Yorba Linda City Council
May 19, 2026

Appendix B
Local PCI Listing - Current Conditions
Sorted by Street Name
Street Name From To
Width of
Segment
Area Current PCI Most Recent
Inspection Date
Local
VIA DEL PUMA VIA DEL COYOTE END CDS 33 8,745 46 1/29/2026 VIA DEL TECOLOTE VIA DEL BASONTE END CDS 33 9,900 100 12/18/2025 VIA DEL VENADO VIA DEL CONEJO VIA DEL POTRERO 33 4,950 100 12/18/2025 VIA DIANZA DOMINGUEZ RANCH RD VIA ONTIVEROS 33 19,305 82 2/11/2026 VIA DIEGO CIRCLE VIA DIEGO END CDS 33 3,960 88 12/6/2025 VIA DEL AGUA VIA DE LA ROCA YORBA LINDA BLVD 37 52,429 14 2/3/2026 VIA DULCINEA VIA MARWAH END CDS 33 9,317 100 12/5/2025
VIA DEL CERRO END CDS END CDS 33 49,654 76 1/16/2026
VIA DE LA ESPUELA VIA DEL AGUA END CDS 33 7,601 68 12/3/2025 VIA DEL PUENTE VIA DEL AGUA VIA DEL CERRO 33 9,900 81 1/16/2026 VIA DEL RIO LA PALMA END OF CDS 33 30,409 70 10/19/2023 VIA DANIEL VISTA LAGUNA END CDS 33 20,966 97 1/8/2026
VIA DONALDO VISTA MONTANA END CDS 33 25,487 98 1/8/2026 VIA EL TAJO VISTA DEL MAR E END CDS 33 14,520 78 12/2/2025 VIA ESCOBA VIA MARWAH END CDS 33 9,680 57 12/5/2025
VIA ESPANA VIA NAVARRA VILLAGE CENTER DR 36 9,000 64 2/2/2026 VIA ESPANA VIA LOURDES VILLAGE CENTER DR 33 19,800 97 12/3/2025 VIA ESTE PABLO ROAD E END CDS 33 7,260 94 12/18/2025
VIA ESTANCIA VIA FRANCISCO END CDS 33 12,683 96 12/6/2025 VIA ESTER VISTA LAGUNA END CDS 33 19,217 80 1/29/2026
VIA FRANCISCO VIA DIEGO VIA ESTANCIA 33 9,240 96 12/6/2025 VIA GUADALUPE VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 49,247 82 12/2/2025 VIA GERALDINA VISTA LAGUNA END CDS 33 18,623 82 1/29/2026 VIA HABANA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 21,362 44 2/11/2026 VIA INFANTA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 9,350 69 12/2/2025 VIA INGRESO PONTO DE VISTA PASEO DE LAS PALOMAS 33 25,920 95 12/5/2025 VIA ISABELLA VIA MARWAH END CDS 33 13,673 94 1/8/2026
VIA JARDIN VISTA DEL AMIGO END CDS 33 15,422 53 1/29/2026 VIA LA MANCHA VIA DEL BUEY E END CDS 33 13,530 58 2/2/2026 VIA LA NARANJA VIA PEPITA W END CDS 33 20,625 95 12/3/2025 VIA LA VIEJA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 34 29,563 90 12/2/2025 VIA LUCIA VIA MARWAH END CDS 33 10,670 99 1/8/2026
VIA LOMAS DE YORBA RR BRIDGE S/S LA PALMA N/S 54 36,612 100 10/20/2023 VIA LOMAS DE YORBA RR BRIDGE N/S PASEO DE TORONTO S/S 54 85,212 100 10/20/2023 VIA LOMAS DE YORBA PASEO DE TORONTO N/S AVE DE MARCIA W/S 36 119,660 100 10/20/2023 VIA LOMAS DE YORBA AVE DE MARCIA W/S BOX CANYON CT W/S 36 57,168 100 10/20/2023 VIA LOMAS DE YORBA BOX CANYON CT W/S COPPER CANYON N/S 36 38,268 100 10/20/2023 VIA LOMAS DE YORBA COPPER CANYON N/S LA PALMA 33 25,146 100 10/19/2023 VIA LENARDO CAMINO VISTA VIA ARRIBA LINDA 35 85,225 56 10/9/2023 VIA LINARES VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 14,300 84 12/2/2025 VIA LERIDA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 18,227 86 12/2/2025 VIA LOURDES VIA LA NARANJA VIA ESPANA 27 7,709 92 12/3/2025 VIA LAS BRISAS VIA LOMAS DE YORBA CAMINO DORADO 37 25,826 60 10/19/2023 VIA LAS VILLAS VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 34 23,409 76 12/2/2025 VIA LUGO DOMINGUEZ RANCH ROAD W END CDS 33 5,610 92 12/17/2025 23 of 27

Appendix B
Local PCI Listing - Current Conditions
Sorted by Street Name
Street Name From To
Width of
Segment
Area Current PCI Most Recent
Inspection Date
Local
VIA MARCOS CARLOS ROAD END CDS 33 26,906 96 12/22/2025
VIA MARIPOSA AVENIDA ANTIGUA END CDS 34 78,200 98 12/18/2025 VIA MADERA LAKEVIEW AVE END OF CDS 33 26,840 96 12/15/2025 VIA MADRID VIA PAMPLONA VIA DEL BUEY 33 13,200 68 2/2/2026 VIA MAGDALENA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 18,689 67 12/2/2025 VIA MARGARITA VISTA LAGUNA END CDS 33 17,171 87 1/8/2026 VIA MIGUEL VIA ESPANA END CDS 33 16,511 54 2/9/2026
VIA MELINDA CAMINO FAMOSA VIA CANTADA 37 28,490 58 10/17/2023 VIA MANRESA VISAT DEL MAR END CDS 34 18,445 81 12/2/2025 VIA MANZANILLO VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 34 38,029 72 12/2/2025 VIA MONITA VIA MIRAMAR W END CDS 34 39,100 94 12/11/2025 VIA MIRAMAR VISTA DEL MAR VIA NATILE 33 9,669 96 12/2/2025 VIA MARIANO FELIPA RD END OF CDS 33 12,914 98 12/3/2025 VIA MARISA VIA CORZO END CDS 33 17,006 76 2/11/2026
VIA MARWAH E/S VILLAGE CENTER DR VILLAGE CENTER DR 42 123,882 58 1/16/2026 VIA MARWAH W/S VILLAGE CENTER DR VIA LUCIA 38 21,280 87 1/8/2026 VIA MARWAH W/S VIA LUCIA VISTA MONTANA 38 32,300 75 1/8/2026 VIA ANGELINA S END CDS N END CDS 33 35,464 51 1/29/2026 VIA ANGELINA E END CDS W END CDS 33 32,428 69 1/8/2026
VIA NIETOS YORBA RANCH END OF STREETS 33 40,705 50 2/11/2026 VIA NORIEGA DOMINGUEZ RANCH ROAD W END CDS 33 14,850 73 1/30/2026 VIA NOPALES VIA MARWAH END CDS 33 8,525 73 12/5/2025
VIA NATALIE VIA MIRAMAR W END CDS 33 33,000 95 12/2/2025 VIA NUEVA CAMINO FAMOSA CAMINO TECATE 33 7,397 69 10/17/2023 VIA NAVARRA VIA DEL BUEY VIA ESPANA 33 12,540 64 2/9/2026 VIA OESTE PABLO ROAD W END CDS 33 5,610 94 12/18/2025
VIA ONTIVEROS VIA SEPULVEDA S END CDS 33 15,180 83 1/30/2026 VIA PIEDRA VIA CORZO YORBA LINDA BLVD 33 19,206 85 2/11/2026 VIA PERLA TRAILSIDE DRIVE END CDS 33 14,531 79 12/17/2025 VIA PAMPLONA VIA ESPANA VIA MADRID 33 8,189 65 2/11/2026 VIA PRIMARIA END CDS VIA MARWAH 33 53,669 80 12/5/2025
VIA PASA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 8,690 86 12/2/2025
VIA PIZARRO VIA DEL BUEY END CDS 33 8,558 66 12/18/2025 VIA RICARDO VISTA MONTANA END CDS 33 16,907 97 1/8/2026 VIA ROJA CALLE BONITA AVENIDA DE LOS SUENOS 33 24,260 94 12/3/2025 VIA RAMON N/S END CDS END CDS 33 34,573 97 12/17/2025
VIA RAMON E/S YORBA RANCH RD VIA RAMON 33 6,831 100 12/17/2025 VIA ROBLE AVENIDA ANTIGUA CALLE ENTRADA 33 7,260 100 12/18/2025 VIA ROSA DOMINGUEZ RANCH ROAD N END CDS 33 2,970 76 1/30/2026 VIA SARA VIA MONITA S END CDS 26 2,860 96 12/11/2025
VIA SEPULVEDA YORBA RANCH ROAD S END CDS 33 20,790 95 12/17/2025 VIA SAMUEL VISTA MONTANA END CDS 33 19,580 97 1/8/2026
VIA SONADOR VIA CARTEGENA END CDS 33 31,427 57 1/29/2026 VIA SAN LUCAR VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 34 34,493 76 12/2/2025 VIA SONRISA PASEO DE LAS PALOMAS AVENIDA DE LOS REYES 33 15,279 97 12/6/2025 24 of 27

Appendix B
Local PCI Listing - Current Conditions
Sorted by Street Name
Street Name From To
Width of
Segment
Area Current PCI Most Recent
Inspection Date
Local
VIA SANTA MARIA N/S VILLAGE CENTER VISTA DEL MAR 48 13,128 78 12/2/2025 VIA SANTANA YORBA RANCH END OF STREETS 33 45,408 72 1/30/2026 VIA SUSANNAH AVENIDA EL CID END CDS 33 10,307 57 1/29/2026 VIA TEODOCIO FELIPA RD END CDS 33 17,501 99 12/3/2025
VIA TOLEDO PASEO DE LAS PALOMAS VIA DIEGO 33 16,406 83 12/6/2025 VIA TALAVERA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 16,676 68 1/16/2026 VIA TALAVERA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 28,732 73 12/2/2025 VIA TOMAS DORINDA RD END OF CDS 32 12,685 99 12/3/2025
VIA TENORIA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 14,663 84 12/2/2025 VIA TAPASTE VIA MARWAH END CDS 33 11,693 73 12/5/2025
VIA TARARA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 19,217 79 12/2/2025 VIA TRINIDAD VIA MIGUEL END CDS 33 20,075 64 2/9/2026
VIA TARRAGONA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 34 32,453 87 12/2/2025 VIA TORRALBA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 34 15,317 83 12/2/2025 VIA TROVADOR VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 28,886 91 12/2/2025 VIA VIGO VIA TALAVERA END CDS 33 9,020 88 12/2/2025
VIA VICENTE W END CDS E END CDS 33 28,402 91 12/17/2025 VIA VICENTE YORBA RANCH ROAD VIA VICENTE 33 7,260 98 12/17/2025 VIA VALLARTA END OF CDS VIA MELINDA 37 73,565 58 10/19/2023 VIA VIENTO AVENIDA DE LOS ARBOLES END OF CDS 33 13,211 72 12/3/2025 VIA VENTOSA CAMINO DE LOS CANTOS END CDS 33 15,290 96 12/6/2025 VIA VARADERO VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 23,705 81 12/2/2025 VIA VERANO PASEO DE TORONTO VIA ARRIBA LINDA 33 34,056 54 10/9/2023 VIA VENTANA AVENIDA DE LOS REYES END CDS 33 14,734 100 12/6/2025 VIA ZOPAPO BALARMINO END CDS 33 11,858 100 12/15/2025
VIA ZARAGOZA VISTA DEL MAR END CDS 33 30,107 84 12/2/2025 VIA GLORIA VISTA MONTANA VIA ANGELINA 33 7,986 81 1/8/2026 VIA JUANA VISTA MONTANA END CDS 33 15,554 87 1/8/2026
VINWOOD LN VALLEY VIEW CIR HARLAN DR 33 29,700 81 11/3/2025 VISTA LAGUNA PASEO DE LAS PALOMAS VILLAGE CENTER DR 24 70,560 89 1/8/2026 VISTA LAGUNA VILLAGE CENTER DR PASEO DE LAS PALOMAS 24 80,360 90 1/8/2026 VISTA MENDOZA CAMINO CERMENON CDS 33 22,549 75 11/3/2025 VISTA MONTANA VISTA LAGUNA W/S VIA GLORIA S/S 40 89,648 71 1/8/2026 VISTA MONTANA VIA GLORIA S/S VISTA LAGUNA N/S 40 99,152 84 1/8/2026 VISTA MORAGA VALLEY VIEW CIR CAMINO CERMENON 32 15,520 70 11/3/2025 VISTA LN RANCHO LN END CDS 33 8,261 82 11/5/2025
VIA VIRGINIA VISTA MONTANA VIA ANGELINA 33 8,019 73 1/8/2026 VILLA GRANDE DR LA ENTRADA DR BASTANCHURY RD 33 14,091 75 11/7/2025 VILLAGER CIR MANOR VIEW DR END CDS 33 18,491 76 2/11/2026 VENECIA LN ORLANDO DR END CDS 33 17,765 96 11/13/2025
VAN GOGH WAY PICASSO DR DELACROIX WAY 33 48,081 66 10/10/2023 VOLTERRA LN TUSCANY WY CDS 33 18,260 93 11/13/2025
VERONA LN CASIANO DR END CDS 36 25,757 92 11/13/2025
VISTA DEL AMIGO VIA JARDIN PUNTO DE VISTA 33 45,132 74 12/5/2025 VISTA GLEN CIR RIM CREST DR END CDS 29 31,503 93 12/2/2025 25 of 27

Appendix B
Local PCI Listing - Current Conditions
Sorted by Street Name
Street Name From To
Width of
Segment
Area Current PCI Most Recent
Inspection Date
Local
VISTA RANCH DR EL CAJON AVE END CDS 33 9,548 77 11/6/2025 VISTA VIZCAINO CAMINO CABRILLO CAMINO AYALA 33 6,765 80 1/16/2026 VISTA CANTORA VIA ARRIBA LINDA END OF CDS 33 32,648 55 10/9/2023 VISTA DEL MAR E/B PASEO DE LAS PALOMAS 80FT N OF VIA VADERO 20 11,980 79 12/11/2025 VISTA DEL MAR E/B 80 FT N OF VIA VARADERO 150 FT SO OF MANZANILLO 20 33,760 70 12/11/2025 VISTA DEL MAR E/B 150 FT S. OF MANZANILLO VIA LERIDA 20 83,540 77 12/11/2025 VISTA DEL MAR E/B LERIDA VILLAGE CENTER 20 19,420 78 12/11/2025 VISTA DEL MAR W/B VILLAGE CENTER VIA LERDIA 20 20,520 89 12/11/2025 VISTA DEL MAR W/B LERIDA VIA SANLUCAR 20 81,960 74 12/11/2025 VISTA DEL MAR W/B VIA SANLUCAR VIA VARADERO 80FT N 20 36,300 24 1/29/2026 VISTA DEL MAR W/B VIA VARADERO 80FT N PASEO DE LAS PALOMAS 20 12,300 66 12/11/2025 VISTA DEL NORTE AVE DE LOS ARBOLES END OF CDS 33 23,314 86 12/3/2025 VISTA DEL SOL END OF CDS AVENIDA DE LAS ESTRELLAS 33 42,284 94 12/3/2025 VISTA LAMPARA VIASTA CANTORA CAMINO CALCUROSO 33 11,253 70 10/9/2023 VIEW PARK DR SAN ANTONIO RD END CDS 37 47,499 98 12/2/2025 WATSON WY BLACK GOLD DR HOGAN DR 37 48,840 70 11/18/2025 WABASH AVE ROSE DR PROSPECT AVE 33 48,213 82 10/30/2025 WABASH AVE PROSPECT E/S THIRD ST 42 54,004 58 1/16/2026 WOODCREST DR YORBA LINDA BLVD KENNON DR 33 28,385 97 12/9/2025 WOODHAVEN DR MEADOWVIEW DR END CDS 33 11,726 77 11/5/2025 WOODLAND AVE SLEEPING OAK DR FOXTAIL DR 33 19,338 83 10/9/2023 WEATHERLY DR CASA LOMA AVE RAINBOW LN 33 15,345 91 11/11/2025 WEBB PL END CDS END CDS 33 22,858 95 12/3/2025
WELSH PONY LN RED ROAN LN CDS 30 29,269 71 11/19/2025
WESTMORELAND DR BUENA VISTA AVE CUMBERLAND CIR 33 28,116 70 12/4/2025 WEYBURN AVE ROSE DR ODESSA DR 33 9,735 70 10/30/2025
WAGON WHEEL DR STONE CANYON AVE STONE CANYON AVE 33 42,900 80 12/22/2025 W HILLS WY SOUTHERN HILLS WY TERRACE LN 33 12,606 77 1/16/2026 WHITE OAK DR SCENIC VIEW DR END OF CDS 33 25,784 63 12/15/2025 WILLOW CIRCLE RICH HILL WAY END CDS 33 15,686 97 12/10/2025 WINDMERE DR BUENA VISTA AVE END CDS 37 37,342 63 12/4/2025 WINNERS CIR QUARTER HORSE DR CDS 32 22,309 91 11/19/2025 WINTERHAVEN ST END CDS CITY LIMIT 33 22,055 70 10/30/2025 WISTERIA DR EUREKA AVE END CDS 33 29,150 82 11/5/2025
WILLOW TREE LN ASPEN WAY END CDS 33 11,066 94 12/2/2025 WILLOW WAY RICH HILL WAY RICHFIELD ROAD 33 4,620 97 12/10/2025 WALNUT CREEK RD END CDS FURNACE CREEK RD 33 27,588 73 12/17/2025 WALNUT LANE BUENA VISTA AVE END CDS 37 42,004 55 12/15/2025 WALNUT ST THIRD ST END CDS 33 21,065 75 2/6/2026
WALNUT ST VALLEY VIEW AVE SECOND ST 37 24,827 73 11/4/2025 WALNUT ST SECOND ST THIRD ST 37 22,718 77 11/4/2025
WINCHESTER LANE SADDLETREE LANE SANDY HILL 33 9,900 77 12/17/2025 WIND SONG CIR RIM CREST DR END CDS 33 8,822 90 12/2/2025 WINDY CIRCLE LOTUS AVE END OF CDS 33 17,666 74 10/9/2023 WOODCREST CIRCLE YORBA LINDA BLVD END CDS 33 7,205 93 11/5/2025 26 of 27

Appendix B
Local PCI Listing - Current Conditions
Sorted by Street Name
Street Name From To
Width of
Segment
Area Current PCI Most Recent
Inspection Date
Local
WESTWOOD LN STARLIGHT DR END OF CDS 33 10,835 34 1/30/2026 WATERFORD DR DUNROBIN WAY END OF CDS 33 11,462 55 1/30/2026 YELLOWSTONE AVE VAN BUREN ST RAINTREE ST 33 22,704 62 12/9/2025 YORKSHIRE AVE RAINTREE ST VAN BUREN ST 33 22,572 97 12/9/2025 ZAHARIAS RIDGE LAKEVIEW AVE SARAZEN CT 37 36,075 79 11/18/2025 27 of 27

Pavement Management Plan Local Jurisdiction Submittal
Page | 12
XIII. Appendix C – GIS Digital Data
Introduction
The OCTA GIS Section maintains a spatial inventory of transportation infrastructure which mostly consists of major arterial streets, roads, and highways. A key component of road information is pavement condition.

