the
dedication and acceptance of land for park and- recreation purposes in subdivisions of fifty parcels or fewer, where . the developer proposes !lUCh dedication '. v6lunta:rily and the land -is approved by' the Director of Reereatio11 and Parks; , . . .... (c) Use of Money. The money coilected.hereun!fer
shall be u·sed_ only for the purpose of -acquiring ne·cessary land and developing new or rehabilitating ·existing park or recreational facilities reasonably related to serving. t.he subdivision. •
3..
203
Section 9-2.1406. Criteria for Regu:i.ring Both De.dication and -Fee . .
. . In s~bdivisions of more than fifty {50) parcds. t;he deve);oper shall both dedicate land and pay .a fee in _ accordance with the following formula:
(a) ·When only a portion of the land to be subdivided
is proposed on .the .Recreation and Parks Element of the General Plan as the site for park pur.poses. such portion shall be dedicated for p.;Jrk purpose and a.fee .computed • pursuant to the provisions of Section _9-2.1406hereof shall be paid for the value of any additional land, plus 20% . • toward. costs of. off~site improvements.. that would have been required to be dedic_ated purstiant to Section 9,:-2.1404 hereof.
Sect;ion· 9-2.1407. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Land
Dedication.
When a fee is. to be paid in lieu of land dedication.
the amount of such fee shall be, based upon the .fair market value of the amount of land which would. otherwise be
requited for dedication pursuant to Section 9-2.1404 plus io% ' toward costs of off-site improvements, such as ext;ension of utility .lines. The fee shall be determined by the
following formula:
DUs x f.!!E. x 3.6 acres x FMV = subtotal x 6/_5
DU 1,000 Buildable in-lieu fee
people Acre
where
DUs = Nwµber of dwelling units as defined in Sect_j,.on 9-2.1404 f2E_ = population _per dwelling unit
DU
FMV - fair market value. per bu_ildable acre as · determined by Section 9-2.1408
Buildable Acre= a typical acre of the subdivision, with a slope .less than 10%, and -·located. in other
than an area on which buildtng is excluded
because _of flooding. ·easements, or other
restrictions.
Fees to be collected pursuant to this section sha:J,l ·be reviewed by :the Director of Recre.-tion and Parks to
ascertain if they comply with the formula set forth above.
If, compliai:ice is found. then the fees shall be approved by the Director of .Recreation and Parks.
Section 9-2.1408. Determination of Fa'ir Market Value , The fair market value per buildable acre shall he ·•
determined annually by resolution adopted by -the City · • Council of the C.it_y of Los Banos.
Section 9~2.1409, Formula for Park Development Fees.
(a) General Formula. A fee shall be paid for -park
development by -the developer of each new dwelcling unit in;-espective· of whether the. developer is required to . dedicate land or pay fees in lieu of land dedication as set forth in Sections 9-2.1404 and 9-2.1405. This fee 'shall be used t~ pay for t;hose improvements including. but riot . li,mited to, landscaping and installat_ic;,n or recreat:ional facilities which are not required by Sections ·9-2., 1404 and· 9-2;1405. The fee shall be determined by. the following foi:mulai
4 204
~
DU
acre
fil 3.6 acres DC
DU x 1,000 people X acre $/unit _
• Popul~tion per dwelling unit (see Section 9-2'.1404)
Development cost per acre of park and recreati~na1·
facilities. · Development costs ·per acre shall be
de.termined _as set forth in_ Section 9-:2.1410.
Fees to be ·c611ectedpursuant to this .section shall be reviewed by the Director of Recreation aml Parks • to
ascertain if _they comply with the formula set forth above.
If compliance is found, then the fees shall be approved by the Director of Recreation and Parks.
Section 9-,2.1410. Determination of Park Development
Cost Per Acre.
the development cost per acre of park larid shall, be
determined annually by resolution adopted by the City .
Council of the City of Los Banos.
Section 9-2; 14il. Determination of Land or Fee,
Whether the City accepts land dedication. or elects to
require payment of a fee in- lieu thereof, or a combination of .both, shall be determined by consideration <>f the
fol'iowing:
(a) The natural features, access, and location of
land in the subdivision available for dedication; .
(b) the size and shape of the subdivision and larid
available for dedication;
(c) The feasibility of dedication;
(d) The compatibility of dedication with the •
Recreation and Parks Element of the General Plan; and '' ' . (e) The location of existing ~rid propo$ed park sites and trailways.
Section 9-2.1412. C~edit for Private Open Space~
No credit shall be given for private open space in the
subdivision except as hereinafter provided. Where private open space _usable'for active recreational purposes is
provided in a proposed planned dev_elopment or real e$1;ate development as defined in Sections 11003 and 11003.1 of the Business and Professions Code, partial credit, not to exceed 45%, shall be given against the requirement of and
dedication or payment of fees in _lieu thereof if the City finds that it is in the public -interest _to do so and that ~11 the following standards are met: •
(a) Yards, c_ourt areas, setbac;ks, and other _open
areas required by the zoning and building ordinances and · regulations shall not be included in the computation o.f such pr'ivate open space; and
• _(b) Private park and recreational fa.cilities shall; he owned by an owners association composed of ·all property · owners·. in the subdivision and being an ' incorporated nonprofit organization capable of dissolution orily by a -100% afhrmative vote of the membership and approved by the city, operated . under recorded land ·agreements through which each lot awrier in the neighborhood is automatically a member, and 5 205
each lot is subject to a charge for a proportionate share. of expenses :!;or maintaining .the facilities; and
(c) Use of .the private open space is restricteci for
park and recreaticm purposes .. by record.ed covenant which runs the land in favor of the future owners of the property .and which cannot be defeated o~ eliminated without the consent of the city or its successor; and
(d) . The proposed private open space is reasonably .
adaptable for use for park ·and recreation purposes~ taking into considerat;ion ;such factors as. size, shape, ·topography, geology, access, and location; and •
'!;he open space .for which credit• is given is a m1n1mum of three acres and provides a minimum of five of the local park bl!,sic elements listed below, or a combination of such and ·other recreation improvements that; will ·meet .the specific recreation needs of future residents ·Qf the area:
Elements:
L ,children's play apparatus area
z. Landscape park-like with quiet areas
3. Family picnic area.
4; Giune court; area
5. ~urf playfield .
6. Swimming poql. (42' x 75' with
adjacent deck and lawn areas)
7. Recreation center building
.Acres·
.50 to .15
.50 to 1.00
.25 to .75 · ;.25 to ,50
LOO to 3.0ci
.25 to ;SO
.15 to .25
Before credit is given, the Recreation, Parks, and Conmiunity Service Director shall make written findings that the above standards are met.
Section 9-2.1413. Procedure.
At the time of approval of the tentative map or parcel
map, rezoning, or any other discretionary approval of
development, the Recreation, Parks, and. Community Service Director shall determine, pursuant to Section 9-2.1404
hereof, the ·land required. for dedication. If. the
Recreation, )arks, ,and Community Service Director requii:ei; . in-lieu.fee payment by the developer, the Reci'eation, ·Parks, and Community Service Director shall set the amo.unt .of land upon which the in-lieu fee will be based • at the tim~ of . final map approval. At the time of filing of final map, the l";ubdivider shall dedicate the land. In-Heu fees and Park Dedication Fees shall be paid at the time of final
'inspection, prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. in-lieu fees shall be established using .current land values at the time of payment with the formula set forth in Section 9-2.1407. Park development fees shall be established using current park i.mproveinent costs at the time of payment with the formula set forth in Section . 9-2.~409. r.
Open space covenants for private park•or recreation
facilUies shall be submitted to the City prior t ·o approval .of the final subdivision map or. parcel map . and shall .be recorded contemporaneously with the final subdivision.map.
The land to be d.edicated and/or in-Heu and· park ·
d.evelopment. fees to be paid, shall be subject .to the latest:
adopted ordinances, resolutions; policies,. anq fees, • adopted by the. City Council .and in effect. at the time .of the .final map .review and approval. •
Section 9-2.1414. Disposition of Fees.
, Fees determined pursuant to Section 9-2~ 1407 and
9.-2; 1409 shall be paid to the City Finance Director. and shall .·be deposited into the subdivision park trust fuml, or 6 206
\_
its succes.sor, Money .in said fund, including accrued
interest, shall be expended solely for acquisition,
d·e~elopment, or rehabilitation · of park land · or improvements related thereto . .
Collected fees shall be appropriated by the local
agency to which the land or fees are conveyed or paid for a specific project to serve residents of the subdivisi.on in a budgetary year .within ·five years upon receipt of payments or within five years after the issuance of building permits on one-half of th.e lots created by the subdivision, whichever · occurs later.
If such fees·are not so coDDDitted, these fees shall be d:istributed and paid to .the then record owners of the subdivision iri the same proportion that the size of their lot bears to the total area of ~11 lots in tpe subdivision. _The City Finance Di~ector shall report to the City at
least ·annually on income, expenditures, and status of the . subdivision park trust fund ..
Sect;ion 9-2.1415. Exemptions.
. Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential purposes shall be exempted from the requirements of this ordinance; provided, however, that a . condition shall· be placed on the approval of such parcel· map that . if a building peJ:11!i1: . is requested for construction·. of a residential structure or structures on one or more of the p,arc;.els the fee may be required to be paid by the. owner of. each such . parcel as condition to the issuance of :Such permit .. • The provisions _of the ordinance do not apply . to .. • commercial -or .industrial subdivision; nor do .they apply to condominium· projec;.ts .·or stock cooperatives. which consist of the subdivision of air space in ·an existing apartment
building which is more than five years old when ·no new dweliing units are added. • •
Section·9-2.1416. Developer-Provided Park ·.and Recreation Improvements .
. After··. the Planning Commission determines • that land required for dedication and/or in-lieu _fee payment by_ the developer, the developer may apply to the recreation and Parks Department for .permission to construct specified park - and recreation improvements on land of ·said developer
required :for dedication or. on other land within the same city service area to be developed as a park. If the •
Recreation and Parks Department grants the developer
permission for construction ·of specified parks and
recreation improvements on said land, said Dep.art;ment shall fix the dollar value of the parks and .recreation
improvements approved by said Department. The dollar value of park and recreation :improvements provided by the
developer in the manner described herein shall be credited against the fees required by this ordinance.
Section 9-2.1417. • ·schedule for Use of ·tand or Fees.
The Recreation and Parks Department .shall develop a
schedule specifying how, when, and. where it will use the land ·or fees, or both, to develop park or·recreat:ional facilities to serve residents of the subdivision. •
All land offered for dedication to local pa.rk or·.
recreational purposes shall. have access to at. -least one existing _or propQsed public street. This requirement may be waived by the City if the City determines that public street 7 207
access is unnecessary for maintenance of the park area or use thereof by residents.
Section 9-2.1419. Sale of Dedicated Land.
!f during the ensuing time! between dedication of land
for park purposes and commencements of first-stage
development, circumstances. arise which indicate that anot.her site would be more suitable for local park or re.creational purposes serving the subdivision and the neighborhood (such as receipt ·of a gift of additional park land or a change in school location), the land inay be .sold upon the approval of the City with the resultant funds being used for the •
purchase. of a more suitable site.
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or po_rtiqn of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be hwalid or unconstitutiona-1 by the decision of· any court of competent jurisdiction, such decisions sh,111 not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one_ or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases or portions shouid be declared invalid or unconstitut;i.onal.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation thirty (30) days after its final passage and ·adoption, and shall be . published by one ( 1) inserti_on in the Los Banos Enterprise; a newspape_r printed and published in the. City of Los Banos, .within .fifteen (15) days' after •its final passage.
Introduced·by·council Member O'Brien on the 17th day of April, 1991.
.i\TTEST:
Passed on the 1st .day of May, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Affonso, O'Brien, Scott, Sparks, c1nd Mayor Austin
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS None
ABSENT: COUNCIL HEHBERS None
~tC:±k
Mayor - City of Los Banos
208
ORDINANCE NO. 844
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS AMENDING SECTION
9~2.1413 OF CHAPTER 2, TITLE 9, OF THE LOS BANOS
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE AND
PARK DEDICATION FEE
The city Council of the City of Los Banos does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Section 9-2.1413 of Chapter 2, Title 9, of
the Los Banos Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9-2.1413. Procedure.
At the time of approval of the tentative map or
parcel map, rezoning, or any other discretionary approval of development, the Recreation, Parks, and Community
Service Director shall determine, pursuant to Section
9-2.1404 hereof, the land required for dedication. If
the Recreation, Parks and Community Service Director
requires in-lieu fee payment by the developer, the
Recreation, Parks and Community Service Director Service Director shall set the amount of land upon which the
in-lieu fee will be based at the time of final map
approval. At the time of filing of final map, the
subdivider shall dedicate the land. In-lieu fees and
Park Development Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection, prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. In-lieu fees shall be established using
current land values at the time of payment with the
formula set forth in Section 9-2.1407. Park development fees shall be established using current park improvement costs at the time of payment with the formula set forth in Section 9-2.1409.
Open space covenants for private park or recreation
facilities shall be submitted to the City prior to
approval of the final subdivision map or·parcel map and shall be recorded contemporaneously with the final
subdivision map. •
The land to be dedicated and/or in-lieu and park
development fees to be paid, shall be subject to the
latest adopted ordinances, resolutions, policies, and
fees, adopted by the City Council and in effect at the
time. of the final map review and approval.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be published by one (1) insertion in the Los Banos Enterprise, a newspaper printed and published in the city of Los Banos, within fifteen (15) days after its final passage.
Introduced by Council Member O'Brien on the 17th day of Ap1;il, 1991.
GERMINO, BRODIE, RUNTE, AMARAL, JORDAN & CARPENTER
111~ WS8T I aTREET, IIUITE B
P.a. ax•••
LOB BANDB,. CALlf"QRHIA 93&35
209
vote:
ATTEST:
: .. .. ,.._,
Passed on the 1st day of May, 1991, by the following··
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Affonso, O'Brien, Scott, Sparks, and Mayor Austin
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS None
APPROVED:
2JJ~ .--- t:' Mayor - City of
OERMINO, BRODIE, RUNTE, AMARAL, JORDAN & CARPENTER
uaa WEST t 8TRllff, 8UITE B
p.a. eax ••1
LQIS BANDS. CALll'ORNIA 93ili35
C!:L
Los Banos
210
LOsBanos
t tlu· ( o~ 1ocuh oj C ,,lijm 111a
Agenda Staff Report
TO:
FROM:
Mayor & City Council Members
Lucy Mallonee, MMC
City Clerk/Human Resources Director
DATE: December 17, 2025
TYPE OF REPORT: Agenda Item
SUBJECT: City Commission Appointment
Recommendation:
Appoint member to the following City Commission:
Planning Commission - One ( 1) Vacancy
One (1) Unexpired Term in District 1 - Expiring December 31, 2028 Discussion:
*A District Electoral Map can be found on the City's website at:
https://losbanos.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Draft-B.pdf Staff advertised the above vacancies on the City's website, on social media, and on the bulletin board outside of City Hall. Applicants were interviewed by a committee per City policy. Any remaining vacancies on City commissions will continue to be advertised.
Fiscal Impact:
None
Reviewed by:
Nirorn Than, City Manager
ITEM 9A
211
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
212
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
LOsBanos
Al the C,oss,o,uls of California
Agenda Staff Report
Mayor & City Council Members
City Manager
Paul Tualla, Fire Chief 'P7
December 17, 2025
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution Adopting the City of Los Banos' Emergency Operations Plan and Emergency Operations Annexes TYPE OF REPORT: Agenda
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the updated City of Los Banos' Emergency Operations Plan with Emergency Operations Center Annex and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Letter of Promulgation stating the Council's support for the Plan.
Background:
The City of Los Banos' Emergency Operations Plan identifies the City's emergency planning, organization, and response policies and procedures. The plan also addresses the integration and coordination with other governmental agencies, special districts and non-governmental organizations involved in emergency preparedness, management and response operations. By its nature, an Emergency Operations Plan is a living document. It is acknowledged that processes, guidance and protocols change and so too must this document. The City's Office of Emergency Services, within the Fire Department, is responsible for reviewing the entire plan on an annual basis and coordinating the revision of the plan as required. The last revision to this plan and adoption by resolution was in February 2017. • A complete review of the program and revision was initiated to update the plan and the City's preparedness.
ITEM 10
213
Discussion:
The updated Emergency Operations Plan being presented for adoption is an essential document for emergency management. The plan provides a framework for response and emergency management systems, defines roles and responsibilities of the City's emergency response organization and provides triggers for implementation of this plan during disasters, all of which, along with training and exercises, prepare the emergency organization to respond effectively when Los Banos is impacted by a disaster. This resolution is required to maintain compliance with the State's Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the Federal government's National Incident Management System (NIMS) program elements enabling eligibility for State and Federal disaster assistance. This plan also fulfills Federal and State planning requirements for continued Homeland Security Grant eligibility.
The City of Los Banos, Merced County and the other Cities within Merced County have worked in cooperation with Merced County OES and Aanko Technologies Consulting to update all Emergency Operations Plans within Merced County. This allows each Jurisdiction to work flawlessly with neighboring jurisdictions in the event of a disaster.
This approach also allowed this plan update to be funded by State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) funding.
Approval of the 2025 Emergency Operations Plan will ensure that the City of Los Banos remains prepared to effectively respond to emergencies and disasters. The updated plan strengthens coordination with county, state, and federal partners and enhances the safety and resilience of our community.
Fiscal Impact:
There would be no fiscal impact.
Reviewed by:
Nirorn Than
City Manager
Attachments:
Resolution
2025 Emergency Operations Plan
2025 Emergency Operations Center Annexes
~ Db Wa~ J- Minerva More
Finance Director
214
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LOS BANOS ADOPTING THE 2025 CITY OF LOS
BANOS' EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN REVISION
AND THE 2025 EMERGENCY OPERATION ANNEXES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Los Banos recognizes that planning for emergencies in advance can reduce potential harm to people and property within our community from the threat of natural, human caused and/or technological hazards; and WHEREAS, an emergency operations plan and its associated annexes provide the framework for emergency response and emergency management in the City of Los Banos during disasters; and
WHEREAS, the overall objective of emergency management for the City of Los Banos is to ensure the effective management of response forces and resources in preparing for and responding to situations associated with natural disasters, humancaused and technological incidents and national security emergencies; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Banos' emergency management program is committed to provide effective life safety measures, while reducing property loss and damage to the environment and provides for rapid resumption of impacted business and community services; and
WHEREAS, The 2025 Emergency Operations Plan delegates authority to the Emergency Services Coordinator (Los Banos Fire Chief) to make specific modifications to the adopted Emergency Operations Plan without the signature of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The 2025 Emergency Operations Basic Plan, its Functional Annexes and Hazard Appendices supersedes all previous versions of the City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan; and
WHEREAS, upon adoption of this plan, the City of Los Banos will concurrently be adopting the provisions of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as directed by the Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Banos does hereby adopt the Emergency Operations Plan as an official plan for the City of Los Banos, a political subdivision of the County of Merced and the State of California. 215
The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 17th day of December 2025, by Council Member ___ who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member ___ and the Resolution adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
Michael Amabile, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
216
Emergency
Operations Plan
APRIL 2025 FINAL
217
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Emergency Operations Plan has been created in conjunction with the City of Los Banos Departments and Stakeholders who play a critical role in the Emergency Management Organization within the City of Los Banos.
As with any working plan, this document represents planning strategies as understood as of the date of this plan's release. This plan provides effective tools, guidance and strategies in support of emergency operations prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery within the City of Los Banos.
Basic Plan, 2025 2
218
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan ~----- ---------
LETTER OF PROMULGATION
April 2025
To: Officials and Employees of the City of Los Banos
The preservation of life and property is an inherent responsibility of all levels of government. As disasters occur in devastating form at any time, the City of Los Banos must provide safeguards, which will save lives and minimize property damage through planning, preparedness measures and training. Sound emergency plans carried out by knowledgeable and well-trained personnel can and will minimize losses.
The City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan establishes an Emergency Management Organization and assigns functions and tasks consistent with California's Standardized Emergency Management System and the National Incident Management System. Both systems provide for the integration and coordination of efforts within the City of Los Banos. These systems were adopted by both the State and Federal Government following disasters where lack of coordination resulted in greater losses than necessary The City's plan was developed for use by City of Los Banos employees with emergency service responsibility. Input was sought from agencies inside and outside of the City of Los Banos that have a coordination role in providing emergency services using a "Whole Community" approach. These include the Merced County Office of Emergency Services and the California Office of Emergency Services. This plan provides direction on emergency response from onset, through an extended response and into the recovery process.
Once adopted, this plan is an extension of the 2024 California Emergency Plan, and the 2025 County of Merced Emergency Operations Plan. It will be reviewed and tested periodically and revised as necessary to meet changing conditions.
The City Council gives its full support to this Emergency Operations Plan and urges all employees to read the plan, understand it, know your role and be prepared to provide extraordinary support to the citizens of the City of Los Banos when needed.
Sincerely,
Director of Emergency Services
City of Los Banos
Basic Plan, 2025 3
219
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan --'----------------------------''---
APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION
FOREWORD
The City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan addresses the City's planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents and national security emergencies in or affecting the City of Los Banos. This plan does not apply to normal day-to-day emergencies or the established departmental procedures used to cope with such emergencies. Rather, this plan focuses on operational concepts and would be implemented relative to large-scale disasters which can pose major threats to life, property and the environment requiring unusual emergency responses. This plan accomplishes the following:
• Establishes the emergency management organization required to mitigate any significant emergency or disaster affecting the City of Los Banos. • Identifies the roles and responsibilities required to protect the health and safety of Los Banos residents, public and private property and the environmental effects of natural and technological emergencies and disasters.
• Establishes the operational concepts associated with a field response to emergencies, the City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Center activities and the recovery process.
PLAN APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION
Upon concurrence of the City Council, the plan will be officially adopted and promulgated. The approval date will be included on the title page. The plan will be distributed to those City departments, supporting allied agencies and community organizations having assigned primary functions or responsibilities within the plan.
PLAN ACTIVATION
The City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan may be activated by the Director of Emergency Services, the Deputy Director of Emergency Services or designated alternates under any of the following circumstances:
• On the order of the Director of Emergency Services as designated by Title 4, Chapter 2.
Civil Defense of the City of Los Banos Municipal Code.
• Upon proclamation by the Governor that a STATE OF EMERGENCY exists in an area of the state.
• Automatically on the proclamation of a STATE OF WAR EMERGENCY as defined in the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7, Division 1, Title 2, California Government Code.)
• Upon declaration by the President, of the existence of a NATIONAL EMERGENCY. • Automatically, on receipt of an attack warning or actual attack on the United States, or upon occurrence of a catastrophic disaster that requires immediate government response.
PLAN MODIFICATIONS
Upon the delegation of authority from the Los Banos City Council, specific modifications can be made to this plan by the Emergency Services Coordinator (Los Banos Fire Chief) without the signature of the City Council. This 2025 Emergency Operations Basic Plan, its Functional Annexes and Hazard Appendices supersedes all previous versions of the City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan.
Basic Plan, 2025 4
220
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2 LETTER OF PROMULGATION .................................................................................................. 3 APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................... 4 FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................... 4 PLAN APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................... 4 PLAN ACTIVATION .......................................................................................................................... 4 PLAN MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................................... 4 Plan VERSION HISTORY .......................................................................................................... 8 RECORD OF CON CU RANCE ..................................................................................................... 9 BASIC PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 10 SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE, SCOPE, SITUATION AND ASSUMPTIONS ........................................... 10
1.1 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................ 10
1.1.1 Planning Organization and Format ............................................................................................ 10
1.2 SCOPE .................................................................................................................................... 11
1.2.1 California Emergency Support Functions .................................................................................. 11
1.2.2 Federal Emergency Support Functions ..................................................................................... 12
1.3 SITUATION OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 13
1.3.1 City History ................................................................................................................................ 13
1.3.2 Hazard Analysis Summary ......................................................................................................... 15
1.3.3 Capability Assessment ............................................................................................................... 16
1.3.4 Mitigation Overview .................................................. ; ............................................................... 16
1.3.5 Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 16 SECTION 2.0 CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS ............................................................................... 18
2.1 GOALS PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES ....................................................................................... 18
2.1.3.1 Operational Goals ................................................................................................................... 18
2.1.3.2 Operational Priorities ............................................................................................................. 18
2.1.3.3 Operational Strategies ........................................................................................................... 19
2.2 STANDARDIZED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................................................. 19
2.2.1 Standardized Emergency Management System Organization Levels ..................... , ................. 20
2.2.2 Standardized Emergency Management System Functions ....................................................... 21
2.2.3 Standardized Emergency Management System Components .................................................. 24
2.2.4 National Incident Management System .................................................................................... 25
2.2.5 Mutual Aid ................................................................................................................................. 26
2.2.6 Mutual Aid Coordination ........................................................................................................... 27
2.3 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS DURING DISASTERS .............................................................................. 30
2.3.1 Before Impact ............................................................................................................................ 30
2.3.2 Immediate Impact ..................................................................................................................... 31
2.3.3 Sustained Operations ................................................................................................................ 33
2.3.4 Transition to Recovery .............................................................................................................. 33
2.3.5 Proclaiming an Emergency ........................................................................................................ 34
2.4 CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS .......................................................................... 37
2.4.1 City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Policy Statement ..................................................... 38 Basic Plan, 2025 5
221
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan --------------
2.4.2 Disaster Service Workers ........................................................................................................... 38
2.5 CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT /OPERATIONS ......................................................................... 39 SECTION 3.0 ORGANIZATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITIES ................................ 40
3.1 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT RESPONSE LEVELS ...................................................................... 40
3.1.1 National Emergency .................................................................................................................. 40
3.2 CITY DEPARTMENT/ALLIED AGENCY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER ASSIGNMENTS ........... 40
3.2.1 Director of Emergency Services ................................................................................................ 40
3.3 ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR ................................................................................................ 42
3.3.1 Los Banos Residents .................................................................................................................. 42
3.3.2 People with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs ....................................................... 42
3.3.3 At-Risk Individuals ..................................................................................................................... 43
3.3.4 Businesses ................................................................................................................................. 43
3.3.5 Volunteer Organizations ........................................................................................................... 44
3.3.6 Public-Private Partnerships ....................................................................................................... 44 SECTION 4.0 DIRECTION, CONTROL AND COORDINATION .................................................... 45
4.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................................................ 45
4.2 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER COORDINATION WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT LEVELS AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR ................................................................................................................... 45
4.2.1 Coordination with Field Response Level ................................................................................... 45
4.2.2 Coordination with Merced Operational Area and Member Jurisdictions ................................. 45
4.2.3 Coordination with the County and Special Districts ................................................................. 46
4.2.4 Coordination with the Inland Region Emergency Operations Center ....................................... 46
4.2.5 Coordination with State and Federal Field Response ............................................................... 46
4.2.6 Coordination with Volunteers and the Private Sector .............................................................. 46 SECTION 5.0 INFORMATION COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION ........................................... 47
5.1 ACTION PLANNING ................................................................................................................. 47
5.1.1 Planning Requirements ............................................................................................................. 47
5.1.2 Plan Elements ............................................................................................................................ 47
5.1.3 Planning Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 48
5.2 EOC REPORTING ..................................................................................................................... 48
5.2.1 Preliminary Reports ................................................................................................................... 48
5.2.2 Situation Reports ....................................................................................................................... 48
5.2.3 Flash Reports ............................................................................................................................. 48
5.2.4 Documentation ......................................................................................................................... 48
5.2.5 Status Boards/Charts ................................................................................................................. 49
5.3 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER REPORTING SYSTEMS ........................................................ 49
5.4 EMERGENCY PUBLIC INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 49 SECTION 6.0 COMMUNICATIONS ......................................................................................... 50
6.1 WARNING RESPONSIBILITY ............................................................................................... ; ..... so
6.2 WARNING AND ALERT MECHANISMS ...................................................................................... 50
6.3 WARNING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 50 SECTION 7.0 DOCUMENTATION, FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND LOGISTICS ...................... 51
7.1 DOCUMENTATION .................................................................................................................. 51
7.2 FINANCE ................................................................................................................................. 51
7.3 EXPENDITURE TRACKING ........................................................................................................ 51 Basic Plan, 2025 6
222
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan -"------------------------ 7 .3.1 Eligible Expenses ....................................................................................................................... 51 7 .3.2 Record keeping Requirements ................................................................................................... 51
7.4 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (LOGISTICS) ................................................................................... 52 7 .4 1 Resource Priorities .................................................................................................................... 52 7 .4.2 Resource Requests .................................................................................................................... 52 7 .4.3 Emergency Resource Directory ................................................................................................. 53 SECTION 8.0 PREPAREDNESS, TRAINING AND EXERCISES ...................................................... 54
8.1 PREPAREDNESS PLANNING ............................................................................................ 54
8.1.1 Community Preparedness and Awareness ..................................................................... .......... 54
8.1.2 Preparedness Actions ................................................................................................................ 54
8.2 READINESS TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 55
8.3 EXERCISE AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 55 SECTION 9.0 PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE ....................................................... 56
9.1 PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY ..................................................... 56
9.2 REVIEW AND UPDATING ......................................................................................................... 56 SECTION 10.0 AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES ..................................................................... 57
10.1 AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................................ 57
10.2 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 57
11.0 GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ......................................................................................... 58
11.1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................ 58 Basic Plan, 2025 7
223
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
PLAN VERSION HISTORY
(Note: File each revision transmittal letter behind this record page.) Basic Plan, 2025 8
224
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan - ---- ---------
RECORD OF CONCURANCE
The following documents the City Manager/Director of Emergency Services and City Council's concurrence and receipt of the 2025 City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan. As needed, changes will be submitted to the City of Los Banos Fire Department.