Maintaining an inventory of pavement condition will enhance OCTA’s GIS visualization and analysis capabilities and assist in understanding the transportation investment needs throughout the region. Therefore, a GIS dataset in digital format should be included in this report.

If the agency is unable to provide pavement data in the requested GIS format, a request for exception must be submitted by the agency. When requesting an exception, the agency must provide a letter signed by the Public Works Director with an explanation and a timeline of when the agency will have the capabilities of providing pavement data in the required GIS digital format.

Structure of GIS Data
The GIS dataset must consist of linear or polygon geographic features that represent road/street segments. All segments that are part of the report should be included in the GIS dataset. The attribute information of each segment must follow the requirements listed below under GIS Feature Attributes.

The GIS data requirements are discussed below. Most commercial and open-source GIS software provides industry-standard tools to manage GIS data to meet these requirements.

GIS Digital Data Format
The GIS data must be submitted in either one of the following formats:
• Esri Shapefile, or
• Esri File Geodatabase
Metadata
The GIS data are required to have associated metadata. The minimum metadata items required are:
• Title of Dataset
• Tags (A set of words that can be used by GIS to search for the resource. For example: “pavement”, “transportation”, “roads”)
• Summary (A brief purpose statement of the dataset)
• Description (A brief narrative of the dataset’s content) • Credits (A recognition of those who created or contributed to the resource) Spatial Geometry Type
The spatial geometry of the segment features should be lines that represent the roadway centerline as accurately as possible. Polygon features may be provided if they are the only spatial features available. If polygons are provided, they must spatially represent the paved surface of roadway segments.

Pavement Management Plan Local Jurisdiction Submittal
Page | 13
Projection
The GIS data must have spatial reference information and have its coordinate system identified and embedded in or associated with the data file(s). All GIS data submitted to OCTA should be in the following projected coordinate system:
• NAD 1983 State Plane California VI FIPS 0406 (US Feet) - More information about this system can be found at: https://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/nad83-california-zone-6-ftus/ GIS Feature Attributes
The required segment attributes are:
• Street name
• Unique segment identifier (Segment ID from original source if available) • Name of intersecting road at the beginning of a segment • Name of intersecting road at the end of the segment
• Current pavement condition index (PCI)
• Current PCI inspection date
• Length of road segment in feet
• Width of road segment in feet
• Paved area of road segment in square feet or square yards Additional attributes such as number of travel lanes, direction of travel, projected PCI and pavement surface type may be provided. An example of a GIS attribute table for road segments is shown below (Note that there are additional attributes such as surface, functional class, and number of travel lanes).

Pavement Management Plan Local Jurisdiction Submittal
Page | 14
XIV. Appendix D – Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan Introduction
When performing data collection in any field, the need for quality control is paramount as it is essential for accurate planning, analysis and design. This is particularly true for collecting pavement distress data for a pavement management system.

The Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan establishes minimum quality standards for performance and procedures for updates of the pavement management system.

If applicable, utilize the space below to include information on the agency’s QA/QC policies:

NCE’s “Quality Assurance Management Plan” (QAMP) affirms that:
“NCE is dedicated to achieving technical and management excellence and to delivering professional engineering and environmental services that meet or exceed our clients' needs. NCE's Quality Control (QC) Program is designed to achieve these goals. This QA Management Plan (QAMP) describes NCE's QA Program, which is based on four principles: client satisfaction, employee participation, problem prevention, and continuous quality improvements.” NCE's QAMP establishes minimum quality standards for performance and procedures for assuring that our clients receive quality service. It requires the participation of employees at every level. It encourages project managers and technical staff to take pride in their work and responsibility for ensuring that the work is done correctly the first time. The program is designed to reduce the incidence of problems related to quality and results in implementation, where necessary, of corrective actions and modification of work procedures to minimize the incidence of future problems.

Objectives
This document constitutes a formal QA/QC Plan for the City of Yorba Linda. It was prepared on 1/1/2026 and last revised on 1/30/2026.

Specifically, it is intended for the 2025/2026 Pavement Management Plan Update. The focus is on the collection of network-level pavement distress data (defined by National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 401 Quality Management of Pavement Data Collection, as “Network-level data collection involves collection of large quantities of pavement condition data, which is often converted to individual condition indices or aggregated into composite condition indices.”)
This document also addresses the QA/QC plan requirements of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)’s “Countywide Pavement Management Plan Guidelines” (section 2.4), adopted in May 2010.

Structure of QA/QC Plan
The following components are addressed in this QA/QC Plan:
• Condition survey procedures used
• Accuracy required for data collection
• Inspector qualifications and experience
• Safety

Pavement Management Plan Local Jurisdiction Submittal
Page | 15
Condition Survey Procedures
The governing document in performing condition surveys for the City of Yorba Linda is ASTM D6433 “Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Surveys.” Both asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements are included in this protocol. The following distresses are collected for each pavement type.

Asphalt Concrete AC Pavements

1. Alligator (fatigue) cracking

2. Bleeding

3. Block cracking

4. Bumps and sags

5. Corrugation

6. Depression

7. Edge cracking

8. Joint reflection cracking

9. Lane/Shoulder drop off

10. Longitudinal & Transverse cracking

11. Patching and utility cut patching

12. Polished aggregate

13. Potholes

14. Railroad crossing

15. Rutting

16. Shoving

17. Slippage cracking

18. Swell

19. Weathering

20. Raveling
Portland Cement Concrete (Jointed)

1. Blowup/buckling

2. Corner breaks

3. Divided slab

4. Durability (“D”) cracking

5. Faulting

6. Joint seal damage

7. Lane/shoulder drop off

8. Linear cracking

9. Patching (large) and utility cuts

10. Patching (small)

11. Polished aggregate

12. Popouts

13. Pumping

14. Punchout

15. Railroad crossing

16. Scaling, map cracking and crazing

17. Shrinkage cracks

18. Spalling (corner)

19. Spalling (joint)
Any exceptions to the above procedures are discussed before any surveys are performed. They are documented in the paragraphs below.
[Note to agency: these are usually related to distresses or situations that are not covered in the manuals.

Examples include roller check marks or edge cracking on streets with no curbs and gutters. Others include the raveling of surface seals or the use of open-graded asphalt concrete mixes where the surface appears to have large voids present. Any modifications must be documented and included in this document. Photos are extremely helpful.]
All surveys are performed as walking surveys, and the entire pavement area is inspected. Field crews are typically composed of a two-person crew traveling in a van. The crew will collect and record visual distresses using equipment installed in the van. The safety of field personnel is paramount in all instances.

Pavement Management Plan Local Jurisdiction Submittal
Page | 16
The sample unit selected must be representative of the entire pavement section. This assumes that the section is homogenous; if it is not homogeneous, then the section must be split according to the criteria agreed upon by the agency. Typically, the criteria used are:
• Pavement condition
• Construction age, if known
• Maintenance history, if known
• Traffic volumes (or functional classification as a surrogate) • Surface types (e.g. asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete) • Geometric elements (e.g. widths)
Any modifications to the section inventory data are documented in the pavement management report.

A sample unit must be between 2,500 ± 1,000 square feet in conformance with ASTM D6433 protocols. Typical sample unit dimensions are 100 feet long by the width of the street. Streets that are wider than 40 feet wide will have shorter lengths (generally 50 feet) or if they are divided by a raised median, separate sample units will be taken in each direction.

Any pavement areas that are not representative of the section will be noted and surveyed as an additional sample unit.

Accuracy Required for Data Collection
The accuracy required for data collection has two components, both of which are further described in the following paragraphs.
• Re-inspections
• PCI comparisons with past surveys
Random and Systematic Re-Inspections
Random Re-inspections
Random re-inspections will include a representative selection across the following categories:
• Functional classes (i.e. MPAH, locals);
• Surface types (e.g. asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete); • Pavement conditions (e.g. good, fair, poor);
• Inspectors;
• Geographical areas, if applicable.

Systematic Re-inspections
For systematic re-inspections, this could be due to noticed trends such as specific treatment types (e.g. opengraded mixes), a specific inspector or geographical area. In such cases, more than 5% will be re-inspected.

Pavement Management Plan Local Jurisdiction Submittal
Page | 17
Acceptability Criteria
At the time of re-inspection, the actual distresses will be re-inspected and verified, and any corrections made, if necessary. Distress types and severities must be the same and re-measured quantities within ±10% of the original measured quantity.

If corrections are required on more than 10% of the re-inspected sample unit, then an additional 5% will be reinspected. This will continue until more than 95% of the re-inspected sections meet the acceptability criteria.

PCI Comparison with Past Surveys
As another level of quality control, the new PCIs are compared with the previous PCIs. If they differ by more than ±10 PCI points, these sections are automatically flagged for further investigation.

If PCI Increases 10 points
The section is investigated to see if a maintenance and rehabilitation event has occurred since the last survey, but has not been recorded. Typically, it may include activities such as:
• Crack sealing activities – changes medium or high severity cracking to low severity • Patching activities – alligator cracking that has been removed and patched, so that the resultant PCI is increased.
• Surface seals
• Overlay
• Others
Therefore, an up to date maintenance and rehabilitation history file in the pavement management database is desirable, both for historical accuracy as well as to provide additional quality control.

If PCI decreases 10 points
The section is checked to see if the average deterioration rate (usually 3 to 4 points per year) is exceeded. If the drop in PCI is within range of what is acceptable, no further action is required. If the drop is more than the acceptable range, a re-inspection will be performed. The default performance curves in the pavement management software form the basis for what is acceptable.

Pavement Management Plan Local Jurisdiction Submittal
Page | 18
Inspector’s Qualifications and Experience
The NCE personnel involved in pavement condition data collection and analysis for this project—regardless of survey method (walking, windshield, semi-automated, or fully automated)—are strongly recommended to attend formal ASTM D6433 distress training through either the annual OCTA training program or an internal training program.

Critical Requirement: All PCI results submitted as part of this project must be reviewed and signed by at least one inspector holding an active OCTA Pre-Qualification certificate. Reports that are not reviewed and signed by an OCTA pre-qualified inspector will not be accepted by OCTA. Local jurisdictions will be required to submit a revised report prepared by an OCTA pre-qualified inspector.

The table below identifies all project personnel involved in field data collection and QA/QC review, including their training credentials and OCTA Pre-Qualification status.

Inspector Name Role
(Field Inspector or
QA/QC Reviewer or
Both)
Date of ASTM
D6433
Training
Training
Conducted By:

OCTA Pre-Qualification
Active
(Y/N)
Expiration
Date
Certificate
Provided
with this
Report
(Y/N)
Joseph De Leon Field Inspector 12/23/2024 Mei-Hui Lee Y 6/30/2027 Y Franc Escobedo Field Inspector 12/23/2024 Mei-Hui Lee Y 6/30/2027 Y Mahmoud Samara QA/QC Reviewer 12/23/2024 Mei-Hui Lee Y 6/30/2027 Y As shown above, the field inspectors and the QA/QC reviewer all hold active OCTA Pre-qualification. Resumes of the technicians and the QC reviewed utilized on this project are included as an attachment.

Pavement Management Plan Local Jurisdiction Submittal
Page | 19
Safety Procedures
The NCE administers a health and safety program in compliance with the Cal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Title VIII, Section 3203. The program is documented in NCE's Workplace Safety Program Manual.

Generally, the safety procedures include (Edit as applicable to agency):
• Inspectors to wear Class 2 or 3 safety vest at all times; • Flashing beacon on all vehicles utilized for surveys; and • Stopped vehicles to be parked at locations away from moving traffic (e.g. nearby parking, shoulders, etc.).
• For higher volume streets, inspectors will use the sidewalk and or medians and move in the face of traffic when conducting surveys. This will furnish them with more time and provide them with better chances of escaping a dangerous situation involving incoming vehicles.

On streets where there is a high volume of traffic or high speeds, additional measures may be necessary, such as:
• Surveys to occur during off-peak periods or on weekends; • Additional inspector to watch out for traffic; and
• Traffic flaggers in extreme cases.

In extreme cases where it is not possible to walk on the pavement surface, inspections will be performed from sidewalks or raised medians. However, this is extremely rare for city or county roads/streets; this is most often encountered on state highways, and lane closures are the most likely option in that circumstance.

All NCE inspectors are required to take online safety programs annually as administered by “Click Safety.” These classes include:
• Workzone Traffic Safety Tips for Construction.
• Cal Heat Illness Prevention for all Industry Workers. • Cal Person Protective Equipment for Construction.

Attachments
A. Certificate of Prequalification – OCTA Pavement Inspector Prequalification Program B. Resumes of Field Inspectors
---End of QA/QC Plan---

Attachment A
Certificate of Prequalification

CERTIFICATE
Mahmoud Samara
This certificate has been
presented to
for successfully meeting the requirements of the
OCTA 2025 Pavement Inspector Prequalification Program
using MANUAL survey techniques
Expiration:

6.30.2027
www.WestCoastEC.com/OCTA
Of Prequalification

CERTIFICATE
raE: J:o9<do
This certificate has been
presented to
for successfully meeting the requirements of the
OCTA 2025 Pavement Inspector Prequalification Program
using MANUAL survey techniques
Expiration:

6.30.2027
www.WestCoastEC.com/OCTA
Of Prequalification

CERTIFICATE
$oJ<Gh
< &<oE
This certificate has been
presented to
for successfully meeting the requirements of the
OCTA 2025 Pavement Inspector Prequalification Program
using MANUAL survey techniques
Expiration:

6.30.2027
www.WestCoastEC.com/OCTA
Of Prequalification

Attachment B
Resumes of Field Inspectors

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
Education
Computer Operations Program,
Computer Learning Center, Los
Angeles, CA, 1983-84
Network Engineering &
Administrative Program
Computer Learning Center,
Anaheim, CA, 1997
Certified Network Administration
Computer Learning Center,
Anaheim, CA 1997
Registrations and Certifications
MTC StreetSaver® Rater Certification
Program
OCTA PAVERTM Certification
Joined NCE
2004
Total Years of Experience
22 years
Franc Escobedo
Senior Engineering Field Technician
Franc Escobedo has performed numerous pavement condition inspections throughout California, Idaho, and Washington. His experience includes distress collection across various Pavement Management Systems, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission StreetSaver®, PAVERTM, Cartography, and Hansen systems.

Additionally, Franc has completed both the Orange County Transportation Authority PAVERTM and Metropolitan Transportation Commission “Distress Identification” courses for both asphalt concrete and Portland cement pavements and now assists with the training of agency staff on both courses.

Franc performs all activities relating to pavement data collection using hardcopy forms or tablets. As part of the quality control process, he performs cross-checks of data in the Pavement Management System database. He regularly performs quality control checks of field-collected data and pavement maintenance history to ensure that Pavement Management System databases are accurate and up to date. During this process, he generates detailed reports that are necessary to perform his cross-checks of the collected data.

His field experience and expertise are added benefits to agencies during field training. Listed below is a collection of agencies for which Franc has performed condition inspections – they total over 6,000 centerline miles of roads and streets.

Representative Projects
Projects included various forms of inspections for pavement distress data collection, such as walking, windshield, and/or semi-automated.

As-Needed Pavement Condition Survey Services, APE15117
City of San Francisco, CA
Engineering Technician. Pavement distress surveyor. Since 2016, NCE performed condition surveys on almost 1,000 centerline miles of streets. A particular challenge in 2016 and 2017 was the change in distress protocols when weathering and raveling were split into two different distresses; this resulted in an increase in the Pavement Condition Index, further confirmed by a research study. Project cost: $868,796.

Pavement Management System Updates
City of Berkeley, CA
Engineering Technician. Pavement distress surveyor. NCE is updating StreetSaver® and providing a five-year paving plan for 2018 – 2022. For the first four years, the City will select streets for treatment based on criteria identified under Measure M. Project cost: $49,900.

Pavement Management Update
Sonoma County, CA
Engineering Technician. Pavement distress surveyor. The scope included updating the existing pavement management system annually, developing pavement

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
treatment strategies, conducting budgetary analysis, and providing non-pavement needs assessment. Project cost:
$823,981.