City Manager
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Date
Basic Plan, 2025 9
225
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan ----------------------------'---"-------
BASIC PLAN
SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE, SCOPE, SITUATION AND ASSUMPTIONS
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of the City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan, its Functional Annexes and Hazard/Threat Specific Appendices is to provide the basis for a coordinated response before, during and after a disaster incident affecting the City of Los Banos.
This plan is the principal guide for the City's response to, and management of real or potential emergencies and disasters occurring within its designated geographic boundaries. Specifically, this plan is intended to:
• Facilitate multi-jurisdictional and interagency coordination, particularly between local government, private sector, operational area (geographic county boundary), and state response levels, and appropriate federal agencies, in emergency operations. • Serve as a city plan, a reference document and when possible, it may be used for preemergency planning in addition to emergency operations. • To be utilized in coordination with applicable local, state and federal contingency plans. • Identify the components of an Emergency Management Organization and establish associated proto- cols required to effectively respond to, manage and recover from major emergencies and disasters.
• Establish the operational concepts and procedures associated with field response to emergencies, and Emergency Operations Center activities. • Establish the organizational framework for implementation of the California Standardized Emergency Management System and the National Incident Management System, within the City of Los Banos.
Allied agencies, private enterprise, special districts and volunteer organizations having roles and responsibilities established by this plan are encouraged to develop operating protocols and emergency action checklists based on the provisions of this plan.
1.1.1 Planning Organization and Format
The plan is divided into four elements that contain general and specific information relating to city emergency management operations. Those four elements are as follows:
Basic Plan
This section provides the structure and organization of the City of Los Banos Emergency Management Organization; identifies individual roles and responsibilities; describes the concept of emergency operations; and identifies how the City integrates into the Standardized Emergency Management System and the National Incident Management System.
Functional Annexes
The Functional Annexes contain detailed descriptions of the methods that the City of Los Banos and its departments follow for critical functions during emergency operations.
Basic Plan, 2025 10
226
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
Hazard or Threat-Specific Appendices
These Hazard or Threat-Specific Appendices describe the City's emergency response strategies that apply to a specific hazard or threat.
Supporting Documents
This section contains supporting materials to the overall Emergency Operations Plan.
1.2 SCOPE
The scope of this plan applies to any extraordinary emergency situation associated with any hazard, natural or human caused which may affect the City of Los Banos that generates situations requiring planned, coordinated responses by multiple agencies or jurisdictions.
The provisions, policies, and procedures of this plan are applicable to all agencies and individuals, public and private, having responsibilities for emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and/or mitigation in the City. The other governmental agencies within the City of Los Banos maintain their own emergency operations plans and those plans are consistent with the policies and procedures established by this plan.
Incorporating the Federal Emergency Management Agency Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 version 3.0 and the 2024 State of California Emergency Plan best practices, this plan is designed to be read, understood and exercised prior to an emergency and establishes the frame-work for implementation of the California Standardized Emergency Management System and the National Incident Management System for the City.
The City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan is intended to facilitate multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional coordination, particularly between the City of Los Banos and the whole community, including special districts, utilities, major businesses, the American Red Cross, community groups, state agencies, and the Federal Government. Emergency operations in the City of Los Banos will be coordinated through the structure of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). This plan will be used in coordination with the County of Merced Emergency Operations Plan, the State of California Emergency Plan, and the National Response Framework.
1.2.1 California Emergency Support Functions
The State Emergency Plan establishes the California Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) as a key component of California's system for all-hazards emergency management. The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) initiated the development of the California ESFs in cooperation with California's emergency management community, including federal, state, tribal, and local governments, public/private partners and other stakeholders, to ensure effective collaboration during all phases of emergency management. The development of the California ESFs involves organization of the participating stakeholders and gradual development of emergency function components. This development also includes a process to maintain each of the California ESFs as a permanent component of California's emergency management system. The City of Los Banos will use Federal and State approved ESFs for planning purposes and to comply with federal and state grant funding guidance. The California ESFs will be used to interpret the State Emergency Plan and bridge the federal and state guidance in the County of Merced Operational Area's emergency planning efforts. The responsibility to maintain the Merced County Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) rests with Merced County, with the City of Los Banos as a support agency. A comparison of federal and state Emergency Support Functions is found below.
Basic Plan, 2025 11
227
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
1.2.2 Federal Emergency Support Functions
The National Incident Management System identifies through its National Response Framework fifteen (15) Emergency Support Functions (ESFs). These ESFs are listed with a brief description, as they pertain to the City of Los Banos and the County of Merced Operational Area (OA) below:
This plan is part of a larger framework that supports emergency management within the state.
Through an integrated framework of emergency plans and procedures involving all stakeholders in the emergency management community, the City of Los Banos together with Merced County, the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) and the Federal Government will promote effective planning and coordination prior to an emergency, thereby ensuring a more effective response and recovery.
Each element of the emergency management organization is responsible for assuring the preparation and maintenance of appropriate response plans and current standard operating procedures, resource lists and checklists that detail how assigned responsibilities will be performed to support implementation of this plan and to ensure successful response during a major disaster. Elements to be addressed are:
• Arrangements for the provision of direction and control within the department/agency. • Specific emergency authorities that may be assumed by a designated successor during emergency situations.
• Circumstances under which successor emergency authorities would become effective, and when they would be terminated.
• Current internal personnel notification/recall rosters and procedures to implement them.
This should include a 24-hour communication system with the capability to notify and call-out personnel designated by the agency for emergency response. • Designation and establishment of a work/control/dispatch center, such as a local Emergency Operations Center (EOC or Department Operations Center DOC) to compliment the County of Merced OA's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in Los Banos. This city EOC/DOC is used to manage organizational resources and response personnel and maintain contact with the County of Merced OA EOC (when activated) during emergencies.
• Designation of a representative to report to the City EOC/DOC, or to the County of Merced OA EOC, during an emergency, to advise decision makers and coordinate the agency's response effort with other responding entities. • Reporting appropriate information (casualties, damage observations, evacuation status, shelter status, chemical exposure, etc.) to the EOC/DOC during an emergency. • Support of cleanup and recovery operations during disasters. • Training of assigned city staff in preparation to perform response and recovery emergency functions.
It is the city's intent to fulfill the policies described herein, within the capabilities and resources available at the time of an emergency or disaster event.
Basic Plan, 2025 12
228
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan - ------
1.3 SITUATION OVERVIEW
This chapter describes a number of potential hazards that could affect the city upon their occurrence which would warrant the activation of the City of Los Banos Emergency Management Organization.
1.3.1 City History
The gallant Gabriel Moraga, with his troop of Spanish Calvary from the Presidio of San Francisco came riding through the Pacheco Pass under orders from the Spanish Governor of California to explore the San Joaquin Valley in 1805. This jaunty leader and his party on reaching the floor of the valley cantered right across the area where the City of Los Banos now stands.
These explorers were astonished to note the great wealth of natural life everywhere. Gazing in every direction these Spaniards saw ducks, geese, cranes, herons, pelicans, curlew, antelope, deer, elk and grizzly bears all living their lives undisturbed. Prior to their visit only the local Indians had ventured into the area.
The next Spanish explorer to leave his name stamped indelibly on the region was Padre Felipe Arroyo de la Cuesta. He was a Franciscan monk who was stationed at Mission San Juan Bautista from 1808 to 1833. On his missionary visits to the Indians he discovered pools of water in the rocks at the summit of the mountains in a little creek bed that flowed down into the San Joaquin Valley. At these baths or pools he camped overnight with his band of friendly Indians from the Mission. Reports of these baths led to the local ranchers naming the creek "El Arroyo de Los Banos del Padre Arroyo." In time that lengthy moniker was reduced to "Los Banos Crick." In 1873 a pioneer to the area named Gus Kreyenhagen ran a trading post near Los Banos Creek.
The Post Office Department decided to establish a Post Office at the trading post and named it after the creek, hence the name "Los Banos."
Henry Miller arrived in San Francisco in 1850 with $6.00 in his pocket. After working as a butcher he became aware of the need for a better grade of cattle than that which was available at that time in California.
He came to the San Joaquin Valley and began his land acquisitions and cattle empire. He acquired land on both sides of the San Joaquin River ultimately owning that land for a distance of 120 miles. In 1871 he formed the San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation Company.
He is credited with being the first to introduce the crops of cotton, rice and alfalfa to the valley.
Miller made a great effort to get the railroad to extend through the West Side and that eventually decided the present day location of Los Banos. Agriculture remains the number one industry in and around Los Banos and this is due mainly to the early success of Henry Miller.
Los Banos is a thriving community influenced by our great ancestors and the local businesses that continue to serve the great citizens of this community.
Located on the next page is a map of the City of Los Banos, Figure 1 - Land Use Map of Los Banos.
Basic Plan, 2025 13
229
City of Los Banos
General Plan Lind Use Designations
low Dt~ily Re1icential
Meci,,r Der~ity Resicential
• High Density Res,cer.tial
• Downtown Mixec UM!
Neq;hl>oth30C CorrJl"<tCial
Source: Merced C.ounty, 2019; PlaceWorks, 2022.
□ City limit ;'.: j Proposed Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) □ Proposed Sphere of Influence {SOI) tzZI Proposed Area of Interest (AOI) Figure 1. City of Los Banos Land Use Map
Basic Plan, 2025
Emergency Operations Plan
Figure 3-2
General Plan 2042 Land Use Designations
14 230
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan ---------------------
1.3.2 Hazard Analysis Summary
The City of Los Banos is vulnerable to a wide range of threats. An all-hazards threat perspective must include a complete range of threats including emerging and increasing technological factors (e.g., the increased transportation of numerous hazardous materials on state highways, roads and interstates throughout the City). It is important to consider past events for future planning, with the consideration that the location and scope of hazards changes over the years.
Although an attempt has been made to identify all major hazards and their respective impacts, it must be remembered that we live in a time of emerging threats, and nature, coupled with humankind's ongoing development and tendencies toward violence ensures that the material contained within this document will surely require modification over time.