As-Needed Pavement Engineering Services, San Francisco International Airport City of San Francisco, CA
Engineering Technician. Pavement distress surveyor. Since 2011, NCE has provided on-call pavement consultant services on a very complex airfield environment under tight security, conducted forensic analysis on the Portland cement concrete apron areas, and implemented the PAVER™ Pavement Management System. NCE performed the pavement designs for Runway 10R-28L, Plot 40, and Plot 12, determined the structural adequacy, and performed mechanistic pavement designs using FAARFIELD for Runways 1L/19R and Taxiways E, F, and L. Determined the Aircraft Classification Number/Pavement Classification Number for all runways and taxiways. NCE conducted forensic analysis on a new taxiway exhibiting premature large-scale reflective block cracking and rutting at Boarding Area A and dimpling of Taxiways B and M. NCE designed a high-stability asphalt concrete mix to solve this problem. Developed mitigation plan for premature failure of thin-bonded Portland cement concrete overlay on access roads Developed construction guidelines for longlasting longitudinal joints within asphalt concrete pavements. Updated the PAVER™ Airport Pavement Management System and performed automated distress surveys as per American Society for Testing and Materials D5340. Digital images were collected, and the information was used to update San Francisco International Airport’s Geographic Information System and asset management system. Prepared final reports on the funding and maintenance needs for the next 20 years for the Federal Aviation Administration. NCE is currently providing similar pavement services to San Francisco International Airport as a subconsultant through 2022. Project cost: $1.2 million.

Program Management System Updates
Orange County, CA
Senior Engineering Technician. Pavement distress surveyor. Scope includes verifying the road inventory for a road network (674 centerline miles), surveying the roads using ASTM D6433-11 protocols, updating the maintenance history, developing maintenance strategies, performing multiple budget scenarios, linking to a GIS shapefile, developing a sevenyear work plan, and preparing reports. Concurrent with the pavement condition survey, mobile data collection units gathered high-resolution 360-degree geo-referenced right-of-way street level digital imagery along with 3D point cloud data. Assets collected included markings, signs, curb ramps, signals, and drainage features.

Pavement Management and Road Surveying
San Diego County, CA
Field Technician. Collecting distress data for asphalt concrete/Portland cement concrete surfaces as per American Society for Testing and Materials D6433 standards. Inspected control sections for a prior automated survey.

Pavement Management
Pavement Management Inspections
Various Cities and Counties, CA, ID, NV, WA
Engineering Field Technician
• Ada County, ID
• Agoura Hills
• Aliso Viejo
• Antioch
• Auburn, WA
• Anaheim
• Bakersfield
• Baldwin Park
• Beaumont
• Downey
• East Palo Alto
• El Centro
• Elk Grove
• Encinitas
• Fairfield
• Fremont
• Fresno County
• Fullerton
• Mono County
• Monterey
• Monterey County
• Monterey Park
• Moreno Valley
• Mountain View
• Napa County
• Newport Beach
• Oakland
• Santa Barbara
• Santa Cruz
• Santa Cruz County
• Santa Maria
• Santa Monica
• Seal Beach
• Siskiyou County
• Sonoma County
• South Lake Tahoe

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
• Bell
• Beverly Hills
• Brentwood
• Buena Park
• Burbank
• Camarillo
• Campbell
• Carmel
• Carson
• Cathedral City
• Chula Vista
• Commerce
• Contra Costa County
• Corona
• Cudahy
• Cypress
• Dana Point
• Diamond Bar
• Dinuba
• Hawaiian Gardens
• Hayward
• Highland
• Hillsborough
• Humboldt County
• Inyo County
• La Habra
• Lake Forest
• Las Vegas
• Lemon Grove
• Livermore
• Mammoth Lakes
• Manhattan Beach
• Marina
• Marin County
• Martinez
• Mendocino County
• Milpitas
• Mission Viejo
• Orange
• Orange County
• Oxnard
• Pacific Grove
• Palm Springs
• Pismo Beach
• Poway
• Redwood City
• Richmond
• Rogue River National Forest
• San Bruno
• San Clemente
• San Diego County
• San Dimas
• San Francisco
• San Marcos
• San Marino
• San Mateo County
• San Ramon
• Stanislaus County
• Stanton
• State of Nevada
• State of Oregon
• State of Washington
• Thousand Oaks
• Torrance
• Tulare
• Tuolumne County
• Tustin
• Umpqua National Forest
• Vallejo
• Vernon
• Vista
• Walnut Creek
• West Covina
• West Sacramento
• Whittier
• Wildomar
• Yorba Linda

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
Education
Mendocino College
Registrations and Certifications
MTC StreetSaver® Rater Certification
Program
OCTA PAVERTM Certification
Joined NCE
2017
Total Years of Experience
8 years
Joseph DeLeon
Senior Field Technician
Joseph joined NCE in 2017 as a pavement management technician and is experienced in collecting distress data for pavement management systems. Apart from conducting field inspections, he has performed all functions related to data collection and is an active participant in the quality control process. As part of this process, he performs cross-checks of data in the Pavement Management Program database. Joseph has performed quality control checks of field-collected data and pavement maintenance history to ensure that PMP databases are accurate and up to date. During this process, he generates detailed reports needed to help perform his crosschecks of the data collected. Joseph has completed the Orange County Transportation Authority’s PAVER™ ‘Distress Identification’ course for Asphalt Concrete and Portland Cement Pavements. Joseph is also certified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to perform pavement distress inspections; the certification testing involves passing a rigorous field test to test the inspector’s knowledge of the distress procedures once a year. The Pavement Inspector Certification/Testing covers both American Society for Testing and Materials D6433 for PAVER™ and StreetSaver® modified American Society for Testing and Materials D6433 distress types.

Representative Projects
Pavement Management Program Updates
City of Yorba Linda, CA
Engineering Technician. Joseph provided GIS database management, Field PCI inspections, and QA/QC. NCE has served the pavement management needs of the City of Yorba Linda through three consecutive cycles since 2020. In 2020, NCE transitioned the City’s PAVER™ database to the MTC StreetSaver® platform and, as part of the 2020 and 2022 PMP updates, prepared tasks such as converting databases, verifying street inventory, field-verifying pavement inventory, conducting distress/condition surveys using ASTM D6433 on 215 centerline miles, calculating PCI for each street section, performing budgetary analyses with three funding scenarios, developing seven-year and two-year maintenance and repair work plans, and preparing the final report for OCTA submittal. NCE prepared the City’s PMP Update in 2023/24, with the final report submitted to OCTA in May 2024.

Design and Construction Management Services for FY 23-24 Street Rehabilitation
City of Alhambra, CA
Engineering Technician. Joseph provided GIS database management, Field PCI inspections, and QA/QC. The City of Alhambra selected NCE to design PS&E for the City's annual roadway maintenance and rehabilitation projects. The project covered $3.1 million in improvements across 20 streets segments, approximately

3.6 miles of residential streets. NCE staff collected data on curb and gutter damage to address drainage problems, pavement cross slopes, existing utility covers, and base repairs. The project included pavement treatments ranging from shallow overlays with Asphalt Rubber Hot-Mix to full-depth reconstructions, over

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
7,000 linear feet of curb and gutter repairs, the replacement of 73 driveways, the design of 18 new ADA-compliant curb ramps, and the design of 44 retrofit ADA-compliant curb ramps.

Street Rehabilitation Programs and PMS Update Services
City of San Marino, CA
Engineering Technician. Joseph provided GIS database management, Field PCI inspections, and QA/QC. FY 2022 & FY 2023 Annual Street Rehabilitation Program: NCE provided civil and pavement design for the City of San Marino’s FY 2022 & FY 2023 Annual Street Rehabilitation Program, covering nearly $6.1 million and 19 of the City’s most deteriorated street sections. Innovative pavement solutions resulted in significant cost savings, allowing more streets to be improved. The project included comprehensive pavement surveys, base repair markings, coring, subgrade testing, and sustainable treatment recommendations, with special attention to Macadam Road base areas. Over 10,000 linear feet of curb and gutter repairs and more than 130 ADA curb ramps were designed. Construction plans featured updated 2021 Greenbook technical specifications and detailed cost estimates. FY 2020 & FY 2021 Annual Street Rehabilitation Program: NCE prepared the civil and pavement design plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimate of probable construction cost (PS&E) for the City’s annual road rehabilitation program totaling nearly $5.8 million and about 66 street sections. This also included the identification of hundreds of curbs and gutter repairs. A comprehensive pavement design was conducted, including pavement conditions surveys, base repair markings, pavement coring, and subgrade laboratory testing. Since 2015, NCE has assisted the City with PMS and pavement evaluation and design services. In 2020, the City selected NCE to provide integrated design services, including PMS, pavement evaluation and design, and preparation of PS&E packages. Through its integrated design approach, NCE has helped the City improve its network PCI by 7 points, from a PCI of 65 in 2018 to a PCI of 72 in 2022, over a period of 4 years. This was achieved by creating a focused, multiyear plan that met the City's needs and optimized its capital improvement program budget.

Countywide Pavement Management Program Implementation
Transportation Agency for Monterey County, CA
Technician. Joseph used ArcGIS Pro to update the database of its traffic signs. NCE collected data on traffic signs as nonpavement assets as part of the field surveys. The mobile data collection units utilized could also gather high-resolution, 360-degree, geo-referenced right-of-way digital images. This mobile mapping system provided the ability to inventory traffic signs assets with a high level of accuracy. NCE collected latitude and longitude, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices code, and support type for traffic signs. The County will view the 360-degree images on Mapillary.com at no additional cost.

Collect Pavement Rating, Management System, and other Asset Data Glenn County Transportation Commission, CA
Technician. Joseph is assisting in the analysis of the pavement right-of-way asset data inventory. He is using ArcGIS Pro to update the database of its pavement right-of-way assets. The scope of work included collecting pavement condition and right-of-way asset data on over 700 miles of primarily rural roads. The mobile data collection unit utilized for the pavement survey gathered high-resolution, 360-degree, geo-referenced right-of-way digital images which were used to extract the location of non-pavement assets such as Americans with Disabilities Act ramps, traffic signs, pavement marking, and storm drains.

Pavement Management Program and Right-of-Way Asset Inventory City of Redondo Beach, CA
Senior Field Technician. NCE is presently collaborating with the City to conduct an inventory of right-of-way assets, including traffic signs and curb ramps. In addition, in 2017 NCE developed a right-of-way asset inventory for assets such as sign inventory, curb ramp, pavement and curb marking, cross gutter inventory, and manhole inventory. In addition to updating the asset inventory, NCE is currently collaborating with the City to revise its Pavement Management Program and to develop a multi-year focus plan by conducting pavement design and base repair assessment(s). The City consists of about 159.43 centerline miles of streets. Joseph has led the data collection initiatives for all of these projects.

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
Pavement Evaluation/Design and Street Rehabilitation Projects City of Redondo Beach, CA
Engineering Technician. Joseph provided GIS database management, Field PCI inspections, and QA/QC. NCE has partnered with the City of Redondo Beach since 2017 with their PMP, multi-year work plan, and asset inventory. As part of the recent multi-year work plan, NCE pavement engineers refined the PMP recommendations for the upcoming 3-year rehabilitation program (FY 2025/26–2027/28) to save the City approximately $1.5 million in overall project costs.

Beginning in 2024, NCE was also contracted by the City to provide the PS&E design for the City’s FY 2022 and FY 2023 annual roadway maintenance and rehabilitation catch-up programs. As part of these projects, NCE prepared the PS&E package for approximately $2.6 million, covering 32 street segments across 5.9 centerline miles. NCE staff marked out base repair locations, took pavement core samples, and carried out laboratory testing to develop project-specific pavement design recommendations. They also collected curb and gutter damage that will need to be addressed during construction. The design also includes the development of new curb ramps, bulb-outs as part of a Safe Routes to School initiative, intersection reconstruction, electrical work, sidewalk plaza regrading, and coordination with the City’s ongoing bicycle and pedestrian master plan improvements. NCE also helped update the City’s bid documents to the newer 2021 Greenbook Specifications and 2023 Caltrans Specifications. NCE is currently finalizing the 100% PS&E for the FY 2023 program.
2020 Asset Data Collection
City of San Clemente, CA
Technician. Joseph assisted in the data collection for this project. NCE assisted the City in carrying out an inventory of the pavement right-of-way assets such as signs, sidewalks, and pavement markings. The sign inventory included the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Code, support type, and spatial location. Similarly, the sidewalk inventory included the length, type, material, and spatial location. Lastly, the pavement marking inventory included the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices code and spatial locations. The City has 138.53 centerline miles.

Citywide Sidewalk Assessment
City of Carson, CA
Senior Field Technician. Joseph assisted in the data collection for this project. NCE conducted a citywide inspection in Corona for tripping hazards in the public right-of-way, as well as Americans with Disabilities Act compliance with curb ramps at street intersections. Field staff performed walking surveys and took photographs along the entire 350 centerline miles of public streets as well as parks, city-owned buildings, and parking lots. Jim oversaw the data collection effort, preparing a combination of “high accuracy” and “mapping grade” data collectors. High-accuracy inspections utilized differential Global Positioning System correction to achieve an average 14-inch accuracy to pinpoint sidewalk repair locations while mapping grade inspections were used for large targets such as curb ramps.

Kingman Asset Inventory
City of Kingman, AZ
Technician. Joseph assisted in the extraction of the asset data for this project. NCE is assisting the City with developing an inventory of the city’s sidewalks, curbs, Americans with Disabilities Act curb ramps, and pavement marking. The City has approximately 226 centerlines of roadway and its right-of-way was assessed to contain 265 miles of curb, 187 miles of sidewalk, 2,137 curb ramps, and 111 miles of pavement striping.

Pavement Management Systems
City of Santa Barbara, CA
Field Technician. Joseph collected distress data for asphalt concrete/Portland cement concrete surfaces according to the American Society for Testing and Materials19/20 system. He also inspected residential, collector, and urban arterial streets in Santa Barbara. The City has 246.72 centerline miles.

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
Pavement Asset Management
Pavement Condition Surveys
Various Cities and Counties, CA
Senior Field Technician. Below is a collection of agencies for which Joseph has performed condition inspections. These projects have included various forms of inspections for pavement distress data collection, such as walking, windshield, and/or automated.
• Aliso Viejoy
• Anaheim
• Baldwin Park
• Beaumont
• Beverly Hills
• Buena Park
• Burbank
• Cathedral City
• Clearlake
• Corona
• Downey
• El Cajon
• Elk Grove
• Encinitas
• Fairfield
• Garden Grove
• Hawaiian Gardens
• Highland
• Kings County
• Lake County
• Lake Forest
• Lakeport
• Lemon Grove
• Manhattan Beach
• Martinez
• Mission Viejo
• Monterey Park
• Oakland
• Orange City
• Orange Cove
• Orange Grove
• Pacific Grove
• Pismo Bach
• Redondo Beach
• Riverside
• San Bernardino
• San Clemente
• San Dimas
• San Marcos
• San Marino
• Sand City
• Santa Ana
• Santa Barbara
• Santa Barbara Conty
• Santa Maria
• Seal Beach
• Sonoma County
• South Gate
• Stockton
• Thousand Oaks
• Torrance
• Ventura
• Wildomar
• Yorba Linda

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
Education
MS, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Rowan University,
Glassboro, New Jersey, 2022
BS, Civil Engineering/Highway and
Bridges Engineering, Al-Balqa
Applied University, Salt, Jordan,
2017
Registrations and Certifications
Professional Engineer – Civil, AZ
#86072
OCTA Pavement Inspector
Prequalification
Affiliations
Associate member with the
American Society of Civil Engineers
Student Member in Academy of
Pavement Science and Engineering
Friend of Transportation Research
Board committee AKM20
Member in Transportation Research
Board Young Members
Subcommittee
Joined NCE
2022
Total Years of Experience
3 years
Mahmoud Samara, MS, PE
Project Engineer I (Pavement)
Mahmoud Samar, PE, began his engineering career as a Project Engineer specializing in pavements at NCE. He has extensive experience in a range of projects, including civil design, pavement design and evaluation, rehabilitation and maintenance, as well as asset and pavement management. Mahmoud has expertise in laboratory performance characterization of flexible pavement materials, pavement management systems, life cycle cost analysis of pavement structures, non-destructive testing, falling weight deflectometer (FWD) assessments, and flexible pavement design. He has proficiency in PMS software such as StreetSaver® and PAVER™. Mahmoud has also authored several publications and has delivered presentations on the “performance of asphalt binders” at annual meetings of the Transportation Research Board (TRB).

Representative Projects
Pavement Management Program Updates
City of Yorba Linda, CA
Pavement Engineer. Mahmoud conducted pavement condition surveys, performed budgetary analysis, and developed multi-year pavement maintenance and rehabilitation work plans. NCE has served the pavement management needs of the City of Yorba Linda through three consecutive cycles since 2020. In 2020, NCE transitioned the City’s PAVER™ database to the MTC StreetSaver® platform and, as part of the 2020 and 2022 PMP updates, completed tasks such as converting databases, verifying street inventory, field-verifying pavement inventory, conducting distress/condition surveys using ASTM D6433 on 215 centerline miles, calculating PCI for each street section, performing budgetary analyses with three funding scenarios, developing seven-year and two-year maintenance and repair work plans, and preparing the final report for OCTA submittal. NCE completed the City’s PMP Update in 2023/24, with the final report submitted to OCTA in May 2024.

Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
City of Riverside, CA
Pavement Engineer. NCE conducted an assessment of the potential impact of utility cuts on the City’s street infrastructure. The project goals included developing appropriate fees to recover costs related to accelerated pavement deterioration. This effort involved collaborating with City staff to compile historical pavement performance data, conducting field testing, analyzing the collected data, and presenting the findings to City staff and the City Council.

Mahmoud was responsible for on-field data collection and analysis, and he contributed to the preparation of both draft and final reports.

Surface Parking Lots Assessments
City of Santa Monica, CA
Pavement Engineer. Mahmoud led the development comprehensive treatment recommendations for Santa Monica's beach parking network spanning 28 pavement design sections across 1,556,458 square feet. Using field data from

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
condition surveys, coring, GPR testing, and laboratory analysis (R-values 52-66), The NCE team designed treatments including surface reconstruction, mill and overlay (1.5" to 2.5" thicknesses), and slurry seal applications. The NCE Team utilized California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual (2022) for pavement design and considered constructability, existing AC thicknesses, budget constraints, and base repair requirements (4" to 6" depths).

Base repair areas were identified based on load-related distresses including alligator cracking, pumping, and rutting. The work resulted in maintaining the network's PCI of 65 with treatment recommendations for approximately $4.6 million over 5 years.

Maintenance District 6 Phase II Rehabilitation
City of Glendale, CA
Pavement Engineer. Mahmoud was responsible for conducting pavement condition surveys, performing pavement coring and laboratory analysis, developing pavement design using the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, preparing rehabilitation recommendations, and drafting technical specifications for the project. NCE was selected by the City of Glendale to provide the design of PS&E for the Maintenance District 6 Phase II Rehabilitation Project. The project involves rehabilitating 2.8 miles of residential streets in a historic neighborhood with treatments ranging from ARHM overlays, surface reconstruction, and innovative multi-layered ARAM interlayers to reduce required pavement thickness. As part of this project, NCE evaluated the existing pavement to determine feasible rehabilitation alternatives, including whether the existing macadam underneath the asphalt pavement could be preserved or removed, marked pavement base repairs, and designed numerous curb ramps and driveway aprons. We also designed new curb and gutter systems along the entirety of every street due to aging concrete infrastructure and insufficient drainage capacity, totaling over $3.5 million in curb and gutter construction alone. Due to extensive roadway re-grading for every street, NCE had to analyze vertical clearance at 274 driveway aprons, including the adjustment of driveways and sidewalks to conform to the grading. The total project cost is nearly $8.9 million.

Countywide Pavement Management Program Implementation
Transportation Agency for Monterey County, CA
Staff Engineer. Mahmoud used ArcGIS Pro to update the database of its traffic signs. NCE collected data on traffic signs as non-pavement assets as part of the field surveys. The mobile data collection units utilized could also gather highresolution, 360-degree, geo-referenced right-of-way digital images. This mobile mapping system provided the ability to inventory traffic signs assets with a high level of accuracy. NCE collected latitude and longitude, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices code, and support type for traffic signs. The County will view the 360-degree images on Mapillary.com at no additional cost.

FY 2022/23 to FY 2034/24 Street Rehabilitation Programs and Pavement Management Services City of San Marino, CA
Pavement Engineer. Mahmoud was responsible for conducting pavement condition surveys, performing pavement coring and laboratory analysis, developing pavement design and rehabilitation recommendations, and preparing technical specifications for the project. FY 2022 & FY 2023 Annual Street Rehabilitation Program: NCE provided civil and pavement design for the City of San Marino’s FY 2022 & FY 2023 Annual Street Rehabilitation Program, covering nearly $6.1 million and 19 of the City’s most deteriorated street sections. Innovative pavement solutions resulted in significant cost savings, allowing more streets to be improved. The project included comprehensive pavement surveys, base repair markings, coring, subgrade testing, and sustainable treatment recommendations, with special attention to Macadam Road base areas. Over 10,000 linear feet of curb and gutter repairs and more than 130 ADA curb ramps were designed. Construction plans featured updated 2021 Greenbook technical specifications and detailed cost estimates. FY 2020 & FY 2021 Annual Street Rehabilitation Program: NCE prepared the civil and pavement design plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimate of probable construction cost (PS&E) for the City’s annual road rehabilitation program totaling nearly $5.8 million and about 66 street sections. This also included the identification of hundreds of curbs and gutter repairs. A comprehensive pavement design was conducted, including pavement conditions surveys, base repair markings, pavement coring, and subgrade laboratory testing. Since 2015, NCE has assisted the City with PMS and pavement evaluation and design

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
services. In 2020, the City selected NCE to provide integrated design services, including PMS, pavement evaluation and design, and preparation of PS&E packages. Through its integrated design approach, NCE has helped the City improve its network PCI by 7 points, from a PCI of 65 in 2018 to a PCI of 72 in 2022, over a period of 4 years. This was achieved by creating a focused, multi-year plan that met the City's needs and optimized its capital improvement program budget. 2023-2026 Street Rehabilitation and ADA Curb Ramp Improvement and Pavement Management City of Diamond Bar, CA
Pavement Engineer. Mahmoud conducted pavement condition surveys and performed budgetary analysis. The City of Diamond Bar has approximately 145 centerline miles divided into 7 maintenance zones. Beginning in Spring 2023, NCE was contracted for 3 years to provide the design of PS&E for the City’s annual arterial, collector, and residential maintenance and rehabilitation programs, as well as standalone annual CDBG curb ramp improvement projects for up to 3 maintenance zones. As part of the first cycle, NCE designed $3.5 million of slurry seals, cape seals, and ARHM paving for 104 residential and collector roadway segments. In addition, NCE also designed over $6.7 million or 4 miles of 4-lane divided arterial pavement rehabilitation, concrete repairs, bus stop relocations, and curb ramp improvements. NCE also provided striping and signage plans on the arterials to implement the City’s bicycle master plan, adding new Class 2 bike lanes with buffers where no bicycle facilities previously existed and upgrading miles of Class 2 bike lanes to include buffers and green conflict striping. For the second cycle, NCE designed over $1.5 million for residential rehabilitation and maintenance and nearly $1.9 million for 1 mile of divided and undivided arterials, including coordination with Caltrans to execute an encroachment permit for work within their right of way. Lastly, NCE prepared 3 CDBG curb ramp PS&E projects.

Pavement Evaluation/Design and Street Rehabilitation Projects City of Redondo Beach, CA
Pavement Engineer. Mahmoud was responsible for conducting pavement design, pavement coring, developing pavement rehabilitation recommendations, and preparing the pavement technical specifications for the project. NCE has partnered with the City of Redondo Beach since 2017 with their PMP, multi-year work plan, and asset inventory. As part of the recent multi-year work plan, NCE pavement engineers refined the PMP recommendations for the upcoming 3-year rehabilitation program (FY 2025/26–2027/28) to save the City approximately $1.5 million in overall project costs.

Beginning in 2024, NCE was also contracted by the City to provide the PS&E design for the City’s FY 2022 and FY 2023 annual roadway maintenance and rehabilitation catch-up programs. As part of these projects, NCE prepared the PS&E package for approximately $2.6 million, covering 32 street segments across 5.9 centerline miles. NCE staff marked out base repair locations, took pavement core samples, and carried out laboratory testing to develop project-specific pavement design recommendations. They also collected curb and gutter damage that will need to be addressed during construction. The design also includes the development of new curb ramps, bulb-outs as part of a Safe Routes to School initiative, intersection reconstruction, electrical work, sidewalk plaza regrading, and coordination with the City’s ongoing bicycle and pedestrian master plan improvements. NCE also helped update the City’s bid documents to the newer 2021 Greenbook Specifications and 2023 Caltrans Specifications. NCE is currently finalizing the 100% PS&E for the FY 2023 program.

Pavement Management Program Update
City of Redondo Beach, CA
Pavement Engineer. NCE is assisting the City with the updating of the Pavement Management Program which comprises 160 centerline miles of pavement. Once the Pavement Management Program update is completed, NCE will assist the City with developing a multi-year focus plan, field (coring), and laboratory testing, and eventually developing pavement treatment recommendations based on pavement design and site conditions. NCE will also markout base repairs every year prior to construction.

Pavement Management Program Updates
City of Anaheim, CA

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
Pavement Engineer. Mahmoud conducted pavement condition surveys and performed budgetary analysis. NCE updated Anaheim’s PMP to meet OCTA’s Measure M2 requirements from 2013 through 2023, covering 584 centerline miles of arterial and local streets. Across multiple PMP cycles, NCE conducted pavement inspections, collected ride quality data, updated maintenance histories, and delivered GIS files with condition data, all under a rigorous quality control plan. The team analyzed various funding scenarios to meet targeted PCI goals and backlogs, prepared all required OCTA reports, identified sidewalk gaps, and developed a five-year work plan for arterial streets. NCE completed the latest PMP update and OCTA submittal in 2023, delivered the Arterial Streets Five-Year Plan in June 2024, and has been selected for PMP updates through 2029.

M2 PMP Support Services; Paver™ and StreetSaver® Training Workshops Orange County Transportation Authority, CA
Support Staff. Mahmoud supported the project by conducting surveys for agencies in Orange County and reporting the results and findings to OCTA to support informed decision-making and planning. Since 1997, NCE has partnered with OCTA on a range of PMP projects across Orange County’s 6,500 miles of roads. The county’s 35 cities and the county itself must maintain pavement management systems to qualify for Measure M funding, a transportation sales tax renewed through 2041. For the past 16 years, NCE has provided guidance and recommendations to help agencies establish and maintain these systems. In 2024, NCE was retained by OCTA to provide PMP support services, including staff augmentation and a comprehensive review of PMP practices and challenges. NCE surveyed agencies, with 34 out of 35 responding, and presented the results at the April OCTA Technical Advisory Committee. Since 2011, NCE has developed and led annual PAVER™ and StreetSaver® training workshops for OCTA. The most recent training, completed in April 2025, included field identification of pavement distresses, software training, and report preparation. These ongoing efforts help agencies prioritize rehabilitation projects and ensure compliance with OCTA requirements.

Pavement Management Program Update and Impact Fee Study City of Wildomar, CA
Pavement Engineer. Mahmoud supported the update of the City’s PMP and Impact Fee Study for 128 centerline miles of roadway. He conducted pavement condition surveys and distress identification using advanced automated survey technology and assisted with the migration and integration of asset inventories into StreetSaver®, ensuring GIS data compatibility for enhanced asset management. Mahmoud performed pavement data analysis, PCI calculations, and base repair evaluations, and contributed to the development of multi-year maintenance and rehabilitation plans, costeffective treatment strategies, and budgetary analyses. He also supported the preparation of technical documentation and deliverables for the City’s Capital Improvement Program and impact fee study, collaborating with the project team to ensure data accuracy and providing technical support throughout the project.

Pavement Management Program Update
City of Lemon Grove, CA
Pavement Engineer. NCE is providing an update to the City’s Pavement Management Program. The project consists of reviewing all public roadways within the City, evaluating and updating/upgrading the City’s existing Pavement Management Program software, and providing capital improvement program planning documents for a five-year capital budget. The City’s street network is approximately 70 centerline miles with 486 pavement segments. The City currently uses StreetSaver® for its Pavement Management Program needs. The last Pavement Management Program update performed by NCE in 2018 determined the City’s average Pavement Condition Index was 60, which is considered a “fair” condition.

Roadway Analysis and Distress Surveys for County Roads
Orange County, CA
Pavement Engineer. Mahmoud conducted pavement condition surveys, and performed budgetary analysis. NCE is providing pavement distress surveys under the American Society for Testing and Materials D6433-11 on roadways for the unincorporated portions of Orange County and the City of Dana Point for five years beginning in FY 2020-2021

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
through FY 2024-2025. The County of Orange and the City of Dana Point maintain approximately 365.1 miles and 93.5 miles of roadways, respectively, which includes both the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and local public roads. Both the County and City perform biennial updates of their Pavement Management Program to assist policymakers in making decisions for road maintenance as well as complying with Orange County Transportation Authority’s Measure M2 Program.

As-Needed Consultant Services for Pavement Management and Road Surveying San Diego County, CA
Pavement Engineer. Mahmoud conducted pavement condition surveys, and performed budgetary analysis. NCE provides pavement management engineering services on an as-needed basis to support and assist the Department of Public Works in the development of the County’s Pavement Management projects. Covering an area of nearly 1.500 square miles, the County maintains approximately 1,945 centerline miles of roadways. The network is comprised of approximately 1,800 centerline miles of asphalt concrete roadways with the remainder being exposed concrete pavement (approximately 30 centerline miles) or unpaved disintegrated granite (approximately 101 centerline miles). The County manages the paved roadways using a computer-based Pavement Management System known as StreetSaver as developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. A network-wide pavement condition survey was completed in 2021 on all County Maintained Roads. The survey collected data for pavement surface distress types, severities, quantities, and locations for entry into the Pavement Management System application and determination of segment Pavement Condition Index values. NCE is developing pavement performance models from the data as well as maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation work plans or budgets.

Pavement Management Program (1261.01.30)
City of Cathedral City, CA
Staff Engineer. Mahmoud conducted pavement condition surveys and assessments for the City’s 155 centerline-mile street network, providing detailed pavement network data and PCI calculations. He supported the development of the City’s PMP by preparing recommendations for future maintenance and rehabilitation strategies, identifying funding requirements for the next five years, and developing investment and treatment scenarios to help the City achieve its PCI goals. Mahmoud also assisted in formulating rehabilitation strategies for wide transverse cracks in the Cove area, contributing to the City’s efforts to manage and maintain its roadway infrastructure more effectively and strategically. 2019-2026 StreetSaver Technical Assistance
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, CA
Staff Engineer. NCE has been involved in numerous projects related to the development, implementation, and training of the StreetSaver® program. NCE implemented the StreetSaver® Pavement Management Program in over 150 agencies since 1994. NCE has been a Pavement Technical Assistance Program consultant since Round 1 in 1998/1999. This includes NCE’s technicians and engineers being certified in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s certification program.

NCE has been involved with the beta testing of different versions of the StreetSaver® software since 1994 and has been a member of the software development team. NCE has trained users on the StreetSaver® software since 1997, including the development of the training materials, ensuring interaction in the training, and conducting the training.

Experience Prior to NCE
Various Projects
Rowan University, City of Glassboro, NJ
Graduate Research Assistant. Investigating the use of 100% reclaimed asphalt pavement in airfield mixtures for contingency pavement repair in remote regions (Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory). Conducting Life Cycle Cost Analysis of modified highly elastic mixtures using PavementME (Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory). Assessing the impact of multiple factors on the crack resistance of flexible pavements using the Long Term Pavement Performance database.

Attachment B
Resume of Field Inspectors
Predicting the time-dependent rutting performance of asphalt binders using viscoelastic data obtained from frequency sweep test for a viscoelasticity class project.

Relevant Coursework
Transportation Safety System
Explored techniques to evaluate highway safety and develop effective safety countermeasures.

Advanced Pavement Management and Rehabilitation
Discovered how to characterize common pavement distress, pavement condition evaluations, and the utilization of performance and economic analyses to develop annual pavement treatment programs.

Advanced Construction Materials
Learned the fundamental concepts of viscoelasticity with applications: elastic-viscoelastic analogies, creep and relaxation functions, Poisson's ratio, model fitting, nonlinear elastic-viscoelastic analogy, and properties of nonlinear viscoelastic stress-strain laws.

Management Skills for Engineers
Learned the required knowledge, skills, mindset, and leadership qualities for an engineering manager to operate effectively in the area of systems engineering.

Publications and Presentations
Scientific Presentation
Samara, M., (Presenter) Offenbacker, D., Mehta, Y., Ali, A., Elshaer, M., & Decarlo, C. Performance Evaluation and Characterization of Extracted Recycled Asphalt Binder with Rejuvenators. Transportation Research Board 101st Annual Meeting, 2022.

Peer-Reviewed Published/Under Review Papers
Samara, M., McDevitt, K., Kabir, S., Ali, A., Offenbacker, D., Mehta, Y., Elshaer, M., & Decarlo, C. Laboratory Investigation of Hot Asphalt Recycling for Patching Repairs Using 100% RAP With Rejuvenators. (Under review).

Samara, M., Offenbacker, D., Mehta, Y., Ali, A., Elshaer, M., & Decarlo, C. (2022). Performance Evaluation and Characterization of Extracted Recycled Asphalt Binder with Rejuvenators. Transportation Research Record, 03611981221097091.

Pavement Management Plan Local Jurisdiction Submittal
Page | 20
XV. Appendix E – Pavement Management Data Files
The Pavement Management data files shall be submitted to OCTA in spreadsheet format. This must include the following information:
• Street name and limits for all public streets
• Street identifiers (Branch ID, Section ID)
• Direction (if applicable)
• Beginning and ending of each section
• Length, widths, and true areas
• Functional Classification (MPAH, Local)
• Number of travel lanes
• PCI and date of inspection
• Type of recommended treatment
• Cost of recommended treatment
• Street geometry as linear or polygon features
The Pavement Management data files are submitted here as an electronic copy sent via email as an attachment, via a link to an online storage device site, such as DropBox and/or OneDrive, or USB drive , and/or included as Appendix E.

XVI. Appendix F – GIS Maps – Current Conditions (Optional) If included, attach and label Appendix F.

JOB NUMBER DATE DRAWN REVISED APPROVED
FIGURE
1070.06.30 Vivek Jha
Inspected PCI 1/1
2026 Pavement Management
Program Update
04/29/2026 Alberto Rocher Vivek Jha
µ
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
PCI Range
Very Good (86 - 100)
Good (75 - 85)
Fair (60 - 74)
Poor (41 - 59)
Very Poor (0 - 40) Light Gray Canvas Basemap Page 1009 of 1224 Appendix 5
Previous PMP Reconciliation Memo

2300 E. Katella Ave., Suite 125
Anaheim, CA 92806
(657) 275-3018

MEMORANDUM
Date: April 29, 2026 Project Number: 1070.06.30
To: Rick Yee, City of Yorba Linda
From: Vivek Jha and Alberto Rocher, NCE
Subject: PMP Update Analysis 2022-2026
This memorandum reviews the City of Yorba Linda’s 2022, 2024, and 2026 Pavement Management Program (PMP) updates to document the factors that have contributed to changes in pavement needs between cycles and to explain how those factors have affected the City’s maintenance schedule, the volume of work achievable under prevailing budget levels, and overall program delivery. The discussion addresses four interrelated factors:
unit cost escalation in the construction market, the City’s pavement budget trajectory relative to those cost increases, the gap between planned and completed work, and divergences between projected and inspected pavement conditions. These factors do not act independently, and their relative contributions cannot be quantified without a formal sensitivity analysis; the discussion that follows is therefore descriptive rather than prescriptive.