A brief hazard analysis summary is located in Figure 2 - Hazard Analysis Summary for the City of Los Banos. The summary is based on Probability (likelihood) and Severity (loss of life and/or property) categorized in the three main types of disaster events: Natural Disasters, Technological Hazards and Human-Caused.
Merced County and Incorporated Cities' Hazard Analysis-2025 Probability of
Geographic Future Magnitude/
Hazard Area Occurrence Severity
Agriculture Pest and Disease Extensive Ukely Critical
Cyber Attack Significant Ukely Critical
Dam Incidents Significant Occasional Cataslrophic
Drought Extensive Ukely Critical
E'athquake Significant Unlikely Critical
Flood and Levee Failure Extensive Ukely Cataslrophic
Hazadous Materials Limited Highly Likely Negligible
PandemidEpidernic Extensivv Occasional Cataslrophic
Severe Weather:
Dense Fog Extensive Highly Ukely Critical
Severe Weather:
fneze Extensive Highly Ukely Critical
Severe Weather: Heat Extensive Highly Ukely Critical
Severe Weather:
Heavy Rain Extensive Highly Ukely Critical
5ewre Weather: High
Wind/Tornado Extensive Highly Ukely Critical
Wildfire Significant Ukely Limited
Figure 2. Hazard Analysis
For detailed City of Los Banos hazard descriptions on each hazard identified in the summary, refer to Hazard/Threat Specific Appendices.
Basic Plan, 2025 15
231
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
1.3.3 Capability Assessment
A capability assessment provides part of the foundation for determining the type of emergency management, preparedness and mitigation strategy. The assessment process also identifies gaps or weaknesses that may need to be addressed through preparedness planning goals and actions deemed practical considering the jurisdiction's capabilities to implement them. Finally, the capability assessment highlights the positive measures that are in place or under-way for continued support and enhancement of the jurisdiction's preparedness and response efforts.
As an established organization, the City of Los Banos has the capabilities to perform the necessary emergency response duties outlined in this plan. The city has an established emergency management organization, alert and warning & communication system and channels. As outlined in their municipal code Title 4, Chapter 2 Civil Defense, the City of Los Banos has identified the response capabilities and resources (equipment, personnel, etc.) to provide a response to an emergency situation. The City of Los Banos Fire Department maintains an Emergency Resource Directory in both paper and electronic formats that lists all of their vendors, supplies and equipment that can be available during a disaster situation. Any capability gaps are addressed in the County of Merced Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). The THIRA is a restricted document and not available to the public.
1.3.4 Mitigation Overview
The City of Los Banos has taken a number of mitigation measures for each identified hazard to minimize the impact that is likely to result from an emergency. Some of those mitigation measures are as follows:
• The City has developed a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that provides hazard specific detail as to the mitigation measures taken to create a safer community. • The City has an approved General Plan that includes the Safety Element section which outlines all of the mitigation measures that have occurred and will occur regarding the safety of the city citizenry and communities.
• The City together with the County of Merced has completed a number of hazard/issue specific planning projects that incorporate coordination, response and recovery actions.
Some of those planning projects specifically address Mass Care and Shelter, Resources, Public Health, and People with Access and Functional Needs.
1.3.5 Assumptions
Certain assumptions were used during the development of this plan. These assumptions translate into basic principles associated with conducting emergency management operations in preparation for, response to and recovery from major emergencies. "Assumptions" provide context, requirements, and situational realities that must be addressed in plan development and emergency operations.
• Emergencies or disasters may occur at any time, day or night, in populated as well as remote, areas of the City.
• Major emergencies and disasters will require a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional response. For this reason, it is essential that the Standardized Emergency Management System, and in many cases a Unified Command, be implemented immediately by responding agencies, and expanded as the situation dictates.
Basic Plan, 2025 16
232
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
• The City is primarily responsible for emergency actions within the City boundaries and will commit all available resources to save lives, minimize injury to persons and minimize property damage.
• Large-scale emergencies and disasters may overburden local resources and necessitate mutual aid from neighboring jurisdictions.
• Large-scale emergencies and disasters and the complex organizational structure required to respond to them pose significant challenges in terms of warning and notification, logistics, and agency coordination.
• Major emergencies and disasters may generate widespread media and public interest.
The media must be considered a partner in large-scale emergencies and disasters; this relationship can provide considerable assistance in emergency public information and warning
• Large-scale emergencies and disasters may pose serious long-term threats to public health, property, the environment, and the local economy. While responding to significant disasters and emergencies, all strategic decisions must consider each of these consequences.
• Disasters and emergencies may require an extended commitment of personnel and other resources from involved agencies and jurisdictions. • The Emergency Management Organization is familiar with the Standardized Emergency Management System and the National Incident Management System.
Basic Plan, 2025 17
233
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan - ------------- SECTION 2.0 CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS
2.1 GOALS PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES
2.1.1. Prevention-Mitigation Phase
The City of Los Banos' Emergency Operations Plan emphasizes proactive risk reduction through hazard identification, public education, and infrastructure improvements. Key goals include minimizing disaster impacts, prioritizing vulnerable populations, and fostering community resilience. Strategies focus on enhancing flood control systems, enforcing building codes, and promoting preparedness through multilingual outreach programs. Collaborative efforts with local agencies and organizations further aim to address diverse community needs while integrating cultural competence into mitigation planning and resource allocation.
2.1.2. Preparedness Phase
The City of Los Banos' Emergency Operations Plan emphasizes preparedness by enhancing community readiness, prioritizing vulnerable populations, and fostering interagency coordination. Key strategies include conducting regular emergency drills, providing multilingual education campaigns, and training first responders in cultural competence. The plan prioritizes creating accessible resources, such as evacuation guides and communication systems, to ensure inclusivity. Collaborative partnerships with local organizations aim to strengthen community capacity and build a culture of preparedness across all demographics.
2.1.3. Response Phase
The City of Los Banos' Emergency Operations Plan prioritizes timely, coordinated responses to protect lives and property. Key goals include ensuring equitable access to emergency services, safeguarding vulnerable populations, and maintaining effective communication. Strategies focus on deploying culturally competent responders, activating multilingual communication systems, and collaborating with community organizations to address diverse needs. The plan emphasizes resource allocation, rapid decision-making, and interagency coordination to minimize disaster impacts and support affected residents effectively.
2.1.3.1 Operational Goals
During the response phase, the agencies that are charged with responsibilities in this plan should focus on the following five goals:
• Mitigate Hazards
• Meet Basic Human Needs through an equitable lens
• Address Needs of People with Access and Functional Needs with compassion and cultural competence
• Restore Essential Services
• Support Community and Economic Recovery
2.1.3.2 Operational Priorities
Operational priorities govern resource allocation and the response strategies for the City of Los Banos and its political subdivisions during an emergency. Below are operational priorities addressed in this plan:
1. Save Lives - The preservation of life is the top priority of emergency managers and first responders and takes precedence over all other considerations.
Basic Plan, 2025 18
234
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan --------------
2. Protect Health and Safety - Measures should be taken to mitigate the emergency's impact on public health and safety.
3. Protect Property - All feasible efforts must be made to protect public and private property and resources, including critical infrastructure, from damage during and after an emergency.
4. Preserve the Environment-All possible efforts must be made to preserve California's environment and protect it from damage during an emergency.
2.1.3.3 Operational Strategies
To meet the operational goals, emergency responders should consider the following strategies:
Mitigate Hazards -As soon as practical, suppress, reduce or eliminate hazards and/or risks to persons and property during the disaster response. Lessen the actual or potential effects or consequences of future emergencies.
Meet Basic Human Needs - All possible efforts must be made to supply resources to meet basic human needs, including food, water, shelter, medical treatment and security during the emergency. Afterwards provisions will be made for temporary housing, food stamps and support for re-establishing employment after the emergency passes.
Address Needs of People with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs - People with disabilities and access and functional needs are more vulnerable to harm during and after an emergency. The needs of people with access and functional needs, including those with language barriers, must be considered and addressed.
2.1.4. Recovery Phase
The City of Los Banos' Emergency Operations Plan by restoring essential services, supporting displaced residents, and rebuilding infrastructure. Operational objectives include providing culturally and linguistically appropriate assistance, facilitating access to financial aid and housing for impacted populations, and engaging community organizations in recovery efforts.
The plan prioritizes long-term resilience through collaborative planning, transparent communication, and addressing the unique needs of vulnerable and culturally diverse communities.
Restore Essential Services - Power, water, sanitation, transportation and other essential services must be restored as rapidly as possible to assist communities in returning to normal daily activities while emphasizing equitable recovery.
Support Community and Economic Recovery - All members of the community must collaborate to ensure that recovery operations are conducted efficiently, effectively and equitably, promoting expeditious recovery of the affected areas.
2.2 STANDARDIZED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Standardized Emergency Management System is the cornerstone of California's emergency response system and the fundamental structure for the response phase of emergency management. Standardized Emergency Management System is required by the California Emergency Services Act for managing multiagency and multijurisdictional responses to emergencies in California.
Basic Plan, 2025 19
235
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
The system unifies all elements of California's emergency management community into a single integrated system and standardizes key elements. The Standardized Emergency Management System incorporates the use of the Incident Command System, California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement, the Operational Area concept and multiagency or interagency coordination.
State agencies are required to use Standardized Emergency Management System and local government entities must use Standardized Emergency Management System in order to be eligible for any reimbursement of response-related costs under the state's disaster assistance programs.
2.2.1 Standardized Emergency Management
System Organization Levels
There are five Standardized Emergency Management
System organizational levels, as illustrated in Figure 3 - SEMS Organization Levels.
Field - The Field Level is where emergency response
personnel and re-sources, under the command of
responsible officials, carry out tactical decisions and activities in direct response to an incident or threat.
Local Government - The Local Government level
includes cities, counties and special districts. Local
governments manage and coordinate the overall
emergency response and recovery activities within their jurisdiction. Local governments are required to use
Standardized Emergency Management System when
their Emergency Operations Center is activated or a local emergency is declared or proclaimed in order to be
eligible for state reimbursement of response-related
costs.
Operational Area - An Operational Area is the
intermediate level of the state's emergency management
-
-
State
Region
Operational Area
Local Government
Field
organization which encompasses a county's boundaries Figure 3.- SEMS Orvanization Levels and all political subdivisions located within that county, including special districts. The Operational Area facilitates and/or coordinates information, resources and decisions regarding priorities among local governments within the Operational Area. The Operational Area serves as the coordination and communication link between the Local Government Level and Regional Level. State, federal and tribal jurisdictions in the Operational Area may have statutory authorities for response similar to that at the local level.
Region - The Regional Level manages and coordinates information and resources among Operational Areas within the mutual aid region and also between the Operational Area and the state level. The Regional Level also coordinates overall state agency support for emergency response activities within the region. California is divided into three California Office of Emergency Services Administrative Regions - Inland, Coastal and Southern -which are further Basic Plan, 2025 20
236
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
divided into six mutual aid regions. The Regional Level operates out of the Regional Emergency Operations Center. See Figure 6 - Inland Region Mutual Aid.
State - The state level of the Standardized Emergency Management System prioritizes tasks and coordinates state resources in response to the requests from the Regional level and coordinates mutual aid among the mutual aid regions and between the Regional Level and State Level. The state level also serves as the coordination and communication link between the state and the federal emergency response system. The state level requests assistance from other state governments through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact and similar interstate compacts/agreements and coordinates with the Federal Emergency Management Agency when federal assistance is requested. The state level operates out of the State Operations Center.
At the Federal level, the National Response Framework identifies the methods and means for federal resources to provide support to the state and local government. Federal resources would be accessed via the Standardized Emergency Management System process through the mutual aid region and State Operations Center.
2.2.2 Standardized Emergency Management System Functions Standardized Emergency Management System requires that every emergency response involving multiple jurisdictions or multiple agencies include the five functions identified in Figure 4 - Standardized Emergency Management System Functions. These functions must be applied at each level of the Standardized Emergency Management System organization.
Command/Management: Command (in the field) is responsible for the directing, ordering, and/or controlling of re-sources at the field response level. Management (in the Emergency Operations Center) is responsible for overall emergency policy and coordination at the Standardized Emergency Management System Emergency Operations Center levels.
Command and Management are further discussed in Figure 4 - Standardized Emergency Management System Functions:
Basic Plan, 2025 21
237
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
OperaMns
I
Operations
Flgul'e 4 • SEMS fl.!nctions
--Command
(In the fit~ldi
F - - • ---------=---
Planning 1lnftJlhgencf'
Management
(11 lhe EOC1
P1anrnng!lntell1gi?OCe
LoglS{ / CS
Log1st1cs
~
Fmarr1:e1Aclm1111 stration
~- -- - I
F1nance1A•:1rn1111 strat100
• Command (in the field): A key concept in all emergency planning is to establish command and tactical control at the lowest level that can perform that role effectively in the organization. In the Incident Command System, the Incident Commander, with appropriate policy direction and authority from the responding agency, sets the objectives to be accomplished and approves the strategy and tactics to be used to meet those objectives. The Incident Commander must respond to higher authority. Depending upon the incident's size and scope, the higher authority could be the next ranking level in the organization up to the agency or department executive. This relationship provides an operational link with policy executives who customarily reside in the Department Operations Center or Emergency Operations Center, when activated. • Management (in the Emergency Operations Center): The Emergency Operations Center serves as a central location from which multiple agencies or organizations coordinate information collection and evaluation, priority setting and resource management. Within the Emergency Operations Center, the Management function:
o Facilitates mu/tiagency coordination and executive decision making in support of the incident response
o Implements the policies established by the governing bodies o Facilitate the activities of the Multiagency Coordination Group Operations: Responsible for coordinating and supporting all jurisdictional operations in support of the response to the emergency through implementation of the organizational level's Action Plans. At the Field Level, the Operations Section is responsible for the coordinated tactical response directly applicable to, or in support of the objectives in accordance with the Incident Action Plan. In the Emergency Operations Center, the Operations Section Coordinator manages functional coordinators who share information and decisions about discipline-specific operations.
Basic Plan, 2025 22
238
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan --------------- Logistics: Responsible for providing facilities, services, personnel, equipment and materials in support of the emergency. Unified ordering takes place through the Logistics Section Ordering Managers to ensure controls and accountability over resource requests. As needed, Unit Coordinators are appointed to address the needs for communications, food, medical, supplies, facilities and ground support.
Planning/Intelligence: Responsible for the collection, evaluation and dissemination of operational information related to the incident for the preparation and documentation of the Incident Action Plan at the Field level or the Action plan at an Emergency Operations Center.
Planning/Intelligence also maintains information on the current and forecasted situation and on the status of resources assigned to the emergency or the Emergency Operations Center. As needed, Unit Coordinators are appointed to collect and analyze data, prepare situation reports, develop action plans, set Geographic Information Systems priorities, compile and maintain documentation, conduct advance planning, manage technical specialists and coordinate demobilization.
Finance/Administration: Responsible for all financial and cost analysis aspects of the emergency and for any administrative aspects not handled by the other functions. As needed, Unit Leaders are appointed to record time for incident or Emergency Operations Center personnel and hired equipment, coordinate procurement activities, process claims and track costs.
The field and Emergency Operations Center functions are further illustrated in Figure 5 - Comparison of Field and Emergency Operations Center Functions.
PRIMARY SEMS RJNCTION RELD RESPONSE 1$VEL EOCS AT OTHER SEMS LEVELS Command/Management Command is responsil:ie for the direct- Management is responsible for facilita• Ing, ordering, and/or controlling of re- 1ion of overall policy, coordination and sources. support of the incident
Operations The coordinated 1acticaJ response of all The coordination of au Jurisdidional opfield operations in accordance with the erations in $Upport of the response to Incident Action Plan. the emergency in accordance with the EOC Action Plan.
Planning/Jntelligence The collection, evaluation, documenta- Collecting, evaluating and disseminat1ion and use of intelligence related to ing infonnation and maintaining docuthe incident mentation relative to all jurisdiction activities.
logistics Providing facHities, services, personnel, Providing facHilies, services, personnel, equipment and materials In $!.lpport of equipment and materials In support of the incident. all jurisdiction activities as required.
Rnance/Administration Ftnancial and cost analysis and admln- Responsible for coordinating and supistrati\re aspects not bandied by the porting administrative and fiscal conoUler functions. sideration surrounding an emergency incident
Figure 5 - Comparison of Field and EOC SEMS Functions
Basic Plan, 2025 23
239
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan ---------------
2.2.3 Standardized Emergency Management System Components Management by Objectives
The Management by Objectives feature of the Incident Command System, as applied to the Standardized Emergency Management System, means that each Standardized Emergency Management System Level establishes for a given Operational Period, measurable and attainable objectives to be achieved. An objective is an aim or end of an action to be performed.
Each objective may have one or more strategies and performance actions needed to achieve the objective.
Operational Period
The Operational Period is the length of time set by command at the Field Response level, and by management at other levels to achieve a given set of objectives. The period may vary in length from a few hours to days, and will be determined by the situation.
Action Plans
Action planning should be used at all Standardized Emergency Management System levels.
There are two types of action plans in Standardized Emergency Management System: Incident Action Plans and Emergency Operations Center Action Plans. The Incident Action Plans are used at the Field Response Level. The Incident Action Plan can be either written or verbal although for documentation purposes the written Incident Action Plan is preferable. The Incident Action Plan contains objectives reflecting the overall incident strategy and specific tactical actions and supporting information for the next Operational Period. Incident Action Plans are an essential and required element in achieving objectives under the Incident Command System.
Emergency Operations Center Action Plans are crafted at Local Government, Operational Area, Region, and State levels. The use of Action Plans provides designated personnel with knowledge of the objectives to be achieved and the steps required for achievement. Action Plans not only provide direction, but also serve to provide a basis for measuring achievement of objectives and overall system performance. Action Plans can be extremely effective tools during all phases of a disaster.
Organizational Flexibility - A Modular Organization
The intent of this Standardized Emergency Management System feature is that at each Standardized Emergency Management System level, only those functional elements that are required to meet current objectives need to be activated. All elements of the organization can be arranged in various ways within or under the five Standardized Emergency Management System essential functions.
The functions of any non-activated element are the responsibility of the next highest element in the organization. Each activated element must have a person in charge; however, one supervisor may be in charge of more than one functional element.
Organizational Unity and Hierarchy of Command
Organizational unity means that every individual within an organization has a designated supervisor. Hierarchy of command/management means that all functional elements within each activated Standardized Emergency Management System level are linked together to form a single overall organization with appropriate span of control limits.
Basic Plan, 2025 24
240
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan --'-----------------------------'--- Span of Control
Maintaining a reasonable span of control is the responsibility of every supervisor at all Standardized Emergency Management System levels. The optimum span of control is one to five, meaning that one supervisor has direct supervisory authority over five positions or resources. The recommended span of control for supervisory personnel at the Field Response level and all Emergency Operations Center levels should be in the one-to-three to one-to-seven ratio. A larger span of control may be acceptable when the supervised positions or resources are all performing a similar activity.
Personnel Accountability
An important feature to all Standardized Emergency Management System levels is personnel accountability. This is accomplished through the Organizational Unity and Hierarchy of Command or Management features, along with the use of check-in forms, position logs and various status forms. The intent is to ensure that there are proper safeguards in place so all personnel at any Standardized Emergency Management System level can be accounted for at any time.
Common Terminology
In the Standardized Emergency Management System, common terminology is applied to functional elements, position titles, facility designations, and resources. The purpose of having common terminology is to rapidly enable multi-agency, multi-jurisdiction organizations and resources to work together effectively. This will vary from level to level in terms of directing, controlling, coordinating, and resource inventorying. Procedures for effective resources management must be geared to the function and the level at which the function is performed.
Integrated Communications
This feature of the Standardized Emergency Management System relates to hardware systems, planning for system selection and linking, and the procedures and processes for transferring information. At the Field Response Level, integrated communications are used on any emergency. At and between all Standardized Emergency Management System levels, there must be a dedicated effort to ensure that communications systems, planning and information flow are accomplished in an effective manner. The specifics of how this is accomplished at Emergency Operations Center levels may be different than at the Field Response level.
More detailed information on the Standardized Emergency Management System Regulations and the Standardized Emergency Management System Guidelines can be found on the CalOES Website.
2.2.4 National Incident Management System
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, illustrated the need for all levels of government, the private sector, and nongovernmental agencies to prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from a wide spectrum of events that exceed the capabilities of any single entity. These events require a unified and coordinated national approach to planning and to domestic incident management. To address this need, the President signed a series of Homeland Security Presidential Directives that were intended to develop a common approach to preparedness and response. Two Homeland Security Presidential Directives that are of particular importance to emergency planners:
• HSPD-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, identifies steps for improved coordination in response to incidents. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate with other Federal departments and agencies and State, local, and Tribal governments Basic Plan, 2025 25
241
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan ---------------- to establish a National Response Framework and a National Incident Management System
• HSPD-8, National Preparedness, describes the way Federal departments and agencies will prepare. It re-quires Department of Homeland Security to coordinate with other Federal departments and agencies-and with State, local, and Tribal governments to develop a National Preparedness Goal
Together, the National Incident Management System, the National Response Framework, and the National Preparedness Goals define what needs to be done to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from a major event; how it needs to be done; and how well it needs to be done. These efforts align federal, state, local, and tribal entities; the private sector; and nongovernmental agencies to provide an effective and efficient national structure for preparedness, incident management, and emergency response.
The National Incident Management System provides a consistent framework for incident management at all jurisdictional levels, regardless of the cause, size, or complexity of the incident. Building on the Incident Command System, the National Incident Management System provides the nation's first responders and authorities with the same foundation for incident management for terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and all other emergencies. The National Incident Management System requires the institutionalization of the Incident Command System and its use to manage all domestic incidents.
National Incident Management System integrates existing best practices into a consistent, nationwide approach to domestic incident management that is applicable at all jurisdictional levels and across functional disciplines. Six major components make up the National Incident Management System system's approach:
• Command and Management
• Preparedness
• Resource Management
• Communications and Information Management
• Supporting Technologies
• Ongoing Management and Maintenance
Within the City of Los Banos, there are institutionalized National Incident Management System training requirements. For more information on those specific training requirements see the Supporting Documents section at the end of this plan.
2.2.5 Mutual Aid
California's emergency assistance is based on a statewide mutual aid system designed to ensure that additional resources are provided to the state's political subdivisions whenever their own resources are overwhelmed or inadequate. The basis for this system is the California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement, which is entered into by and between the State of California, its various departments and agencies and the various political subdivisions, municipal corporations and public agencies to assist each other by providing resources during an emergency. The agreement obligates each signatory entity to provide aid to each other during an emergency without expectation of reimbursement. Under specific conditions, federal and state monies may be appropriated to reimburse public agencies who aid other jurisdictions. If other agreements, memoranda and contracts are used to provide assistance for consideration, the terms of those documents may affect disaster assistance Basic Plan, 2025 26
242
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
eligibility and local entities may only be reimbursed if funds are available. This plan promotes the establishment of emergency assistance
agreements between public and private sector
agencies at all levels. There are four approved,
formal Mutual Aid Systems in California. Those
systems are:
• Fire and Rescue
• Law Enforcement
• Coroner
• Emergency Management (resources
not covered by the other three systems)
Other informal mutual aid involves, but is not
limited to the interchange of:
• Public Information
• Medical and Hea1th
• Communications
• Transportation Services
• Facilities
• Hazardous Materials Mutual Aid System
• Volunteer and Private agencies
- Figtn 6 • Inland Region Mutual Aid
California is divided into six mutual aid regions, which are subdivisions of the state emergency services organization established to facilitate the coordination of mutual aid and other emergency operations within an area of the State consisting of two or more Operational Areas.
A map of Inland Region is shown in Figure 6 - Inland Region Mutual Aid, which details the Mutual Aid Regions Ill, IV & V, the City of Los Banos is located in Mutual Aid Region V.
2.2.6 Mutual Aid Coordination
Formal mutual aid requests will follow specified procedures and are processed through preidentified mutual aid coordinators. Mutual aid requests will follow discipline-specific chains (i.e. fire, law enforcement, emergency manager, etc.) from one level of government to the next. The mutual aid coordinator receives the mutual aid request and coordinates the provision of resources from within the coordinator's geographic area of responsibility. In the event that resources are unavailable at one level of government, the request is forwarded to the next higher level of government to be filled.
Field Level Requests: Requests for Mutual Aid resources originate from the Field Level and are managed by the Incident Commander. If the Incident Commander is unable to obtain the resource through existing local channels, the request is elevated to the next successive government level until obtained or cancelled.
Local Government Request: Local jurisdictions are responsible for the protection of life and property within the municipal geographic boundaries. The local jurisdiction where the incident occurred should assess its resource inventory and existing local agreements to determine if the requested resource is available. When locally committed resources are exhausted and mutual Basic Plan, 2025 27
243
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
aid is needed, the local official will request assistance from the Operational Area Mutual Aid Coordinator.
Operational Area Requests: The Operational Area is a composite of its political subdivisions, (i.e. municipalities, contract cities, special districts and county agencies). The Operational Area Mutual Aid Coordinator assesses the availability of resources within the Operational Area and fulfills the resource request based upon that assessment. In the event resources are unavailable at the Operational Area level, the request is forwarded to the responsible Region Mutual Aid Coordinator to be filled.
Region Level Requests: The state is geographically divided into six Mutual Aid Regions. For Law Enforcement Mutual Aid, Region I is divided into two sub-regions. Each Mutual Aid Region is comprised of multiple Operational Areas and has a Regional Mutual Aid Coordinator. The Region Mutual Aid Coordinator is granted the authority to coordinate the mutual aid response of discipline-specific resources within the Region to support a mutual aid request by a juris-diction also within the Region. In the event that resources are un-available at the Region level, the request is forwarded to the State Mutual Aid Coordinator to be filled.
State Level Requests: On behalf of the Governor, the Director of CalOES has the responsibility for coordination of state mutual aid resources in support of local jurisdictions during times of emergency. The Director will analyze and coordinate the request by forwarding the request to an unaffected Region Emergency Operations Center or tasking an appropriate state agency to fill the need. Figure 7- Discipline-Specific Mutual Aid Systems documents the flow of information, resources requests and resources within specific mutual aid agreement relative to the Standardized Emergency Management System organization levels.
Figure 8 - Flow of Requests and Resources depicts the resource management process for the state under Standardized Emergency Management System. In this model, the affected local government has the ability to access all stakeholders at all levels of the system.