To better understand the differences between PMP updates and their implications on program performance, the following analysis compares key components of each plan in a structured sequence. The discussion begins with budget projections, followed by unit cost assumptions, maintenance scheduling, and finally recommended treatments and overall program delivery. This progression reflects the logical relationship between funding, cost, planning decisions, and the resulting work implemented on the network. The memorandum concludes with a summary of the 2026 budget scenario analysis, which presents projected network condition outcomes under the City’s anticipated budget and two alternative funding levels.

Budget
Figure 1 presents the projected annual budgets from the 2022, 2024, and 2026 PMP updates. While the values themselves are shown for comparison, the primary purpose of this figure is to illustrate how funding assumptions have evolved in response to changing cost conditions, program priorities, and implementation constraints.

The higher initial funding levels projected in the 2022 PMP (e.g., approximately $8.2 million in 2022 and $8.8 million in 2024) reflect assumptions developed prior to the significant escalation in pavement unit costs observed after 2021. As costs increased, the same budget levels translated into reduced purchasing power, limiting the amount of work that could be delivered. This shift is reflected in the 2024 PMP, which established a more moderate and consistent funding trajectory (approximately $5.0 million in 2025 increasing to $6.0 million by 2031), aligning expected budgets more closely with realistic spending capacity and updated cost conditions.

Page | 2
The 2026 PMP further adjusts these projections by increasing funding levels across all future years (approximately $6.0 million in 2027 to $6.8 million by 2031). This increase reflects both updated unit costs and the need to address accumulated maintenance needs resulting from prior funding constraints and deferred treatments.

It is also noted that beyond FY 2026–2027, the budget projections from the 2022 PMP exceed those established in the 2024 PMP. This difference is primarily a result of how each update accounts for inflation, budget growth assumptions, and the timing of maintenance activities. Earlier projections assumed more aggressive funding increases, whereas later updates adopt more conservative growth rates (approximately aligned with inflation), which directly affects long-term program outcomes, including achievable work quantities and network condition (PCI).

Additionally, delays in maintenance scheduling and funding constraints contribute to increased future needs, as deferred treatments typically require more intensive (and costly) rehabilitation. These factors collectively influence the differences observed between PMP updates.

It should be noted that actual dollars spent by the City on pavement work are not directly available to NCE; the budget figures presented here reflect projected annual allocations from each PMP report and are intended for comparative and planning purposes rather than confirmed expenditures..

Figure 1. Projected Annual Budget in each PMP
Unit Cost
National Trend
Asphalt-related unit costs have increased significantly over the last several years. The values shown in the figure below represent a Producer Price Index (PPI) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, where the index is normalized to a base period of December 2004 = 100. This means that all values are expressed relative to asphalt paving mixture prices in December 2004, rather than as direct dollar costs. The PPI is a national index; conditions in the California construction market, where fuel costs and regional material supply chains add further cost pressure, may diverge from the national average.

As shown, the market did not follow the modest, steady escalation typically assumed in prior PMP forecasting.

Instead, costs rose sharply beginning in late 2021 and remained elevated through subsequent years, with

Page | 3
recurring seasonal peaks layered on top of a much higher base level. This period coincided with broad economywide inflation: the 2024 PMP noted that US average inflation was approximately 1.2% in 2020, rose to approximately 4.7% in 2021, and reached approximately 8.0% in 2022—well above the 3% annual escalation rate used in prior PMP planning assumptions. This matters because the PMP work plans heavily rely on projected costs and available budget; when those costs rise faster than assumed, the program can no longer deliver the same treatment quantities or maintain the same schedule.

Figure 2. Producer Price Index: Asphalt Paving Mixture (from US Bureau of Labor Statistics) City Trend
To translate these national trends into practical implications for the City, it is necessary to evaluate how unit cost assumptions used in prior PMP updates compare with current conditions. The table below summarizes the principal paving item costs adopted in the last three PMP cycles. These items represent the primary cost drivers for the City’s program, as they directly control the cost of preventive maintenance, overlays, and localized repairs across both Local and MPAH streets.

The table below summarizes the principal paving item costs used in the last three PMP updates. These are the key cost drivers for the City's program because they directly influence preventive maintenance, overlays, and localized repairs across both Local and MPAH streets.

Table 1. Asphalt Paving Costs Assumptions, 2022-2026
Item 2022 PMP* 2024 PMP 2026 PMP
Asphalt Concrete (ton) $80.0 $105.0 $135.0
Cold Mill (sy) $3.0 $2.4 $4.5
4" Base Repairs (sf) $6.5 $6.6 $10.0
Slurry Seal (sy) $1.5 $2.2 $2.5
*Note: The 2022 PMP was initially developed using unit costs established near the end of 2021 and beginning of 2022. Because asphalt prices increased substantially shortly thereafter, the decision tree was updated in May 2022 and overall treatment costs were increased by approximately 10 percent. For this comparison, the adjusted 2022 values are assumed to be $88.0/ton for asphalt concrete, $3.3/sy for cold milling, $7.2/sf for 4-inch base

Page | 4
repairs, and $1.7/sy for slurry seal so that the 2022 baseline more closely reflects actual market conditions at the time of implementation.

Using the values from each PMP and the standard assumption of 3.0 percent annual inflation, the expected future cost trajectory can be compared against the cost actually observed in the next PMP cycle. The figure for asphalt concrete shows that actual market prices materially exceeded the amounts that would have been projected using standard escalation. In other words, the inflation factor built into the earlier PMP reports was assumed reasonable for long-term planning, but resulted insufficient to capture the abrupt post-2021 cost escalations experienced by the construction market.

Figure 3. Projected Cost for Asphalt Concrete (ton)
Given the May 2022 treatment cost update, the effective asphalt concrete unit cost in 2022 would still have been well below the value used in the 2026 PMP report. This difference is important because asphalt concrete is only one component of a treatment, yet it affects nearly every paving strategy in the decision tree. The increase in individual bid items translated directly into higher overall treatment costs. As shown in the following figure, the total cost of a typical 2.0-inch mill and overlay treatment for collectors increased from about $26.1/sy in the original 2022 PMP to $45.3/sy in the 2026 PMP, an increase of approximately 74 percent. Even when the 10 percent update is considered, the comparable cost still increases from about $31.4/sy to $45.3/sy, roughly a 44 percent increase. This escalation is not limited to paving materials. Non-paving items such as mobilization, traffic control, striping support, and similar construction costs also tend to rise in the same market environment. In addition, because design, construction management, and contingency are typically calculated as percentages of construction cost, soft costs also increase as the direct treatment cost increases.

Page | 5
Figure 4. Projected Cost for Asphalt Concrete (ton). Updated Cost for 2022.

Figure 5. 2,0” Mill and Overlay with Base Repairs Cost

Page | 6
Figure 6. 2,0” Mill and Overlay with Base Repairs Cost. Updated Cost for 2022.

Maintenance Schedule
The effect of cost escalation is visible in the implementation schedule. Based on the 2022 and 2024 PMP updates, the City would have expected to be transitioning into Zone 1 by FY 2025-2026. Instead, work in Zone 7 is still carrying into FY 2025-2026, and Zone 1 has shifted to a later year. This is a practical demonstration of reduced buying power: even when the City continues to invest in the pavement network, the same budget no longer advances through the zones at the pace assumed in the prior work plans. The delay also has a secondorder effect because the future zones continue to age while they wait, which causes the programmed PCI at treatment year to be lower than originally projected.

Table 2. Maintenance Schedule, 2022-2026
Fiscal Year PMP 2022 PMP 2024 Work done
FY 2022-2023 Z6 Z5/Z6
FY 2023-2024 Z5/Z7 Z5/Z6/Z7
FY 2024-2025 Z7 Z7 Z7
FY 2025-2026 Z1 Z1 Z7 (pending)
FY 2026-2027 Z2 Z2 Z1 (pending)
The table below provides a section-level example for PONDRSAWY - 01 and illustrates why schedule delay matters beyond simple timing. A one-year delay does not merely postpone work; it can also change the treatment that the software recommends once the projected PCI crosses a decision threshold.

For consistency, this comparison applies the 2026 PMP PCI breakpoints (PCI 70-100 for preventive maintenance) to all three cases, while retaining the cost framework associated with each report year. This isolates the effect of timing and cost escalation from changes in the decision tree criteria used across the different PMP updates.

Under the 2022 PMP, the section was projected to remain at approximately PCI 78 in FY 2025-2026, which supported a slurry seal treatment at an estimated total cost of about $21,500. Under the 2024 PMP, the same section was still projected to remain above the preventive maintenance threshold, at about PCI 71, and the estimated cost remained in the same general range, approximately $22,500. Under the 2026 PMP, however, the

Page | 7
maintenance year shifts to FY 2026-2027 and the projected PCI drops to 69. Once the section falls below the preventive maintenance breakpoint, the treatment recommendation escalates to Overlay + Base Repair and the total estimated cost increases to about $94,000, or more than four times the cost anticipated in the prior reports. In practice, engineering judgment may still select slurry seal as a suitable option for this section, but the example illustrates how deferred timing can materially change software-driven treatment recommendations and future funding needs.

Table 3. Projected PCI example, 2022-2026
Fiscal Year Inspected
Date
Inspected
PCI Schedule Projected PCI Treatment Total Cost
PMP 2022 02/10/2022 83 FY 2025-2026 78 Slurry Seal ∼$21,500 PMP 2024 10/11/2023 75 FY 2025-2026 71 Slurry Seal ∼$22,500 PMP 2026 11/05/2025 74 FY 2026-2027 69 Overlay + BR ∼$94,000 Recommended Treatments and Program Delivery
A related effect of unit cost escalation is the amount and type of work that can be delivered each year, as well as the City’s ability to maintain its planned maintenance cycle. The following tables compare the projected work quantities from the 2022 and 2024 PMPs against the maintenance work completed by the City. Overall, the data indicate that while the City has continued to deliver a substantial amount of work, the composition of that work has shifted in response to increasing costs.

As unit costs increased, available budgets translated into fewer treated lane miles, leading the program to prioritize preventive maintenance and lower-cost treatments, while higher-cost rehabilitation—particularly on MPAH facilities—became more difficult to fully deliver. This shift in delivery has had a direct impact on the timing of the maintenance cycle.

As described in the memorandum, the City was expected to transition to Zone 1 by FY 2025–26 under a standard 7-year cycle. However, due to reduced purchasing power and the need to prioritize feasible treatments, work in Zone 7 extended into FY 2025–26, effectively delaying the cycle. This delay is a key driver behind the higher future projections observed in the updated PMPs.

The delay in the maintenance cycle has two primary consequences. First, streets in subsequent zones continue to deteriorate while awaiting treatment, resulting in lower PCI values at the time of intervention. Second, as condition declines past treatment thresholds, sections that would have qualified for preventive maintenance may require more intensive and costly rehabilitation (e.g., overlays instead of slurry seals).

These effects compound over time, increasing both the cost per lane mile and the total funding required in future years. As a result, the higher projected funding needs are not only a reflection of increased unit costs, but also of delayed maintenance and the resulting shift toward more expensive treatments.

Page | 8
Table 4. Projected vs Treated Square Feet by Functional Class: PMP 2022 vs M&R History Fiscal Year PMP 2022 Work plan Treated
Zone PM Rehab Zone PM Rehab
Local
FY 2022-2023 Z6 1,827,138 2,261,518 Z5/Z6 4,030,906 4,534,028 FY 2023-2024 Z5/Z7 2,698,781 2,787,488 Z5/Z6/Z7 967,379 271,767 FY 2024-2025 Z7 1,815,121 717,167 Z7 1,118,979 813,539
Total Local - 6,341,040 5,766,173 - 6,117,264 5,619,334 MPAH
FY 2022-2023 Z6 1,187,045 173,330 Z5/Z6 2,301,926 830,895 FY 2023-2024 Z5/Z7 1,663,342 1,025,082 Z5/Z6/Z7 199,112 414,948 FY 2024-2025 Z7 118,483 234,723 Z7 0.00 0.00
Total MPAH - 2,968,870 1,433,135 - 2,501,038 1,245,843
Total All - 9,309,910 7,199,308 - 8,618,302 6,865,177
Table 5. Projected vs Treated Centerline Miles by Functional Class: PMP 2022 vs M&R History Fiscal Year PMP 2022 Work plan Treated
Zone PM Rehab Zone PM Rehab
Local
FY 2022-2023 Z6 9.05 11.87 Z5/Z6 20.61 24.04
FY 2023-2024 Z5/Z7 13.52 14.77 Z5/Z6/Z7 4.51 1.35
FY 2024-2025 Z7 9.58 3.25 Z7 6.06 4.11
Total Local - 32.14 29.89 - 31.18 29.50
MPAH
FY 2022-2023 Z6 7.47 0.66 Z5/Z6 13.55 2.68
FY 2023-2024 Z5/Z7 7.68 2.74 Z5/Z6/Z7 0.51 2.34
FY 2024-2025 Z7 0.25 0.58 Z7 0.00 0.00
Total MPAH - 15.40 3.98 - 14.06 5.02
Total All - 47.54 33.87 - 45.24 34.52
Preventive maintenance quantities were generally close to projections at the network level. The 2022 PMP projected approximately 9.31 million square feet of preventive maintenance, compared to about 8.62 million square feet completed, representing a relatively small shortfall (~7%).

Rehabilitation quantities lagged more noticeably. The PMP projected approximately 7.20 million square feet of rehabilitation, while actual work totaled about 6.87 million square feet, a shortfall of approximately 4–5% overall, though with significant year-to-year variability.

The largest divergence again occurs on the MPAH network, particularly in FY 2024–2025, where no work was completed despite planned treatments. Earlier years (FY 2022–2023) show higher-than-planned delivery, but this was followed by a sharp decline in FY 2023–2024 and complete deferral in FY 2024–2025.

In terms of centerline miles, total network delivery remained relatively close to projections (45.2 miles completed vs. 47.5 miles planned), but this masks a shift in where work was performed, with Local streets generally meeting expectations while MPAH facilities experienced greater variability and deferral.

Page | 9
Table 6. Projected vs Treated Square Feet by Functional Class: PMP 2024 vs M&R History Fiscal Year
PMP 2024 Work Plan Treated
Zone PM Rehab Zone PM Rehab
Local
FY 2024-2025 Z7 62,790 1,629,797 Z7 1,118,979 813,539
Total Local - 62,790 1,629,797 - 1,118,979 813,539
MPAH
FY 2024-2025 Z7 957,737 831,546 Z7 0.00 0.00
Total MPAH - 957,737 831,546 - 0.00 0.00
Total All - 1,020,527 2,461,343 - 1,118,979 813,539
Table 7. Projected vs Treated Centerline Miles by Functional Class: PMP 2024 vs M&R History Fiscal Year PMP 2024 Work Plan Treated
Zone PM Rehab Zone PM Rehab
Local
FY 2024-2025 Z7 3.70 8.44 Z7 6.06 4.11
Total Local - 3.70 8.44 - 6.06 4.11
MPAH
FY 2024-2025 Z7 0.30 0.14 Z7 0.00 0.00
Total MPAH - 0.30 0.14 - 6.06 4.11
Total All - 4.00 8.58 - 6.06 4.11
At the network level, preventive maintenance quantities were comparable to or exceeded projections; however, this result is primarily driven by Local streets and should be interpreted with caution. The 2024 PMP anticipated approximately 1.02 million square feet of combined preventive maintenance and rehabilitation, while actual work included approximately 1.12 million square feet of preventive maintenance alone.

Rehabilitation work was substantially lower than planned. The 2024 PMP projected approximately 2.46 million square feet of rehabilitation, whereas only about 0.81 million square feet were completed, representing a reduction of roughly 65–70%. This difference reflects a shift in program delivery toward lower-cost treatments, consistent with the impacts of unit cost escalation discussed previously.

At first glance, the absence of MPAH work in FY 2024–2025 may appear significant; however, this requires additional context. A substantial portion of arterial work, including segments such as La Palma Avenue, was completed in the prior fiscal year (FY 2023–2024). As a result, the remaining MPAH needs within Zone 7 were limited.

Specifically, the remaining MPAH segments in Zone 7 include Gypsum Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. Of these, Gypsum Canyon Road is currently in good condition and falls within a “do nothing” category, while Weir Canyon Road represents the primary candidate for potential work. This explains the relatively small projected MPAH quantities and the absence of completed work during this fiscal year.

This pattern is also reflected in centerline miles, where Local street preventive maintenance exceeded projections, while MPAH mileage is reported as zero. Rather than indicating a program shortfall, this reflects

Page | 10
that arterial needs during this period were minimal and that recent prior-year investments addressed the majority of required work.

Overall, the comparison highlights two key points: (1) the City continued to deliver preventive maintenance at the Local level, and (2) higher-cost rehabilitation and arterial work remain more sensitive to timing, prior-year investments, and available funding, which can result in year-to-year variability.

Budget Scenarios
Building on the factors discussed above, the 2026 PMP update analyzed several budget scenarios to illustrate how different funding levels are projected to affect network pavement condition over time. All scenarios were modeled using a uniform 3% annual inflation rate and a conservative treatment logic in which treatments are triggered immediately once the projected PCI falls below a decision tree breakpoint. The analysis also accounts for the completion of Zone 7 work, which is entered into the model as of January 1, 2027 (FY 2025–2026), establishing a starting network PCI of 77 for the new seven-zone cycle beginning in FY 2026–2027. Two treatment cycle lengths were evaluated: a 7-year cycle (one zone treated per year) and a 14-year cycle (one zone treated every two years, with each zone subdivided into two sub-zones). The results summarized below reflect the 7-year cycle, which is the basis for the City’s current planning horizon.