Basic Plan, 2025 28
244
City of Los Banos
SEMS
LEVEL
STATE
E.mergency
Services
Cal OES
Director
Fire and
Rescue
System
Chief, Fire &
Rescue
Coordinator
Emergency Operations Plan
Law
Enforcement
System
Chief, Law
Enforceme t
Coordinator
Other
Systems as
Developed*
Functional
Coordinator
- ----- -. __ C_a...., I O,_Es_'-_...::::===-:+=:::__---=::=:=:~;:::::::::e.. __ .:::-====-:----.....~ _- - - Regional
REGIONAL Administrator
Emergency
OPERATIONAL Management
AREA Staff
Emergency
LOCAL Management
GOVERNMENT Staff
_.. Resource Requests
Fire & Rescue
Coordinator
Fire & Rescue
Coordinator
ire Chief
- Information Fl.ow and Coordination
Basic Plan, 2025
Law
Enforcement
Coordinator
law
Enforcement
Coordinator
Law
Enforcement
Coordinator
Functional
Coordinator
Functional
Coordinator
Functional
Coordinator
Figure 7 - Discipline Specific Mutual Aid Systems
29 245
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
REOC
Affected Local
Jurisdictions
Figure 8. Resource Requests
- ---------------
Federal Agencies
Emergency Management Assistance Compact
2.3 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS DURING DISASTERS
Two sequences of events are typically associated with disasters: One involves the response and the other involves emergency proclamations. The response sequence generally describes the emergency response activities to save lives, protect property and preserve the environment.
This sequence describes deployment of response teams, activation of emergency management organizations and coordination among the various levels of government. The emergency proclamation sequence outlines the steps to gain expanded emergency authorities needed to mitigate the problem. It also summarizes the steps for requesting state and federal disaster assistance.
2.3.1 Before Impact
Routine Monitoring for Alerts, Watches and Warnings: Emergency officials constantly monitor events and the environment to identify specific threats that may affect their jurisdiction and increase awareness level of emergency personnel and the community when a threat is approaching or imminent.
Increased Readiness: Sufficient warning provides the opportunity for response agencies to increase readiness, which are actions designed to increase an agency's ability to effectively respond once the emergency occurs. This includes, but is not limited to:
Basic Plan, 2025 30
246
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan -------------------------- • Briefing government officials
• Reviewing plans and procedures
• Preparing and disseminating information to the community • Updating resource lists
• Testing systems such as warning and communications systems • Precautionary activation Emergency Operations Centers Pre-Impact: When a disaster is foreseen as highly likely, action is taken to save lives and protect property. During this phase, warning systems are activated, evacuation begins and resources are mobilized.
2.3.2 Immediate Impact
During this phase, emphasis is placed on control of the situation, saving lives and minimizing the effects of the disaster.
Alert and Notification: Local response agencies are alerted about an incident by the public through 9-1-1, another response agency, or other method. First responders are then notified of the incident. Upon an alert, response agencies notify response personnel.
Resource Mobilization: Response agencies activate personnel and mobilize to support the incident response. As the event escalates and expands, additional resources are activated and mobilized to support the response. Activation and mobilization continue for the duration of the emergency as additional resources are needed to support the response. This includes resources from within the City, or, when resources are exhausted, from surrounding unaffected jurisdictions.
Incident Response: Immediate response is accomplished within the City by local responders.
First responders arrive at the incident and function within their established field level plans and procedures. The responding agencies will manage all incidents in accordance with the Incident Command System organizational structures, doctrine and procedures.
Establishing Incident Command: Incident Command is established to direct, order, or control resources by virtue of some explicit legal, agency or delegated authority. Initial actions are coordinated through the on-scene Incident Commander. The Incident Commander develops an initial Incident Action Plan, which sets objectives for the incidents, assigns resources and includes a common communications plan. If multiple jurisdictions or agencies are involved, the first responders will establish a Unified Command Post to facilitate multijurisdictional and multiagency policy decisions. The Incident Commander may implement an Area Command to oversee multiple incidents that are handled by separate Incident Command System organizations or to oversee the management of a very large or evolving incident that has multiple incident management teams engaged.
Activation of the Multiagency Coordination System: Responding agencies will coordinate and support emergency management and incident response objectives through the development and use of integrated Multiagency Coordination Systems and Multiagency Coordination Groups. This includes developing and maintaining connectivity capability between Incident Command Post, local 9-1-1 Centers, local Emergency Operations Centers, Regional Basic Plan, 2025 31
247
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan - -------------------------- - --- Emergency Operations Center, the State Operations Center and federal Emergency Operations Centers.
Local Emergency Operations Center Activation: Local jurisdictions activate their local Emergency Operations Center based on the magnitude or need for more coordinated management of the emergency. When activated, Local Emergency Operations Centers help form a common operating picture of the incident by collecting, analyzing and disseminating emergency information. The local Emergency Operations Center can also improve the effectiveness of the response by reducing the amount of external coordination of resources by the Incident Commander by providing a single point of contact to support multiagency coordination. When activated the local Emergency Operations Center notifies the Operational Area lead that the local Emergency Operations Center has been activated.
Communications between Field and the Emergency Operations Center: When a jurisdiction Emergency Operations Center is activated, communications and coordination are established between the Incident Commander and the Emergency Operations Center.
Operational Area Emergency Operations Center Activation: If one or more Local Emergency Operations Centers are activated, or if the event requires resources outside the affected jurisdiction, the Operational Area Emergency Operations Center activates. The Operational Area Emergency Operations Center also activates if a Local Emergency is proclaimed by the affected local government. The Operational Area Emergency Operations Center then coordinates resource requests from the affected jurisdiction to an unaffected jurisdiction, or if resources are not available within the Operational Area, forwards the resource request to the Regional Emergency Operations Center and mutual aid coordinators.
Regional Emergency Operations Center Activation: Whenever an Operational Area Emergency Operations Center is activated the CalOES Regional Administrator will activate the Regional Emergency Operations Center within the affected region and notifies CalOES Headquarters. The Regional Emergency Operations Center will then coordinate resource requests from the affected Operational Area to unaffected Operational Areas within the affected region, or, if resources are not available within the affected region, resource requests are forwarded to the State Operations Center for coordination.
State Level Field Teams: The state may deploy Field On-Site Observation Teams to provide situation reports on the disaster to the Regional Emergency Operations Center in coordination with the responsible Unified Command.
State Operations Center Activation: The State Operations Center is activated when the Regional Emergency Operations Center activates in order to:
• Continuously monitor the situation and provide situation reports to brief state officials as appropriate.
• Process resource requests between the affected regions, unaffected regions and state agency Department Operation Centers.
• Process requests for federal assistance and coordinate with Federal Incident Management Assistance Teams when established.
• Coordinate interstate resource requests as part of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact or Interstate Disaster and Civil Defense Compact. • The State Operations Center may also be activated independently of a Regional Emergency Operations Center to continuously monitor emergency conditions.
Basic Plan, 2025 32
248
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan --------------------------'------- Joint Information Center Activation: Where multiple agencies are providing public information, the lead agencies will work together to analyze the information available and provide a consistent message to the public and the media. Where practical the agencies will activate a joint information center to facilitate the dissemination of consistent information.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Response Coordination Center Activation: The Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Response Coordination Center may deploy a liaison or Incident Management Assistance Team to the State Operations Center to monitor the situation and provide situational awareness to federal officials.
2.3.3 Sustained Operations
As the emergency situation continues, further emergency assistance is provided to victims of the disaster and efforts are made to reduce the likelihood of secondary damage. If the situation demands, mutual aid is provided, as well as search and rescue of, shelter and care for and identification of victims.
2.3.4 Transition to Recovery
As the initial and sustained operational priorities are met, emergency management officials consider the recovery phase needs. Short-term recovery activities include returning vital life support systems to minimum operating standards. Long-term activity is designed to return to normal activities. Recovery planning should include reviews of ways to avert or mitigate future emergencies. During the recovery phase, damage is assessed, local assistance centers and disaster recovery centers are opened and hazard mitigation surveys are performed.
Local Assistance Centers: Local Assistance Centers are opened by local governments to assist communities by providing a centralized location for services and resource referrals for unmet needs following a disaster or significant emergency. The Local Assistance Center is normally staffed and supported by local, state and federal agencies, as well as non-profit and voluntary organizations. The Local Assistance Center provides a single facility at which individuals, families and businesses can access available disaster assistance programs and services. As more federal resources arrive, a state-federal Disaster Recovery Center may be co-located with the Local Assistance Centers.
Joint Field Office: The state coordinates with Federal Emergency Management Agency as necessary to activate a Joint Field Office to coordinate federal support for the emergency. The state will appoint a State Coordinating Officer to serve as the state point of contact. A Federal Coordinating Officer is appointed upon a Presidential Declaration of an Emergency or Major Disaster.
Demobilization: As resources are no longer needed to support the response, or the response activities cease, re-sources are demobilized. Demobilization includes provisions to address and validate the safe return of resources to their original location and include processes for resource tracking and ensuring applicable reimbursement. Where applicable, the demobilization should include compliance with mutual aid and assistance provisions. For more information on the Recovery effort before, during and after a disaster, refer to Recovery and Mitigation Functional Annex E.
Basic Plan, 2025 33
249
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
2.3.5 Proclaiming an Emergency
The California Emergency Services Act provides for three types of emergency proclamations in California:
1. Local Emergency
2. State of Emergency
3. State of War Emergency
Emergency proclamations expand the emergency powers and authorities of the state and its political subdivisions. They also provide a mechanism for unaffected jurisdictions to provide resources and assistance to the affected jurisdictions. Although emergency proclamations facilitate the flow of resources and support to the affected jurisdictions and local government, they are not prerequisite for rendering mutual aid and assistance under existing agreements or requesting assistance from the American Red Cross or state agencies. • Local Emergency Proclamation: A Local Emergency may be proclaimed by the Director of Emergency Services, the Deputy Director of Emergency Services or the Los Banos City Council as specified by municipal code Title 4 Chapter 2 adopted by the City of Los Banos. A Local Emergency proclaimed by these individuals must be ratified by the Los Banos City Council within seven days.
The governing body must review the need to continue the proclamation at least every 30 days until the Local Emergency is terminated. The Local Emergency must be terminated by resolution as soon as conditions war-rant. Proclamations are normally made when there is an actual incident or threat of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City of Los Banos, caused by natural, technological or human-caused situations.
The proclamation of a Local Emergency provides the governing body with the legal authority to:
• If necessary, request that the Governor proclaim a State of Emergency • Promulgate or suspend orders and regulations necessary to provide for the protection of life and property, including issuing orders or regulations imposing a curfew within designated boundaries
• Exercise full power to provide mutual aid to any affected area in accordance with local ordinances, resolutions, emergency plans, or agreements • Request state agencies and other jurisdictions to provide mutual aid • Require the emergency services of any local official or employee • Requisition necessary personnel and materials from any local department or agency • Obtain vital supplies and equipment and, if required, immediately commandeer the same for public use
• Impose penalties for violation of lawful orders
• Conduct emergency operations without incurring legal liability for performance, or failure of performance (Note: Article 17 of the Emergency Services Act provides for certain privileges and immunities)
Request for CalOES Director's Concurrence: Local governments can request cost reimbursement from the state for certain disaster-related repair costs under the California Disaster Assistance Act following the proclamation of a Local Emergency. The Director's concurrence with the local proclamation is required for this reimbursement. This step is not required if a Governor's Proclamation of a State of Emergency is received for the same event.
Basic Plan, 2025 34
250
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
Request for the Governor to Proclaim a State of Emergency: When emergency conditions exceed or have the potential to exceed local resources and capabilities, local government may request the Governor Proclaim a State of Emergency. The formal request may be included in the original emergency proclamation or as a separate document. The request must be received within ten days of the event. In addition to providing access to reimbursement for eligible disaster related response and recovery expenditures, a Governor's proclamation can facilitate other actions, such as waiver of State regulations impacting response or recovery operations.
Initial Damage Estimate: The request for a Director's concurrence or a Governor's proclamation should include a copy of the proclamation document and an Initial Damage Estimate that estimates the severity and extent of the damage caused by the emergency. An Initial Damage Estimate may not be immediately required for sudden emergencies with widespread impacts, emergencies of significant magnitude, or during fast moving emergencies where immediate response assistance is necessary.
Analysis of Request: The request and the Initial Damage Estimate are reviewed by the CalOES Region and a recommendation is made to the Governor through the Director of CalOES.
Proclamation of a State Emergency: The Governor proclaims a State of Emergency based on the formal re-quest from the local governing body and the recommendation of CalOES. If conditions and time warrant, the Governor drafts and signs a formal State of Emergency Proclamation. The Governor has expanded emergency powers during a proclaimed State of Emergency. The Governor:
• Has the right to exercise police power as deemed necessary, vested in the State Constitution and the laws of California within the designated area • Is vested with the power to use and commandeer public and private property and personnel, to ensure all resources within California are available and dedicated to the emergency when requested
• Can direct all state agencies to utilize and employ personnel, equipment and facilities for the performance of any and all activities designed to prevent or alleviate actual and threatened damage due to the emergency and can direct them to provide supplemental services and equipment to political subdivisions to restore any services in order to provide for the health and safety of the residents of the affected area • May make, amend, or rescind orders and regulations during an emergency and temporarily suspend any non-safety-related statutes, ordinances, regulations, or rules that impose restrictions on the emergency response activities Governor's Proclamation Without a Local Request: A request from the local governing body is not always necessary for the Governor to proclaim a State of Emergency. The Governor can proclaim a State of Emergency if the safety of persons and property in California are threatened by conditions of extreme peril or if the emergency conditions are beyond the emergency response capability and capabilities of the local authorities. This situation is, however, unusual.