The budget needs analysis, which assumes an unconstrained budget treating 100% of the network over the 7- year cycle, estimates a total program cost of approximately $98.4 million, or an average of approximately $14.1 million per year. Of that total, approximately 73% ($72.4 million) is allocated to rehabilitation treatments and approximately 27% ($26.0 million) to preventive maintenance. Under this scenario, the network PCI is projected to reach 82 by FY 2032–2033. Zones 1 and 2 carry the highest individual year costs at approximately $17.1 million and $20.4 million, respectively, reflecting their lower current PCI values and higher proportion of rehabilitation-eligible pavement.

Three constrained budget scenarios were also analyzed. Scenario 1 reflects the City’s anticipated budget, starting at approximately $6.0 million in FY 2026–2027 and increasing incrementally to approximately $7.2 million by FY 2032–2033, for a 7-year total of approximately $46.2 million. Under this scenario, the network PCI is projected to decline from 77 to approximately 72 by FY 2032–2033. Scenario 2 targets maintenance of the network PCI at 78 and requires an average of approximately $11.4 million per year, totaling approximately $80.1 million over the 7-year period. Scenario 3 targets an increase of one PCI point (to 79) and requires an average of approximately $12.4 million per year, totaling approximately $87.0 million over the same period. The gap between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 illustrates that stabilizing the network at its current condition requires roughly $5 to $6 million more per year than the anticipated City budget.

The 14-year cycle analysis shows that while extending the treatment interval reduces the annual budget requirement (approximately $8.6 million per year for full network needs), it increases the total lifecycle cost to approximately $121.0 million—approximately $22.6 million more than the 7-year cycle total. This is consistent with the pattern described in the deferred maintenance section: longer intervals allow more pavement sections to deteriorate past preventive maintenance thresholds, increasing reliance on more costly rehabilitation. Under the 14-year cycle, rehabilitation accounts for approximately 79% of total costs, compared to approximately 73% under the 7-year cycle. These scenario projections assume that the work plan is executed as modeled; if unit costs, available funding, or work delivery rates change, the projected outcomes will shift accordingly.

Page | 11
Key Takeaways
The gap between prior PMP projections and actual delivery reflects the combined effect of the four factors discussed in this memorandum: unit cost escalation in the construction market, the City’s pavement budget trajectory relative to those increases, the shortfall between planned and completed work, and divergences between projected and inspected pavement conditions. Each factor has contributed to the 2026 outcome, and they act in combination rather than in isolation. The relative contribution of each factor cannot be quantified without a formal sensitivity analysis, and the data presented here do not support attributing the gap to any single cause. As projects are deferred, the affected sections continue to deteriorate, some cross pavement condition thresholds, and the modeled treatment recommendation shifts to more costly rehabilitation treatments. Going forward, annual work plans and budget assumptions will benefit from monitoring treatment unit costs closely and updating assumptions when conditions shift materially from prior projections.

Zone 7 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5986

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE

STATUS AND UPDATE OF THE PAVEMENT
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MEASURE M2 (M2)

PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the local jurisdiction is required to meet eligibility requirements and submit eligibility verification packages to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in order to remain eligible to receive M2 funds; and WHEREAS, the local jurisdiction is required to adopt and update a Pavement Management Plan (PMP), using the required format, regarding the status of road pavement conditions and implementation of the PMP on a biennial basis; and WHEREAS, the local jurisdiction is required to provide a plan that manages the preservation, rehabilitation, and maintenance of paved roads by analyzing pavement life cycles, assessing overall system performance costs, and determining alternative strategies and costs necessary to improve paved roads.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the City of Yorba Linda does hereby inform OCTA that:
a) The PMP is in conformance with the PMP Submittal Template provided in the Countywide Pavement Management Plan Guidelines
b) The City hereby adopts a PMP and has provided an updated PMP report, using the required format, to OCTA
c) The Public Works Director/City Engineer is authorized to sign the PMP certification form
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda on this 19th day of May, 2026.

R E S O L U T I O N N O . 2 0 2 6 - 5 9 8 6
P A G E 2

CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, MAYOR

CITY OF YORBA LINDA
ATTEST:

MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK

CITY OF YORBA LINDA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

RUTAN & TUCKER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE )
ss.

I, MARCIA BROWN, City Clerk of the City of Yorba Linda, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City of Yorba Linda held on the 19th day of May, 2026, and was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK

CITY OF YORBA LINDA

PLANNING COMMISSION | AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
MEETING DATE | MAY 13, 2026
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Director
Nate Farnsworth, AICP

4.1 APPROVAL OF MARCH 25, 2026, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES A motion by Commissioner Behura, second by Chair Pro Tem Goldfarb, to approve the minutes as drafted. The motion carried (3-0-1-1) with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chavez Marquez
ABSTAIN: Masterson

7.1 TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PRMIT 2024-21 YEE PROPERTY ADDRESS: 16686 MALCOLM LANE
A request for a one-year extension for a new two-story single-family residence on an existing vacant lot, with new 5,385 square foot two-story residence.

A motion by Commissioner Behura, second by Chair Pro Tem Goldfarb, adopting Resolution No. 5668 approving Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit 2024-21 Yee, subject to attached conditions. The motion carried (4-0-1-0) with the following roll call vote:

Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 0
AYES: Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chavez Marquez
ABSTAIN: None

7.2 TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2021-145 HARDAS PROPERTY ADDRESS: UNADDRESSED PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE EASTERN TERMINUS OF HIDDEN HILLS ROAD (APN’S 329-031-02 & 329-032-01 & 02) A request for a two-year time extension for the previously approved tentative parcel map to reconfigure four existing parcels.

Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 1

A motion by Chair Pro Tem Goldfarb, second by Commissioner Bernstein, adopting Resolution No. 5669 approving Time Extension for Tentative Parcel Map 2021-145 Hardas, subject to attached conditions. The motion carried (4-0-1-0) with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chavez Marquez
ABSTAIN: None

7.3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2026-01 - SAFETY ELEMENT AMENDMENT A motion by Commissioner Behura, second by Commissioner Bernstein, recommending the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment 2026-01 to revise the General Plan Public Health and Safety Element. The motion carried (4-0-1-0) with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chavez Marquez
ABSTAIN: None

7.4 DESIGN REVIEW 2025-08 & VARIANCE 2026-01 YORBA LINDA CAR WASH PROPERTY ADDRESS: 17091 IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
A request to establish and operate a 4,492 square-foot car wash facility.

A motion by Commissioner Behura, second by Commissioner Bernstein, to continue the item to a date certain of May 27, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried (4-0-1-0) with the following roll call vote:

Recess: 9:30p-9:35p
Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 1
AYES: Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chavez Marquez
ABSTAIN: None

7.5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2025-44 – LIU
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3276 PRIMROSE LANE
A request to exceed the maximum three-foot (3’) height limitation for fencing in the front yard of the existing single-family residence to permit construction of an integrated wall/gate system.

A motion by Commissioner Bernstein, second by Chairman Masterson, adopting Resolution No. 5670 approving Conditional Use Permit 2025-44 Liu, subject to attached conditions. The motion carried (3-1-1-0) with the following roll call vote:

Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 3
AYES: Behura, Bernstein, Masterson
NOES: Goldfarb
ABSENT: Chavez Marquez
ABSTAIN: None

7.6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2025-28 – PLANET FITNESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 18300 YORBA LINDA BOULEVARD # 201-203 A request to merge three commercial tenant suites located in an existing shopping center to allow for the operation of a commercial recreation use.

A motion by Commissioner Behura, second by Chair Pro Tem Goldfarb, adopting Resolution No. 5671 approving Conditional Use Permit 2025-28 Planet Fitness, subject to attached conditions.

The motion carried (______) with the following roll call vote:

Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 0
AYES: Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES:

ABSENT: Chavez Marquez
ABSTAIN:

8.1 DESIGN REVIEW 2024-13 YEE
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 16686-16691 MALCOLM LANE
A request to approve the site planning and architectural designs for the construction of two singlestory residential dwellings on the single-family lots.

A motion by Chair Pro Tem Goldfarb, second by Commissioner Behura, by minute motion Design Review 2024-13 Yee, subject to attached conditions. The motion carried (4-0-1-0) with the following roll call vote:

Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 0

AYES: Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chavez Marquez
ABSTAIN: None

8.4 UPDATED DRAFT FEE STUDY
Presentation by Community Development Director, Nate Farnsworth.

Receive and file.

9.1 CONTINUED DESIGN REVIEW 2025-15 - CHASE BANK
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 18461 YORBA LINDA BOULEVARD
A request for architectural and site plan review for the construction of a new 1- story Chase Bank with proximately 3,000 square feet of floor area with a walk-up ATM terminal.

A motion by Commissioner Bernstein, second by Chair Pro Tem Goldfarb, recommending that the Planning Commission continue the project to a date certain of May 27, 2026. The motion carried (4-0-1-0) with the following roll call vote:

Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 0
AYES: Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chavez Marquez
ABSTAIN: None
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 10:52 p.m. to May 27, 2026, Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m.

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DATE: MAY 19, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARCIA BROWN, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND AGENCY REPORTS

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file this report.

DISCUSSION
City Council members serve on a number of outside committees and agencies. Attached are updates received recently from these agencies.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Reports from City Council Organizations, Agencies and Committees

MONTHLY REPORT:

April
Monthly Year to Date (YTD) County Monthly County YTD
Service Requests Completed 7 28 210 930
Mosquitoes 7 26 171 781
Rats 0 0 25 99
RIFA 0 2 7 30
Number of Swimming Pools Inspected/Treated 39 112 966 3,327 Hours Spent Treating/Inspecting Gutters 0 0 0 0.0
Acres of Flood Channels Treated 0 0 5.6063 18.8068
Acres Treated for RIFA 194 357 2,131 7,176
IT (inspection/treatment) Sites Serviced 36 160 1,537 5,527 Adult Mosquitoes Collected 0 0 23,421 49,679
Mosquito Pools (Samples) Tested 0 0 1,337 2,196
WNV Positive Samples 0 0 0 0
Other Positive Samples 0 0 0 0
WNV Positive Birds 0 0 0 0
Outreach Events Attended 0 0 7 15
General Presentations 0 0 7 12
Educational Program Presentations 0 0 30 101
Service Requests & Miscellaneous Calls Received 10 36 376 1,479 Fleas, Ticks, and Others Tested - - - 974
Number of Disease Investigations 0 0 1 2
WNV Investigations 0 0 0 0
Dengue Investigations 0 0 1 1
Typhus Investigations 0 0 0 1
Other Investigations 0 0 0 0
Underground Storm Systems Treated 0 0 456 1,523
Public Insect ID Completed - - - 81

COUNTY WIDE PROJECTS / INFORMATIONAL UPDATE
Yorba Linda

CONTROL

SURVEILLANCE

COMMUNICATIONS / OUTREACH

FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DATE: MAY 19, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DONNA MULLALLY, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: APPROVE A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution establishing and updating user and regulatory fees for FY 2026-27, including future annual Consumer Price Index adjustments.

2. Receive and file the User and Regulatory Fee Study.

SUMMARY
The City recently completed an update of its 2019 comprehensive fee study. The updated study’s findings and recommendations include a recommended fee schedule that, if approved, will be effective July 20, 2026. The update is expected to recover approximately $1 million in FY 2026-27 to offset the rising costs of providing existing services and represents one of the few tools the City has to enhance its long-term financial sustainability.

DISCUSSION
California cities regularly conduct user fee studies to ensure fees recover the cost of services that provide a specific benefit to an individual or group, rather than to the community as a whole. Fees are based on the cost recovery principle that fees cannot exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service.

Generally, the City sets fees for service at full cost recovery. When a fee targets less than full cost recovery (typically recreation, community, and cultural programs), another City revenue source – usually the General Fund – subsidizes that activity. In these cases, the fees may also be informed by market conditions and comparison similar cities.

The attached User and Regulatory Fee Study details the information and analysis used to determine the cost of services. A summary of key recommendations by fee category includes:

APPROVE A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
P a g e | 2
Building Fees
 Building plan review, permit processing and field inspection fees are structured to enhance the correlation between services provided and fees collected. The recommended methodology sets lower fees for less complex projects and higher fees for more complex projects.
 Fixed, consolidated fees are recommended for the most common minor permits. This allows applicants to easily estimate permit fees and allows the City to efficiently administer the fee calculation and collection process.
 Full cost recovery is recommended for most services due to the regulatory nature of the services and the high level of direct benefit resulting from construction activities including enjoyment of property enhancements, increased property values, and the desire to avoid having other residents and businesses subsidize another individual's private construction activities.

Technology Fee
 The technologies required to process and store development permits and records database management are significantly impacted by permit activity. The technology fee creates a dedicated recurring revenue source for the City’s permitting technology and customer service needs. The surcharge is designed to generate sufficient revenue to upgrade/replace the permitting system every 10 years. The technology fee is recommended as five percent of the plan review and building permit fee. This fee would generate approximately $80,000 annually.

Planning Fees
 The City currently uses a combination of fixed fees and time and materials billings to recover the costs of fee-related services. The recommended fees transition to a flat fee to enhance efficiency.
 The City’s hourly time and materials billing rates are adjusted to allow for full cost recovery for deposit-based services.
 Initial deposit amounts are recalibrated to more closely correlate to estimated service costs.

Land Development Engineering and Encroachment Fees
 Land development engineering and encroachment fees are streamlined and recalibrated to enhance the correlation between services provided and fees collected. The recommended fees are lower for less complex projects and higher for more complex projects.

APPROVE A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
P a g e | 3
 Fees are organized to reflect the common phases of development, i.e., pre-entitlement review, post entitlement review, inspections, administrative/research requests, and miscellaneous service requests.
 Full cost recovery is recommended for most services due to the regulatory nature of the services and the high level of direct benefit resulting from construction activities including enjoyment of property enhancements, increased property values, and the desire to avoid having other residents and businesses subsidize private construction activities.

Parks and Recreation Fees
 Parks and Recreation fees are not determined by the study, largely because they are not designed to recover the full cost of providing the services, as Parks and Recreation programs provide a broader community benefit.
 The recommended adjustments are based on a 2025 market study and bring the fees in line with other nearby cities/facilities. The recommended fees do not exceed the costs of providing the services or programs.
 Other than the Cultural Arts Center Fees, the Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule has not been adjusted since 2017.

Black Gold Golf Club
 The Black Gold Golf Club fees are set using market comparisons, have been updated from FY 2025-26 to account for changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Two other fee updates are recommended:
(1) KemperSports driving range price survey showed that Black Gold’s pricing is approximately $4 per bucket below the average. Accordingly, a $2 per bucket increase is recommended.
(2) Adjustment to the Roughneck Club Friday twilight/super twilight rates is recommended. The current rates were inadvertently set lower than the Monday – Thursday rates, and this adjustment would set the Friday rates in between weekday and weekend pricing.

Credit Card Transaction Processing Fee
 The City pays more than $600,000 a year in credit card processing fees, and a credit card convenience fee is recommended to offset this cost. Each time a credit card is used to purchase goods or services, credit card companies charge the seller a fee. Most other public agencies pass this processing fee along to credit card users. The recommended fee is 2.75 percent or, if possible, charging the processing fee to the user rather than the City. This fee is also recommended for Black Gold, which paid $400,000 in credit card fees last year. KemperSports, in conjunction with the City, will implement for the fee,

APPROVE A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
P a g e | 4
recognizing the unique nature of the enterprise. The fee is expected to recover $125,000 city-wide in the first year.

The recommended fees have been shared with the Building Industry Association and reviewed by the Planning Commission.

FISCAL IMPACT
The anticipated revenue from the recommended fees in FY 2026-27 is approximately $1 million.

Fee Recovery
Planning $550,000
Building $340,000
Technology Fee $80,000
Engineering $30,000
Total $1,000,000
The recommended fees offset the rising costs of providing existing services. Fees for service are one of the few tools the City has to ensure its long-term financial sustainability. The recommended fees do not generate new revenue for additional City services.

To maintain cost recovery and preserve financial stability, most fees are recommended to increase annually at the start of the fiscal year by the most recent annual CPI index. The first CPI adjustment will occur July 1, 2027.

ALTERNATIVES
Do not approve the recommended action and provide alternative direction.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2026-5987

2. Schedule of Current Fees and Proposed Fees

3. User and Regulatory Fee Study Report

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5987

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-3753 AND ANY AND ALL OTHER PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS INCONSISTENT THEREWITH; AND UPDATING THE
CITY’S MASTER SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Constitution, and the laws of the State of California, the City of Yorba Linda is authorized to adopt fees and charges for certain municipal services, provided they do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing such services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish and periodically update fees and charges to recover the reasonable costs of providing services, programs, facilities, permits, and regulatory activities; and
WHEREAS, the City contracted with ClearSource Financial Consulting to complete a User and Regulatory Fee Study, which is on file with the City Clerk and open to public review. Council desires to establish and periodically update fees and charges to recover the reasonable costs of providing services, programs, facilities, permits, and regulatory activities; and
WHEREAS, City staff conducted a review of certain other fees and charges and prepared recommendations based upon comparable market fees; and WHEREAS, for the convenience of the public it is desirable to gather in a single document a comprehensive list of certain fees and service charges imposed by the City; and
WHEREAS, the document, known as the Master Fee Schedule is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and is made a part hereof by this reference; and WHEREAS, California Government Code §§ 66016 and 66018 require a properly noticed public hearing to be conducted prior to the adoption of a resolution for new or increased rates, fees and/or charges for which no other specific notice procedure is provided by law.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda as follows:

Section 1: The City Council hereby adopts the Master Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2: The fees established by this Resolution shall become effective on July 20, 2026, or as soon as practicable thereafter.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5987
PAGE NO. 2
Section 3: The user fees set forth in Exhibit A and effective July 20, 2026 shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim area. Such CPI adjustments shall be effective July 1 for all subsequent years, effective July 1, 2027.

Section 4: The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to implement and administer the fee schedule and may make non-substantive administrative corrections as necessary.