Proclamation of a State of War Emergency: In addition to a State of Emergency, the Governor can proclaim a State of War Emergency whenever California or the nation is attacked by an enemy of the United States, or upon receipt by California of a warning from the federal government indicating that such an enemy attack is probable or imminent. The powers of the Basic Plan, 2025 35
251
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
Governor granted under a State of War Emergency are commensurate with those granted under a State of Emergency.
State Request for a Presidential Declaration: When it is clear that State capabilities will be exceeded, the Governor can request Federal assistance, including assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The Stafford Act authorizes the President to provide financial and other assistance to State and local governments, certain private nonprofit organizations, and individuals to support response, recovery, and mitigation efforts following Presidential emergency or major disaster declarations.
Preliminary Damage Assessment: Upon submission of the request, Federal Emergency Management Agency coordinates with the state to conduct a Preliminary Damage Assessment and determine if the incident is of sufficient severity to require federal assistance under the Stafford Act. This process could take a few days to a week depending on the magnitude of the incident. Federal Emergency Management Agency uses the results of the Preliminary Damage Assessment to determine if the situation is beyond the combined capabilities of the state and local resources and to verify the need for supplemental federal assistance. The Preliminary Damage Assessment also identifies any unmet needs that may require immediate attention.
The Preliminary Damage Assessment may not be required if immediate response assistance is necessary.
Federal Analysis of the State's Request: The Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Administrator assesses the situation and the request and makes a recommendation to the President through the Federal Department of Homeland Security on a course of action. The decision to approve the request is based on such factors as the amount and type of damage, the potential needs of the affected jurisdiction and the state, availability of state and local government resources, the extent and type of insurance in effect, recent disaster history and the state's hazard mitigation history.
Federal Declarations without a PDA: If the incident is so severe that the damage is overwhelming and immediately apparent, the President may declare a major disaster immediately without waiting for the PDA process described above.
Declaration of Emergency or Major Disaster: The President of the United States can declare an Emergency or Major Disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 USC §5121 et seq.), thereby providing federal government resources to support the states' response and recovery activities. While Presidential Declarations under the Stafford Act release federal resources and funding to support response and recovery, federal agencies may also provide assistance under other authorities or agreements that do not require a Presidential Declaration.
Basic Plan, 2025 36
252
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
Warning
Increase Readiness /
Preposition
Resource$
Notification IE.G .. 9-1-1, CSW~J
St,M Op~rations Cf'nler
Activated by Cal OES
Diret1or
Acti,•l•d bf
App<int•~IEle<.te,d Offin'I',
OP"rabon•lAre~
Erno,ger cy Operations
Analysis of Request
Recovery Request for
Federal Assistance
M~d~ bt Gtt,llrt101
■ Proclamation/
Declaration Sequence
Figure 9 - Response Phase Sequence of Events
The sequence of activities occurring for the emergency response and the proclamation process is illustrated in Figure 9 - Response Phase Sequence of Events.
2.4 CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
A major disaster could result in great loss of life and property, including the death or injury of key government officials, the partial or complete destruction of established seats of government, and the destruction of public and private records essential to continued operations of government and industry.
In the aftermath of a major disaster, during the reconstruction period, law and order must be preserved and, so far as possible, government services must be maintained. This can best be done by civil government. To this end, it is particularly essential that the local units of government continue to function.
Applicable portions of the California Government Code and the State Constitution provide authority for the continuity and preservation of state and local government.
Basic Plan, 2025 37
253
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan ------------------------------
2.4.1 City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Policy Statement Limitations: Due to the nature of emergency response, the outcome is not easy to predict.
Therefore, it should be recognized that this plan is meant to serve as a guideline and that the outcome of the response may be limited by the scope, magnitude and duration of the event.
Suspension of Routine Activities and Availability of Employees: Day-to-day functions that do not contribute directly to the disaster operation may be suspended for the duration of an emergency. Efforts normally required for routine activities may be redirected to accomplish emergency tasks. During an emergency response, City employees not otherwise assigned emergency/disaster related duties will, unless otherwise restricted, be made available to augment the work of their department, or other City departments, if required.
Households of Emergency Response Personnel: City employees may not be at peak efficiency or effectiveness during a disaster if the status of their households are unknown or in doubt. Employees who are assigned disaster response duties are encouraged to make arrangements with other employees, friends, neighbors or relatives to check on their immediate families in the event of a disaster and to communicate that information to the employee through the City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Center.
Non-Discrimination: All local activities will be carried out in accordance with Federal nondiscrimination laws. It is the City's policy that no serv1ce will be denied on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status, veteran status, sexual orientation or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability.
Citizen Preparedness: This Plan does not substitute government services for individual responsibility. Citizens are expected to be aware of developing events and take appropriate steps to respond in a safe and timely manner. Since the City's resources and personnel may be overwhelmed at the onset of a disaster event, individuals and organizations should be prepared to be self-sufficient following a disaster. The City will make every effort to provide information to the public, via the media and other sources to assist citizens in dealing with the emergency.
2.4.2 Disaster Service Workers
Under California Government Code, Section 3100-3109, all public employees are obligated to serve as Disaster Service Workers. Public employees (civil service) are all persons employed by any county, city, state agency or public district in the State of California. Disaster Service Workers provide services and support during declared emergencies or disasters.
In the event of a major emergency or disaster, city employees may be called upon to perform certain duties in support of emergency management operations, such as: serve in a position in the Emergency Operations Center, support shelter operations, or work at a logistics base in the field.
Under no circumstances will city employees that do not usually have a response role in their day to day responsibilities be asked to perform duties or functions that are hazardous, that they have not been trained to perform or that are beyond their recognized capabilities.
Basic Plan, 2025 38
254
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan -------
2.5 CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT/OPERATIONS
A critical component of the City emergency management strategy involves ensuring that government operations will continue during and after a major emergency or disaster. The ability to maintain essential government functions, including the continuity of lawfully constituted authority is a responsibility that must be provided to the greatest extent possible.
For additional information regarding the City of Los Banos Continuity of Operations, refer to Continuity of Government/Continuity of Operations Functional Annex B.
Basic Plan, 2025 39
255
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan --------------- SECTION 3.0 ORGANIZATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT RESPONSE LEVELS
The City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan will be activated when an emergency occurs or threatens to exceed capabilities to adequately respond to and mitigate an incident(s). The scope of an emergency, rather than the type, will largely determine whether the Emergency Operations Plan and Emergency Operations Center will be activated, and to what level.
The City Emergency Operations Center will be activated and staffed accordingly by City personnel and representatives from allied agencies, jurisdictions, and organizations as appropriate.
3.1.1 National Emergency
In the event of a declared National Emergency, the City Emergency Operations Center could be activated and all elements of local government organized to respond to the indicated threat. A National Emergency may occur due to a real or potential act of terrorism or other catastrophic event that affects the country, including the City of Los Banos and surrounding jurisdictions.
For additional information regarding the City of Los Banos Direction and Control and Emergency Operations Center Functions, refer to the Direction and Control Functional Annex A.
3.2 CITY DEPARTMENT/ALLIED AGENCY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER
ASSIGNMENTS
In the event of an Emergency Operations Center activation, each City Department and selected allied agencies are assigned specific functions to support emergency management operations.
These assignments may involve direct participation within the Emergency Operations Center or provide indirect support. See the Responsibility Matrix below for Primary (P) and Support (S) roles for each City DepartmenUOrganization.
3.2.1 Director of Emergency Services
As defined by the City Municipal Code, Title 4, Chapter 2 Civil Defense, the Director of Civil Defense and Disaster wears the hat as the Director of Emergency Services and is identified as the City Manager The Assistant Director role has been delegated to the Fire Chief, who reports to the City Manager for day to day management of the emergency services program. The Fire Chief has been delegated the authority to serve as the Deputy Director of Emergency Services.
Basic Plan, 2025 40
256
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan --------------------------------- Responsibility Matrix for Primary (P) and Support (S) Roles for City Departments ------------------------ Crty of Atwater Counly OUl-l'r C: - C: co co 0 - C: 0 Q)
.. C: Q) .. f1J "00 - e en~ g Jg = Q) - e Q) E (IJ f1J 0 CD C) !!! E C: >, ~ ~ C: ~ ::::J w C: .. C: 'iii 0 ·c: a:: z - t: 0 C) - Q) Q) 0 ~ 0) Q) co f1J t: (IJ .. .2 0 c: E 0 ~ co 0 5 I! Q) .s:; Q) I: a C: ... "O .!!! ·2 (IJ 0.. (IJ 0 Q) ::::J 0.. C Q) ~Q~ E:!:: ::c Q) "C "' Q) Q) 0
·e 0.. Q) E .E a:: ~~ (IJ a:: C <II en Q) 0£: LL C Q) 0 C .2 § ~ .5 e Q) .2 'iii .s:; 0 ·co -- Q) ~ 0 .e 0 GO 0 > ii: :0 C
o lE E - ::c :0 en 0 CD -. N~ Q) C Q) (IJ > u .s:;
~ .2 -1- E !Z f1J 0 Q) ::::J E OQ~ C ::::J 0 0
~ 0 ~ 0 D. w D. en en <C e en
u:::: (IJ ::::J
0 D. D. ::c 0
Action Plannin p s
Alerting and s s p s s Warning
Animal Care p s s
Care and p s s s Shelter
Public Works p
Coroner p
Damage p Assessment
Debris s p Clearance
Evacuation p s
Facilities s p
Finance/ p Administration
Fire and p Rescue
Flood Control s p s s
Hazardous p s Materials
I.T.& p Telecomm
Law p s Enforcement
Legal p s Considerations
Man ement p s s s
Medical/Health p s
Personnel p
Procurement p
Public p s s s s Information
Services & p Su ort
Situation Status s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s
Trans ortation s p
Utilities p
Vital Records p
Figure 9. Responsibility Matrix
Basic Plan, 2025 41
257
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
3.3 ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR
3.3.1 Los Banos Residents
The residents of Los Banos are the primary beneficiaries of the City's emergency management system. At the same time, residents play an important role in emergency management by ensuring that they and their families are prepared for disasters. Before an emergency, residents can assist the emergency management effort by taking first aid training, maintaining supplies and being prepared to evacuate or shelter in-place for several days.
Many residents join disaster volunteer programs such as Community Emergency Response Teams and remain ready to volunteer or support emergency response and recovery efforts.
During an emergency, residents should monitor emergency communications and carefully follow directions from authorities. By being prepared, residents can better serve their family, and their community and reduce demands on first responders.
3.3.2 People with Disabilities and Access and Functional Needs People with Disabilities and with access and functional needs include those members of the community that may have additional needs before, during, and after an incident in functional areas, including but not limited to maintaining independence, communication, transportation, supervision, and medical care.
Individuals in need of additional response assistance may include those who:
• Have disabilities
• Live in institutionalized settings
• Are elderly
• Are children
• Are from diverse cultures
• Have limited English proficiency or are non-English speaking; or who are transportation dis-advantaged.
Lessons learned from recent emergencies concerning people with disabilities and older adults have shown that the existing paradigm of emergency planning, implementation and response must change to meet the needs of these groups during an emergency. These lessons show four areas that are repeatedly identified as most important to people with disabilities and older adults:
• Communications and Public Information - Emergency notification systems must be accessible to ensure effective communication for people who are deaf/hard of hearing, blind/low vision, or deaf/blind.
• Evacuation and Transportation - Evacuation plans must incorporate disability and older adult transportation providers for identifying and the movement of people with mobility impairments and those with transportation disadvantages.
Basic Plan, 2025 42
258
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan ------------ • Sheltering - Care and shelter plans must address the access and functional needs of people with disabilities and older adults to allow for sheltering in general population shelters.
• Americans with Disabilities Act - When shelter facilities are activated, the state will work with local officials to ensure they accommodate the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
3.3.3 At-Risk Individuals
Another perspective is to consider the needs of people who are not in contact with traditional emergency service providers. These people may feel they cannot comfortably or safely access and use the standard resources offered in preparedness, response and recovery. These include, but are not limited to individuals who are:
• Homeless
• Without transportation
• Without radio or television to know they need to take action • Without access to telephones
• Visiting or temporarily residing in an· impacted region • Not familiar with available emergency response and recovery resources • Limited in their understanding of English
• Geographically or culturally isolated
3.3.4 Businesses
Much of Los Banos' critical infrastructure is owned or maintained by businesses and must be protected during a response to ensure a quick and complete recovery from an emergency.
These same businesses provide valuable resources be-fore, during and after an emergency and play a critical role in meeting the needs of those impacted by an emergency.
Target Hazards: Some key industries are potential targets for terrorist attacks and must institute measures to prevent attacks and protect their infrastructure and the surrounding community. This requires businesses to coordinate with federal, state and local governments to ensure that their emergency plans are integrated with government plans.
Hazardous Materials Area Plans: Some industries are required by law or regulation to have emergency operations procedures to address a variety of hazards. The CalOES Hazardous Materials Program requires businesses that handle hazardous materials that meet certain quantity or risk thresholds must submit Business Program Plans and Risk Management Plans to the Merced County Certified Unified Program Agency or Administering Agency. The Administering Agency can then develop Hazardous Materials Area Plans to respond to a release of hazardous materials.
Business Emergency Plans: This plan recommends that all businesses develop comprehensive emergency plans that include employee injury and illness prevention programs, business resumption and continuity of operations elements. A comprehensive business emergency plan can assist the business and the community at-large by providing:
• Information to the employees to protect themselves and their families from the effects of likely emergencies
Basic Plan, 2025 43
259
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
• A business emergency organization with identified positions having clear and specific emergency roles, responsibilities, delegated authority and identified successors • An identification of actions necessary to protect company property and records during emergencies
• A listing of critical products and services
• Production shut-down procedures
• A company command post
• Alternate work sites
• Methods and channels of communication
• Contacts with local emergency management officials
• A method to provide and accept goods and services from other companies Business Operations Centers: This plan also promotes the use of business operations centers to enhance public and private coordination. Local governments can effectively coordinate with businesses by establishing a business operations center that is linked to their existing emergency operations center.
3.3.5 Volunteer Organizations
Los Banos recognizes the value and importance of organizations that perform voluntary services in their community. These organizations have resources which can augment emergency response and recovery efforts. Examples of just a few of the many voluntary organizations in Los Banos are:
• American Red Cross Central Valley Chapter
• United Way
• Merced County Amateur Radio Emergency Services
• St Vincent de Paul
• Salvation Army
3.3.6 Public-Private Partnerships
The private sector provides valuable assistance and resources to support emergency response and recovery activities. The goal of the Public-Private Partnership is to advise on:
• Appropriate agreements to provide for quick access to emergency supplies and essential services in order to minimize the need to stockpile such supplies during normal times
• Logistic measures required to quickly deliver needed supplies and services to affected areas
• Methods to utilize non-profit and private sector capabilities to increase the surge capacity of local agencies responding to emergencies
• Methods to promote the integration of the non-profit and private sectors into the emergency services system so that people can be better informed and prepared for emergencies
• Systems that aid business and economic recovery after an emergency Basic Plan, 2025 44
260
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan --------------- SECTION 4.0 DIRECTION, CONTROL AND COORDINATION
4.1 GENERAL
Responsibility for emergency response is based on statutory authority. The emergency response is coordinated under the Standardized Emergency Management System, which provides a flexible adaptable and expandable response organization to address all-hazards of varying magnitude and complexity.
Command and Control: During response to minor or moderate events, the City of Los Banos may manage the emergency with existing resources. The Emergency Operations Center may not be activated under this scenario. Personnel that are part of a field level emergency response will utilize the Incident Command System to manage and direct on-scene operations.
Field/Emergency Operations Center Communications and Coordination: The Los Banos Emergency Operations Center is activated to support field operations when an emergency requires additional resources, or when requested resources exceed that which is avail-able from within the jurisdiction. Field Incident Commanders and the City Emergency Operations Center will establish communications when the Emergency Operations Center is activated. The Los Banos Emergency Operations Center will communicate with the Merced Operational Area Emergency Operations Center and the Merced Operational Area Emergency Operations Center will communicate with the Inland Region Emergency Operations Center and the Region Emergency Operations Center will communicate with the State Operations Center.
Multi-agency Coordination: Larger scale emergencies involve one or more responsible jurisdictions and multiple agencies. Management personnel from the responsible jurisdictions form a Unified command and or a Multi-Agency Coordination Group. Provision is made for situation assessment, determining resources requirements, establishing a logistical system and allocating resources. Various emergency operations centers, dispatch centers and other essential facilities located in or adjacent to the affected area are activated at this time.
4.2 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER COORDINATION WITH OTHER
GOVERNMENT LEVELS AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR
4.2.1 Coordination with Field Response Level
Communications and coordination must be established between the Emergency Operations Center and field responders who are responding within the city boundaries. This is accomplished through coordination with the Department Operations Centers, when activated, and as necessary through the city Emergency Operations Center.
4.2.2 Coordination with Merced Operational Area and Member Jurisdictions Direct communications and coordination will be established between Merced County and any Operational Area member jurisdictions' activated Emergency Operations Center. Additionally, as time permits, communications will be established by the county with other member jurisdictions that have not activated their Emergency Operations Centers. Initially, communications will be established by any means available and with whoever is available, regardless of their functional Emergency Operations Center position. Ideally, communications and coordination amongst the cities and special district Emergency Operations Centers will occur along functional lines.
Basic Plan, 2025 45
261
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan
An agency representative from any Operational Area jurisdiction that activated its Emergency Operations Center may request to have a liaison at the City's Emergency Operations Center; this will be coordinated through the Merced Operational Area Emergency Operations Center or the Emergency Services Manager if the County Emergency Operations Center is not activated.
Due to space limitations, this would only be recommended during complex or large operations between the city and other Merced Operational Area members.
4.2.3 Coordination with the County and Special Districts The emergency response role of county and special districts is generally focused on restoring their normal services or functional area of responsibility. During disasters, some types of special districts will be more extensively involved in the emergency response by directly coordinating, communicating, and assisting local governments (for instance utilizing school districts for incidents involving shelters, school facilities, or the children.) If a special district does not send a representative to the Emergency Operations Center, then the Liaison Officer in the Emergency Operations Center will be responsible for establishing communications and coordination with the special district liaison.
4.2.4 Coordination with the Inland Region Emergency Operations Center Communications with the Inland Region Emergency Operations Center are conducted through the Merced Operational Area. The Regional Emergency Operations Center will work with the Operational Area directly on behalf of the city and the methods are described as follows:
• Primary Method - The Regional Emergency Operations Center sends a field representative to the Operational Area
• Alternate Method - The Operational Area and the Regional Emergency Operations Center coordinate through various telecommunications systems
4.2.5 Coordination with State and Federal Field Response There are some instances where a state or federal agency will have a field response. State agency field responses may result from a flood fight effort, oil spill, hazardous materials accident on a highway or other hazard scenarios. Federal field response could result from the same scenarios or a military aircraft accident, and/or terrorism incidents. When a state agency or federal agency is involved in field operations, coordination may be established with the City Emergency Operations Center. State or federal agencies operating in the field may be found in any section, branch, or unit or part of a Unified Command. The agency's responsibilities in responding to the incident will determine their location in the organization.
4.2.6 Coordination with Volunteers and the Private Sector Within the City, coordination of response activities with non-governmental organizations may occur. Privately-owned utilities, such as Merced Irrigation District and Pacific Gas & Electric will frequently send representatives to activated Emergency Operations Centers to facilitate coordination of critical facility restoration. The Emergency Operations Center will address volunteer requests from the general public by directing them to the logistics section or the Emergency Volunteer Center, if activated at the County level. Other private sector corporate interests may contact the Emergency Operations Center through the appropriate liaisons to express their interest in assisting in response and recovery operations.
For additional information regarding the City of Los Banos Direction and Control and Emergency Operations Center Functions, refer to Direction and Control Functional Annex A.
Basic Plan, 2025 46
262
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan -----
SECTION 5.0 INFORMATION COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION
5.1 ACTION PLANNING
The use of Action Plans in the Los Banos Emergency Operations Center provides a clear and measurable process for identifying objectives and priorities for a given event. Action Planning is an important management tool that involves:
• Process for identifying priorities and objectives for emergency response or recovery efforts
• Plans which document the priorities and objectives, and the tasks and personnel assignments associated with meeting the objectives
The Action Planning process should involve the EOC Director and Section Chiefs (one from each Section), along with other EOC staff, as needed, such as agency representatives.
5.1.1 Planning Requirements
The initial EOC Action Plan may be a verbal plan that is developed during the first hour or two following EOC activation. A verbal plan may also be utilized for incidents involving a limited scope, short duration (less than 12 hours) and a limited number of response personnel. An EOC Action Plan shall be developed whenever the EOC is activated, either partially or fully. A written EOC Action Plan is required whenever:
• Two or more agencies are involved in the response
• The incident overlaps more than one operational period • All EOC functions are fully staffed
The EOC Action Plan addresses a specific operational period which may vary in length from a few hours to days de-pending on the circumstances. The plan should be regularly reviewed and evaluated throughout the operational period and revised or updated as warranted.
5.1.2 Plan Elements
The elements to be included in the EOC Action Plan are:
• Operational period covered by the plan
• Identify parts of EOC organization that have been activated on an organization chart • Assignment of primary and support personnel and material resources to specific tasks and locations
• Describe any logistical or technical support to be provided and by whom • State the objectives (attainable, measurable and flexible) to be accomplished • Establish the current priorities to meet the objectives • Describe the strategy to be utilized to achieve the objectives In addition to the required elements listed above, the Action Plan may also include:
• Specific departmental mission assignments
• Policy and/or cost constraints
• Any inter-agency considerations
Basic Plan, 2025 47
263
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan ------- -------
5.1.3 Planning Responsibilities
Primary responsibility for developing the EOC Action Plan rests with the Planning Section.
However, development of the plan requires the active participation of the EOC Management and General Staff. The Operations Section, in particular, must work closely with the Planning Section during Action Plan development. When indicated, the Planning Section Chief will request specific technical experts to provide input to the plan. The EOC Director is responsible for approving the plan.
For incidents requiring close coordination with external agencies, (e.g., State Cal OES, state first response agencies, special districts, etc.), input from the involved agencies should also be included in the Action Planning process. For additional information regarding the City of Los Banos Action Planning, refer to Direction and Control Functional Annex A.
5.2 EOC REPORTING
Information may be sent to City departments, EOC personnel, the Merced Operational Area and other key agencies using radio, telephone, email, internet or fax. Regardless of the method of communication, all data should be verified prior to transmission. If unverified data must be transmitted, it should be clearly designated as unconfirmed information. The Los Banos EOC should transmit the following reports to the state on the City's behalf, when requested:
5.2.1 Preliminary Reports
Preliminary Reports are used during the first two hours of an emergency to provide an initial picture of the scope and magnitude of the situation.
5.2.2 Situation Reports
Situation Reports are brief narratives that present a concise picture of the emergency situation and are prepared for specific time periods.
• At the beginning of an emergency response, the EOC Management and Planning staff will determine appropriate times for submitting data and issuing Situation Reports • The Situation Report is intended for use after the first two hours of an emergency and can be updated as requested or needed
• The Inland Region Situation Status forms contain the information presented on the Situation Report form. The information may be transmitted via the Internet or fax
5.2.3 Flash Reports
Flash Reports are used for transmitting critical, time-sensitive information outside regularly scheduled Preliminary Reports or Situation Reports. For example, a Flash Report would be used to report an impending dam failure or a receipt of a Federal Declaration of a Major Disaster.
Oral Flash Reports may precede written reports. The written report later serves as confirmation and documentation.
5.2.4 Documentation
UniVactivity logs are used to record significant events, communications and actions associated with an emergency for a given operational period or shift. Each EOC staff position is responsible for maintaining a uniVactivity Log.
Basic Plan, 2025 48
264
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan ------------------------- All copies of reports, SEMS forms, and logs must be submitted to the Planning Section, Documentation Unit, prior to the close of each operational period (or prior to EOC deactivation if operations do not require multiple shifts).
5.2.5 Status Boards/Charts
Status Boards/Charts are erasable boards/charts or projections from computer systems located around the EOC. The Status Boards/Charts provide decision-makers and EOC staff with essential information such as road closures, shelter location information, river gauge levels etc., at a glance.
5.3 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER REPORTING SYSTEMS
The State of California has an internet based information reporting system for use during emergencies called CalEOC. The purpose of the CalEOC System is to improve the state's ability to respond to major disasters. This system is not available to the City level; however the Operational Area does have access and uses the system frequently. The City will use the standard set of Incident Command System forms to report information to the Operational Area.
5.4 EMERGENCY PUBLIC INFORMATION
Emergency Public Information is a priority of utmost importance during emergencies and disasters. City government has a primary responsibility to provide accurate and timely information to the public regarding conditions, threats, and protective measures. To avoid conflicts and confusion, the Emergency Public Information function operates best when centralized and coordinated among all involved jurisdictions, agencies and organizations.
For additional information regarding the City of Los Banos Emergency Public Information, refer to Emergency Public Information Functional Annex D.
Basic Plan, 2025 49
265
City of Los Banos Emergency Operations Plan ------------------ SECTION 6.0 COMMUNICATIONS
In coordination with established public safety warning protocols, the activated EOG will manage the dissemination of timely and adequate warnings to threatened populations in the most effective manner possible. Warning information will be issued as quickly as a threat is detected, using the most direct and effective means possible.
6.1 WARNING RESPONSIBILITY
When the EOG is not activated, the City Public Safety Departments will coordinate the dissemination of official alerts and warnings to the general public and allied agencies using available methods. This alert and warning activity will be coordinated through the City PIO, the dispatch center and other available alert and warning mechanisms available to the City.
6.2 WARNING AND ALERT MECHANISMS
Depending upon the threat and time availability, the EOC will initiate alerts and warnings utilizing any of the following methods:
• Activation of the Emergency Alert System (EAS)
• Activation of the California Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Radio System (CLEMARS) • Activation of the Merced County Emergency Notification System • Media broadcast alerts
As in any emergency, the effectiveness of any warning will be dependent upon many factors including:
• Time availability
• Initial notice of threat
• Time of day
• Language barriers
• Receiving challenges for the hearing and sight impaired