Section 5: All provisions of previously adopted resolutions establishing or revising, or that are otherwise inconsistent with, any of the rates, fees, or charges identified in the Master Fee Schedule attached hereto, are hereby replaced.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda on this 19th day of May, 2026.
______________________________

CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, MAYOR

CITY OF YORBA LINDA
ATTEST:
______________________________

MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK

CITY OF YORBA LINDA

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5987
PAGE NO. 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
____________________________________

CITY ATTORNEY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.

COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, MARCIA BROWN, City Clerk of the City of Yorba Linda, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City of Yorba Linda held on the 19th day of May, 2026 and was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK

CITY OF YORBA LINDA

Master Schedule of Fees

Services / Activities / Subject Matter Page
Building Fees 1
Planning Fees 7
Community Preservation Fees 9
Public Works Fees 10
Library Fees 19
City Clerk Fees 23
Finance Fees 24
Miscellaneous Fees 25
Parks and Recreation Fees 26
Black Gold Golf Course Fees 33

CITY OF YORBA LINDA
Master Schedule of Fees

City of Yorba Linda

BUILDING FEES
Current Fee Recommended
1 HVAC Change-Out - Residential Varies $120
2 Water Heater Change-Out - Residential Varies $120
3 Line Repair - Sewer/Water/Gas/ Ventilation/Repipe Varies $221 4 Re-Roof - Residential (without calculations) Varies $266 5 Siding/Stucco - Residential Varies $266
6 Service Panel Upgrade - Residential Varies $354
7 Battery Backup Storage - Residential Varies $310
8 Electric Vehicle Charger - Residential Varies $310
9 Generator - Residential Varies $310
10 Rooftop Solar Permit - Residential
a) 15kW or less [a] Varies $450
b) Above 15kW [a] Varies $15
11 Rooftop Solar Permit - Non-Residential
a) 50kW or less [a] Varies $1,000
b) 50kW – 250kW [a] Varies $7
c) Above 250kW [a] Varies $2,400 base fee, plus
$5 per kW for each kW
12 Ground-Mount Solar Varies $310
13 Swimming Pool/Spa Equipment Change-out Only Varies $310 14 New Swimming Pool/Spa
a) Standard Varies $1,505
b) Specialty Varies $1,947
15 Swimming Pool Replaster Varies $398
16 Residential Voluntary Seismic Retrofit Varies $398
17 Retaining Wall
a) Wall Under 4' in height [b] Varies $487
b) Wall Over 4' in height
i) Up to 100 LF Varies $487
ii) Each Additional 100 LF Varies $44
A. Fees for Commonly Requested and Minor Miscellaneous Building Permit Types. Fees shown in this section (Section A.) include all applicable inspection, and plan review fees. Additional permit processing fees apply. Additional fees may apply for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), Technology Enhancement Fees, and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies.

Fee Description

City of Yorba Linda

BUILDING FEES
Current Fee Recommended
A. Fees for Commonly Requested and Minor Miscellaneous Building Permit Types. Fees shown in this section (Section A.) include all applicable inspection, and plan review fees. Additional permit processing fees apply. Additional fees may apply for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), Technology Enhancement Fees, and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies.

Fee Description
18 CMU Wall
a) Wall Under 6' in height Varies $354
b) Wall Over 6' in height
i) Up to 100 LF Varies $398
ii) Each Additional 100 LF Varies $44
19 Window / Door - New Varies $310
20 Window / Door - Retrofit / Repair
a) Retrofit Varies $266
b) All Other Varies $885
21 Fences Requiring a Building Permit Varies $177
22 Patio Covers / Solid Roof (City Standard) Varies $398 23 Signs Varies $531
[a] Total fees shall not exceed amounts outlined in California Government Code 66015(a)(1). [b] No charge for retaining walls under 4 feet and not retaining a surcharge.

City of Yorba Linda

BUILDING FEES
Total Valuation PERMIT FEE
Recommended Recommended
$1 to $2,000 $354.00
$2,001 to $25,000 $619.50 for the first $2,000 plus $7.70 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 $25,001 to $50,000 $796.50 for the first $25,000 plus $21.24 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000$50,001 to $100,000 $1,327.50 for the first $50,000 plus $9.74 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $1,814.25 for the first $100,000 plus $7.85 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000$500,001 to $1,000,000 $4,956.00 for the first $500,000 plus $7.26 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 $1,000,001 and up $8,584.50 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.35 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof over $1,000,000 For permits for new construction, additions, tenant improvements or residential remodels requiring plumbing, electric, or mechanical review, the following percentages shall be added to the base permit fee
Mechanical inspection fee = Base permit fee x .12
Determination of Valuation for Fee-Setting Purposes
ҝ Building Valuation shall be based on the higher of 1) the applicant’s estimated valuation or 2) the most current Building Valuation as printed and published by the International Code Council and adjusted using the most current City Cost Index printed and published by R. S. Means Building Construction Cost Data. CRC, R108.3 Building permit valuations. Building permit valuation shall include total value of the work for which a permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing equipment, and other permanent systems, including materials and labor. The final building permit valuation shall be set at an amount that allows the City to recover its costs of applicant plan check, permit and inspection activities.Note: For construction projects with permit fees calculated using Section B, additional fees apply for permit issuance. Additional fees may apply for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), Technology Enhancement Fees, and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies (e.g. State of California). Additional fees apply for plan review, when applicable.B. Base Permit Fee for New Buildings, Additions, Tenant Improvements, Residential Remodels, and Mechanical, Electrical, and/or Plumbing Permits Not Identified Elsewhere in This Fee Schedule
Plumbing inspection fee = Base permit fee x .12
Electrical inspection fee = Base permit fee x .12

City of Yorba Linda

BUILDING FEES
Current Recommended
1 Building Plan Check Fees - Building
a) Plan Review Fee, if applicable varies 75%
b) Expedited Plan Check - At Application Submittal (when applicable) [a]
varies 1.5x standard plan
check fee
c) Revision Application Fee (per hour) (1-hour minimum) varies $177 d) Tract Home / Master Plan Construction (Production Units) [b] varies 20% of standard plan check fee
e) Alternate Materials and Materials Review (per hour) varies $177 f) Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) (per hour) varies $177 g) Revisions (per hour) varies $177
2 Building Plan Check Fees - Planning
(Fees Only Applied to Projects Requiring Review)
a) Zoning Clearance Verification varies $94
b) Planning Plan Check
i) Alterations/Additions - Residential varies $235
ii) New Construction - Single Family Residential varies $423 iii) New Construction - 2-4 Residential Units varies $799 iv) New Construction - 5+ Residential Units varies $2,068 v) New Construction - Non-Residential varies $799
vi) Alterations/Additions - Non-Residential varies $423 3 Building Plan Check Fees - Public Works Engineering
(Fees Only Applied to Projects Requiring Review)
a) Swimming Pool varies $248
b) Block Wall varies $124
c) Fence varies $124
d) Sign varies $124
e) Alterations/Additions - Residential varies $186
f) New Construction - Single Family Residential varies $496 g) New Construction - 2-4 Residential Units varies $744 h) New Construction - 5+ Residential Units varies $1,488 i) New Construction - Non-Residential varies $992
j) Alterations/Additions - Non-Residential varies $248
k) Trash Capture, SWPPP, and NPDES Review Fees See Eng. Fee Schedule l) Permits / Plan checks not listed above [c] See footnote [c] Engineer/technician to determine hours and applicable fee at time of application.

C. Building Plan Review Fees
Activity Description
Plan check fees shall be paid at the time of application submittal.

The plan checking fee is in addition to the building permit fee. Plan check fee applies to base building permit fee and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing inspection fees, when applicable. [a] Includes up to three plan checks. The City will bill hourly for additional plan review required. Excludes ADUs until June 30, 2029.
[b] For identical buildings built by the same builder on the same lot or in the same tract and for which building permits are issued at the same time.

City of Yorba Linda

BUILDING FEES
Current Recommended
1 Permit Processing Fee various $92
2 Business License Inspection Fee
a) Residential Home Occupation various $89
b) Non-Residential various $89
3 General Plan Maintenance Fee (% of permit fee) [a] various 6% 4 Technology Fee (% of plan review and permit fee) [b] various 5% 5 Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) Fee Calculation a) Residential various $0.50 or valuation x
.00013
b) Commercial various $0.50 or valuation x
.00028
6 Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund (BSASRF) - SB 1473
a) $1 - $25,000 various $1
b) $25,001 - $50,000 various $2
c) $50,001 - $75,000 various $3
d) $75,001 - $100,000 various $4
e) Every $25,000.01 or Fraction Thereof Above $100,000 various Add $1 7 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy various $443
8 Permit Extension various $92
9 Permit Reactivation Fee
a) Reactivation Fee if All Inspections Have Been Performed and Approved Up to But Not Including Final Inspection
various $92
b) Reactivation Fee - All Other Scenarios
i) Permit Expired Up to One Year various 50% of Original Base Building Permit Fee
ii) Permit Expired More than One Year various 100% of Original Base Building Permit Fee
10 Damaged Building Survey (Fire, Flood, Vehicle Damage, Etc.) various $266 11 Investigation Fee various $177
12 Occupancy Inspection Fee
a) Planning Inspection various $188
b) Engineering Inspection various $248
13 Planning Review various $188
D. Other Fees
Activity Description

City of Yorba Linda

BUILDING FEES
Current Recommended
D. Other Fees
Activity Description
14 Engineering Review various $248
Other Fees
15 Credit Card Transaction Processing Fee various 2.75% or actual cost 16 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (4-hour minimum) various $212 17 Re-inspection Fee (each) [c] various $177
18 Duplicate Copy of Permit various $30
19 Duplicate Copy of Certificate of Occupancy various $30 20 Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedule (per 1/2 hour) various $89 Violation Fees
21 Investigation Fee For Work Done Without Permits
(In addition to applicable permit fees)
equal to
permit fee
Refunds
22 Refunds
a) Fees Erroneously Paid or Collected by the City 100% refund b) Refund of Plan Review Fees - Prior to Plan Review up to 80% refund c) Refund of Permit Fees - Prior to Inspection Commencing up to 80% refund d) 180 Days After Payment of Fees no refund
[a] Fee applies to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels requiring building permits. [b] Fee applies to all permits except solar permits.
[c] Reinspection fee applies after the second failed inspection. [d] In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17951.5, the City may waive or reduce all building permit fees for improvements to the home of a veteran with a qualifying disability to accommodate that disability. [e] In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17951.7, the City may waive or reduce all building permit fees for improvements to the home of a person at least 60 years of age with a qualifying disability that are made to

City of Yorba Linda

PLANNING FEES
Current Recommended Charge Basis
1 Accessory Dwelling Unit Request $1,867 $1,880 flat
2 Administrative Adjustments $500 $1,000 flat
3 Annexation/Detachment $12,632 $17,500 deposit
4 Amendment of Final Map $2,052 $3,760 flat
5 Appeals
a) Planning Commission $500 $1,000 flat
b) City Council $1,000 $2,000 flat
6 City Attorney Review (formal) actual costs actual costs hourly 7 Conditional Use Permit
a) Single-Family Residential $2,016 $3,000 minimum fee deposit b) Zoning Administrator (new) $2,000 minimum fee deposit c) All Other $4,460 $8,000 deposit
8 Design Review $3,000 $6,000 deposit
9 Development Agreement $12,632 $8,000 deposit
10 Determination of Similar Use $1,579 $5,000 minimum fee deposit 11 Environmental Evaluation - IS/MND and EIR $3,066 actual cost + 15% deposit 12 Environmental Mitigation Monitoring Program $316 $5,640 minimum fee deposit 13 Fish and Wildlife Filing Fees set by state set by state flat 14 General Plan Amendment $12,632 $10,500 deposit
15 General Plan Maintenance Fee 2.4% of fees charged 2.4% of fees charged percentage 16 Landscape Review: Preliminary Review, Plan Check, and Inspection
a) City Administrative Fee (per project) $4,782 $940 flat b) Consultant Costs actual cost actual cost actual cost 17 Lot Line Adjustment $3,051 $5,640 flat
18 Minor Change of Approved Tentative Maps
a) If Planning Commission hearing is required $2,635 $4,000 deposit b) If Planning Commission hearing is not required $1,256 $2,500 deposit 19 Preliminary Project Review
a) Minor - Over the Counter no charge no charge flat
b) Major - Formal Meeting / Multiple City Departments $3,163 $3,760 deposit flat 20 Projects for which there is No Appropriate Fee Category $316 $188 hourly 21 Public Noticing / Mailing $473 $282 flat
22 Revised Tentative Tract Map (after Planning Commission approval)
$3,581 $2,500 deposit
Activity Description

City of Yorba Linda

PLANNING FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
23 Sign Program/Master Plan of Signage $2,789 $6,000 deposit 24 Sign Review by Planning Commission (Freestanding Signs) $2,158 $4,700 flat 25 Special Events
a) City Administrative Fee
i) Resident, non-profit $307 $450 flat
ii) Commercial, for profit $307 $940 flat
b) Refundable Deposit $606 $700 deposit
26 Specific Plans $12,632 $17,500 deposit
27 Temporary Use Permit [d] no charge $376 flat
28 Tentative Parcel Maps $12,040 $7,000 deposit
29 Tentative Tract Map $16,748 $8,500 deposit
30 Time Extension Requests $948 $1,504 flat
31 Variance $2,735 $6,000 deposit
32 Zone Change (including pre-annexation zone changes) [b] $12,632 $17,500 deposit 33 Zoning Ordinance Amendments $3,158 $7,000 deposit
34 Zoning Review of Building Permit Applications $316 $188 hourly 35 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's $316 $188 hourly
36 Construction Noise Permit no charge no charge flat
[a] Any project requiring extensive City Attorney review shall require an additional deposit or be drawn out of the existing deposit. [c] Consultant Costs established per competitive bid procedure. [d] No charge for garage sales or banners.
[b] Affordable housing projects may have fees waived or reduced by the City Council for projects with at least 20 percent of the dwelling units restricted and affordable to lower income households for a minimum of thirty (30) years. Additionally, the City Council may require that the City's Affordable Housing Fund reimburse the City for the waived and/or reduced fees in accordance with all applicable housing laws.

City of Yorba Linda

COMMUNITY PRESERVATION FEES
Current Recommended Charge Basis
1 Property Inspection (following issuance of a
final notice) - Initial Inspection
$213 $291
2 Property Inspection (following issuance of a
final notice) - Each Additional Inspection
$118 $166
3 Code Violation Penalty Assessment - 1st
Offense
$100 $250
4 Code Violation Penalty Assessment - 2nd
Offense
$200 $500
5 Code Violation Penalty Assessment - 3rd
Offense
$500 $1,000
6 Follow-Up Inspection After Initial Inspection
and Notice Issuance
$212 $249 per offense
7 Inspection If Case Has Not Been Abated After
Initial Inspection
$285 $332 per offense
8 Inspection If Case Has Not Been Abated After
Follow-Up Inspection
$118 $166 per offense
9 Oil Well Annual Inspection Fee $206 $332
10 Hourly Rate For Other Services Not Listed
Herein
$212 $166 per hour
11 Noise Permit $26 No Charge
Activity Description

City of Yorba Linda

PUBLIC WORKS FEES
Current Recommended Charge Basis

ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
1 Curb Drain $0 $0 FLAT
2 Driveway Approach $143 $143 FLAT
3 Trail $0 $0 FLAT
4 Minor (i.e. Sidewalk)
Local and Collector Classifications (1/8 mile radius)
Includes traffic control per CAMUTCD typical layouts
Grading up to 250 sq ft
AC and PCC pavement up to 250 sq ft Curb and gutter 150 ft Trenches up to 150 ft
(a) Base Fee $876 $930 FLAT
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT 5 Minor (Traffic Control Only) Up to Primary Roadway
Classifications
a) Up to two stages $468 $682 FLAT
b) Three or more (3+) stages NEW $868 FLAT
6 Moderate
Up to Major Roadway Classifications
Includes traffic control per CAMUTCD typical layouts and Traffic Control Plan
Grading up to 1,000 sq ft
AC and PCC pavement up to 1,000 sq ft Curb and gutter 500 ft (a) Base Fee $2,688 $2,728 FLAT
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT 7 Moderate w/ Traffic Control Only - Up to Major Roadway Classifications and Intersections Traffic control plan

a) Up to two stages $1,523 $1,674 FLAT
b) Three or more (3+) stages NEW $1,860 FLAT
8 Major (square footage-based)
Up to Smart Street Roadway Classifications
Includes Traffic Control Plans, Grading greater than 1,000 sq ft, and AC and PCC pavement greater than 1,000 sq ft
a) Up to 5,000 linear ft or up to 10,000 sq ft
(i) Base Fee $4,265 $4,464 FLAT
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $1,736 FLAT (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT Activity Description

City of Yorba Linda

PUBLIC WORKS FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
b)5,001 to 25,000 linear ft or 10,001 to 50,000 sq ft
(i) Base Fee $7,130 $7,440 FLAT
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $2,728 FLAT (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT c) 25,001 to 50,000 linear ft or 50,001 to 100,000 sq ft (i) Base Fee $10,342 $10,788 FLAT
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $4,712 FLAT (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT d) 50,001 to 250,000 linear ft or 100,001 to 500,000 sq ft (i) Base Fee $14,959 $15,500 FLAT
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $6,944 FLAT (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT e) Up to 500,000 linear ft or up to 1,000,000 sq ft
(i) Base Fee $21,156 $21,700 FLAT
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $9,920 FLAT (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $1,240 FLAT
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $1,240 FLAT 9 Major (linear footage-based)
Up to Smart Street Roadway Classifications
Includes Traffic Control Plans, Curb and gutter greater than 500 ft, and Trenches greater than 500 ft
a) Up to 5,000 LF
(i) Base Fee $4,265 $4,464 FLAT
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $1,736 FLAT (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT

City of Yorba Linda

PUBLIC WORKS FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
b) 5,001 to 25,000 LF
(i) Base Fee $7,130 $7,440 FLAT
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $2,728 FLAT (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT c) 25,001 to 50,000 LF
(i) Base Fee $10,342 $10,788 FLAT
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $4,712 FLAT (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT d) 50,001 to 250,000 LF
(i) Base Fee $14,959 $15,500 FLAT
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $6,944 FLAT (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT e) 250,001 to 500,000 LF
(i) Base Fee $21,156 $22,072 FLAT
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $9,920 FLAT (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $1,240 FLAT
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $1,240 FLAT 10 Major w/ Traffic Control Only - Up to Smart Street Roadway Classifications and
$20

a) Up to two stages $2,171 $2,480 FLAT
b) Three or more (3+) stages NEW $3,100 FLAT

GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Including but not limited to Geotechnical Reports, Hydrology and Hydraulics Reports, Water Quality Management Plan, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Miscellaneous Technical 11 Subdivision/2+ Lots Rough Grade Plan
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $5,994 $6,014 FLAT
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT ii) Consultant Costs $6,368 $6,500 DEPOSIT

City of Yorba Linda

PUBLIC WORKS FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee $1,402 $1,488 FLAT
ii) Consultant Costs $1,592 $1,600 DEPOSIT
12 Subdivision/2+ Lots Precise Grade Plan
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $2,570 $2,728 FLAT
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT ii) Consultant Costs $4,246 $4,300 DEPOSIT
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee $643 $682 EACH
ii) Consultant Costs $1,062 $1,100 DEPOSIT
13 Single Lot Precise Grade Plan
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $993 $1,054 FLAT
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT ii) Consultant Costs $1,820 $2,000 DEPOSIT
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee $189 $248 EACH
ii) Consultant Costs $455 $1,000 DEPOSIT
14 Stockpile Plan
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee $759 $806 FLAT
ii) Consultant Costs $1,820 $1,900 DEPOSIT
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee $189 $248 EACH
ii) Consultant Costs $455 $500 DEPOSIT

City of Yorba Linda

PUBLIC WORKS FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis

IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW
Including, but not limited to, Street, Storm Drain, Landscaping, Signing & Striping, Traffic Signal, Traffic Control Plan, etc. 15 Improvement Plan - Minor Up To 10 Sheets
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $1,873 $3,968 FLAT
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $1,488 FLAT (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT ii) Consultant Costs $1,820 $1,900 DEPOSIT
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $702 $744 EACH
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $248 EACH (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $248 EACH
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $248 EACH ii) Consultant Costs $455 $500 DEPOSIT
16 Improvement Plan - Moderate Up To 20 Sheets
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $4,098 $6,448 FLAT
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $1,984 FLAT (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $992 FLAT
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $992 FLAT ii) Consultant Costs $5,762 $6,000 DEPOSIT
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $1,025 $1,488 FLAT
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $248 FLAT
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $248 FLAT ii) Consultant Costs $1,441 $1,500 DEPOSIT

City of Yorba Linda

PUBLIC WORKS FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
17 Improvement Plan - Major Over 20 Sheets - Up To Three Plan a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $7,258 $9,920 FLAT
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $3,968 FLAT (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $1,488 FLAT
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $1,488 FLAT ii) Consultant Costs $10,917 $10,917 DEPOSIT
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $1,814 $2,232 EACH
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $496 EACH (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $248 EACH
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $248 EACH ii) Consultant Costs $2,729 $2,800 DEPOSIT

MAPPING INSTRUMENTS
18 Parcel and Tract Maps
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $2,918 $2,976 FLAT
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT ii) Consultant Costs $3,033 $3,100 DEPOSIT
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $674 $744 FLAT
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $248 FLAT (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $248 FLAT
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $248 FLAT ii) Consultant Costs $758 $800 DEPOSIT

City of Yorba Linda

PUBLIC WORKS FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
19 Lot Line Adjustments, Quitclaim Deeds, Grant Deeds, etc. a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $1,519 $1,984 FLAT
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $1,984 FLAT (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT ii) Consultant Costs $2,426 $2,500 DEPOSIT
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee $381 $496 EACH
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed NEW $496 EACH (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $248 EACH
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $248 EACH ii) Consultant Costs $606 $700 DEPOSIT

AGREEMENTS, REPORTS, AND STUDIES
20 Subdivision Improvement Agreements and Bonds, Encroachment Agreements, Covenants, Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (DORC), Vacations, Traffic Studies, Environmental Studies, a) City Administrative Fee (pending type of document) LMAD, Including PW O&M & Parks & Rec Trails
(i) Base Fee $1,286 $1,984 FLAT
(ii) City Council Approval, addt'l if needed NEW $2,976 FLAT (iii) Traffic Commission, addt'l if needed NEW $1,984 FLAT (iii) LMAD Review, Vacations, & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
NEW $2,976 FLAT
(iv) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $992 FLAT
(v) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed NEW $992 FLAT b) City Attorney review Actual Expected Costs Actual Expected Costs DEPOSIT c) Consultant Costs Actual Expected Costs Actual Expected Costs DEPOSIT

City of Yorba Linda

PUBLIC WORKS FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis

INSPECTION
21 Grading Inspection Including Rough and Precise Grade [b] a) Subdivision Tracts Over 25 Lots $17,449 $18,352 FLAT b) Subdivision Tracts 5 To 25 Lots $9,619 $10,044 FLAT
c) Subdivision Parcels 2 To 4 Lots $4,596 $4,712 FLAT
d) Single Residential Lot $1,323 $1,364 FLAT
e) Single Commercial Lot NEW $1,612 FLAT
f) Stockpile $1,323 $1,364 FLAT
22 Improvement Inspection (square footage-based) [b]
a) Up to 10,000 SF
(i) Base Fee $2,688 $2,728 FLAT
(ii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $496 FLAT
b) 10,001 - 50,000 SF
(i) Base Fee $4,090 $4,092 FLAT
(ii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $744 FLAT
c) 50,001 to 100,000 SF
(i) Base Fee $7,479 $7,502 FLAT
(ii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $992 FLAT
d) 100,001 to 500,000 SF
(i) Base Fee $13,555 $13,640 FLAT
(ii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $1,488 FLAT
e) 500,001 to 1,000,000 SF
(i) Base Fee $25,240 $25,296 FLAT
(ii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed NEW $1,984 FLAT
23 Landscape Inspection (square footage-based)
Other than Encroachment Permits [b]

a) Up to 10,000 SF $2,454 $2,604 FLAT
b) 10,001 - 50,000 SF $3,856 $4,092 FLAT
c) 50,001 to 100,000 SF $6,311 $6,696 FLAT
d) 100,001 to 500,000 SF $11,451 $12,152 FLAT
e) 500,001 to 1,000,000 SF $21,268 $22,568 FLAT

MISCELLANEOUS FEES
24 Hourly Rate - Business Hours $242 $248 HOURLY

City of Yorba Linda

PUBLIC WORKS FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
25 Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours (four hour a) Up to First 4 Hours $1,153 FLAT
b) Each Additional Hour $272 $288 PER HOUR
26 Permit Issuance Fee [a] $120 $124 FLAT
27 Encroachment Permit Deposit, if needed
(Potential to impact public infrastructure)
NEW $500 DEPOSIT
28 Extension/Renewal/ Revision Fee to Issued Encroachment Permits
NEW Actual Cost
29 Administrative Fee - Cancelled Permits NEW $124 FLAT 30 Work Without a Permit Fee (addt'l fee + actual permit cost) NEW $500 FLAT 31 Transportation Permit
a) Oversized Load Single Trip $16 $16 Set by State
b) Oversized Load Annual $90 $90 Set by State
32 Building Plan Review / Sign Off
a) Residential Tracts $1,402 $1,488 FLAT
b) Residential Parcels $1,168 $1,240 FLAT
c) Residential Single Lot $467 $496 FLAT
d) Commercial $1,402 $1,488 FLAT
e) All Other Grading Inspections Not Listed Above $242 $248 HOURLY f) WQMP Review (Stand alone without Grading Permit) NEW $992 FLAT g) ADU Review (Stand alone without Grading Permit) NEW $744 FLAT

IMPROVEMENT SECURITY
33 Grading and Erosion Sediment Control 30% Grading Cost 100%
Erosion/Sediment
Control
30% Grading Cost
100%
Erosion/Sediment
Control

VALUATION
34 Monumentation 100% of Cost 100% of Cost VALUATION
35 Performance 100% of Cost 100% of Cost VALUATION
36 Labor and Materials 100% of Cost 100% of Cost VALUATION 37 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the established hourly rates for the Public Works Department.

Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers $242 $248 HOURLY
[a] Permit issuance fee applies to all permits. Security deposit, insurance, and other additional fees may apply. [b] Inspections rates are within normal business hours only. OT charges apply for Flex Fri, Weekends, Evenings.

City of Yorba Linda

LIBRARY FEES
Current Recommended
1 Photocopies, Printing or Microfilm Copies
a) Black & White $0.15 per page $0.15 per page
b) Color $0.50 per page $0.50 per page
2 Collection of Delinquent Amounts $18 $18
3 Return Check
a) First Return Check $25 $25
b) Subsequent Returned Checks $35 $35
4 Inter-Library Loan $2 $2
5 Passports
a) Passport Photo $12 $17
b) Passport Execution Per US Department of State Per US Department of State c) Passport Book - 16 years and older Per US Department of State Per US Department of State d) Passport Card - 16 years and older Per US Department of State Per US Department of State e) Passport Book - 15 years and younger Per US Department of State Per US Department of State f) Passport Card - 15 years and younger Per US Department of State Per US Department of State g) Expedited Passport Processing Per US Department of State Per US Department of State 6 Passport Mailing Per USPS Rate Per USPS Rate
7 Lost Item and Related Processing Actual Cost of the item plus $2.00 - $7.00 for processing
Actual Cost of the item plus $2.00 -
$7.00 for processing
8 Community Room Varies See Library Room Rental Fees
9 Headphones $1.00 per set $1.00 per set
Activity Description

City of Yorba Linda
LIBRARY FINES*
Fine
1 Overdue Materials Print and AV Materials - $0.20 per day up to a maximum of $10.00, or cost of materials if less. 2 Damaged or Lost Materials The actual cost to repair or replace the item will be assessed plus a processing fee. 3 Community Room Cleanup $10.00 per hour cleanup fine, with a one hour minimum, if a group leaves the kitchen dirty or full of trash.
4 Community Room Damage Damage fines to be assessed based on the extent of the damage and/or the replacement cost of any damaged items.
*No recommended increase to Library fines.

Activity Description

City of Yorba Linda

LIBRARY ROOM RENTAL FEES (HOURLY)
Current Recommended
Yorba Linda Public Library
Weekday Rates
1 Community Room
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $50 $50
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $50 $50
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $50 $50
d) Resident Religious Organization $50 $50
e) Resident $165 $165
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $215 $215
g) Non-Resident $260 $260
h) Resident Commercial $275 $275
i) Non-Resident Commercial $300 $300
2 Community Room - Half
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $25 $25
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $25 $25
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $25 $25
d) Resident Religious Organization $25 $25
e) Resident $85 $85
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $105 $105
g) Non-Resident $130 $130
h) Resident Commercial $135 $135
i) Non-Resident Commercial $150 $150
3 Conference Room
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $10 $10
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $10 $10
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $10 $10
d) Resident Religious Organization $10 $10
e) Resident $35 $35
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $55 $55
g) Non-Resident $65 $65
h) Resident Commercial $70 $70
i) Non-Resident Commercial $80 $80
Activity Description

City of Yorba Linda

LIBRARY ROOM RENTAL FEES (HOURLY)
Activity Description Current Recommended
Weekend Rates
4 Community Room
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $125 $125
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $125 $125
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $125 $125
d) Resident Religious Organization $125 $125
e) Resident $185 $185
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $255 $255
g) Non-Resident $310 $310
h) Resident Commercial $325 $325
i) Non-Resident Commercial $350 $350
5 Community Room - Half
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) N/A N/A
b) PYLUSD (Group B) N/A N/A
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) N/A N/A
d) Resident Religious Organization N/A N/A
e) Resident N/A N/A
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit N/A N/A
g) Non-Resident N/A N/A
h) Resident Commercial N/A N/A
i) Non-Resident Commercial N/A N/A
6 Conference Room
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $10 $10
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $10 $10
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $10 $10
d) Resident Religious Organization $10 $10
e) Resident $35 $35
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $55 $55
g) Non-Resident $65 $65
h) Resident Commercial $70 $70
i) Non-Resident Commercial $80 $80

City of Yorba Linda

CITY CLERK FEES
Current Recommended
1 Document Certification $27 $27
2 Photocopies
a) 8.5 x 11 black and white $0.15 $0.25
b) 8.5 x 11 color $0.25 $0.50
c) Larger than 8.5 x 11 black and white $0.50 $0.50
d) Larger than 8.5 x 11 color $1.00 $1.00
e) Large Plot $4.00 $4.50
3 Digital Media $1 $10
4 Permit Application or Renewal
a) Commercial Solicitation $119 $119
b) Non-Commercial Soliciation $0 $0
c) Private Patrol $0 $0
d) Permit Badge Replacement NEW $10
Activity Description

City of Yorba Linda

FINANCE FEES
Current Recommended
1 Returned Check
a) First Returned Check $25 $25
b) Each Subsequent Returned Check $35 $35
2 Business License
a) Name or Other Change/Duplication $3 $3
b) Change of Location $2 $2
3 Massage Business Permit
a) Permit Application $448 $453
b) Renewal $223 $227
4 Massage Business Permit
a) Name or Other Change/Duplication $75 $76
b) Change of Location $75 $76
5 Hourly Rate for Other Services Not Listed Herein $150 $151 6 Credit Card Transaction Processing Fee NEW 2.75% or actual cost Activity Description

City of Yorba Linda

MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Current Recommended Charge Basis
1 Film Permit
a) Student No Fee Charged No Fee Charged
b) Simple $180 $180
c) Complex $602 $602
d) Special
(For unusual circumstances requiring a significantly larger level of coordination and/or review)
$500 $500 Initial Deposit of $500 against which actual
costs incurred to review permit application will
be charged/deposit to be replenished when
balance reaches 10% ($50.00) to a level
determined by staff
2 City Center Parking In-Lieu Fee $6,446 $6,446
3 Sheriff's Department False Alarm Fee Program (no. of false alarms during a calendar year) [a]
$141
a) 1-3 $0 No Charge
b) 4-6 $0 $50 per false alarm
c) 7-12 $0 $100 per false alarm
d) 13+ $0 $200 per false alarm
4 Sheriff's Department Traffic Violator Apprehension Program Administrative Fee [a]
$50 $50
5 Sheriff's Department Traffic Violator Apprehension Program 30+ Day Impound Fee [a]
$152 $235
Activity Description
[a] Amounts shown are meant to mirror those published by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Actual amounts due may vary.

City of Yorba Linda

PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY FEES
Current Recommended Charge Basis
Yorba Linda Community Center
Weekday Rates
1 Yorba Room
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $35 $36 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $35 $36 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $35 $36 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $75 ff + $75/hr $87 flat fee e) Resident $155 $159 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $200 $206 per hour
g) Non-Resident $245 $245 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $260 $260 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $275 $275 per hour
2 Imperial Room
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $28 $28 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $28 $28 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $28 $28 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $50 ff + $65/hr $71 flat fee e) Resident $125 $125 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $185 $185 per hour
g) Non-Resident $215 $215 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $230 $230 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $245 $245 per hour
3 Meeting Room
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $8 $8 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $8 $8 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $8 $8 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $10 ff + $13/hr $15 flat fee e) Resident $33 $33 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $58 $58 per hour
g) Non-Resident $68 $70 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $73 $73 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $78 $80 per hour
Activity Description

City of Yorba Linda

PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
Weekend Rates
4 Yorba Room
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $118 $121 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $118 $121 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $118 $121 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $118 $121 per hour
e) Resident $170 $175 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $240 $247 per hour
g) Non-Resident $295 $303 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $310 $310 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $325 $325 per hour
5 Imperial Room
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $97 $99 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $97 $99 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $97 $99 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $97 $99 per hour
e) Resident $140 $144 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $220 $226 per hour
g) Non-Resident $265 $265 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $280 $280 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $295 $295 per hour
6 Meeting Room
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $8 $8 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $8 $8 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $8 $8 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $10 ff + $13/hr $15 flat fee e) Resident $33 $33 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $58 $59 per hour
g) Non-Resident $68 $70 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $73 $75 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $78 $80 per hour

City of Yorba Linda

PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
Yorba Linda Community Center Grass Area
Weekday Rates
7 Grass Area
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $50 $51 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $50 $51 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $50 $51 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $50 $51 per hour
e) Resident $100 $103 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $150 $150 per hour
g) Non-Resident $175 $180 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $200 $206 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $250 $257 per hour
Weekend Rates
8 Grass Area
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $100 $103 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $100 $103 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $100 $103 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $100 $103 per hour
e) Resident $150 $154 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $200 $206 per hour
g) Non-Resident $225 $231 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $250 $257 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $300 $309 per hour
9 Equipment Rates
Microphone
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $0 $0 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $0 $0 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $0 $0 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $0 $0 per hour
e) Resident $20 $30 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $20 $30 per hour
g) Non-Resident $20 $30 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $20 $30 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $20 $30 per hour

City of Yorba Linda

PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
10 Dance Floor
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $50 $50 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $50 $50 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $50 $50 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $50 $50 per hour
e) Resident $50 $300 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $50 $300 per hour
g) Non-Resident $50 $300 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $50 $300 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $50 $300 per hour
11 TV Cart
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $0 $0 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $0 $0 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $0 $0 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $0 $0 per hour
e) Resident $20 $40 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $20 $40 per hour
g) Non-Resident $20 $40 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $20 $40 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $20 $40 per hour
12 Piano
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $50 $50 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $50 $50 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $50 $50 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $50 $50 per hour
e) Resident $50 $100 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $50 $100 per hour
g) Non-Resident $50 $100 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $50 $100 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $50 $100 per hour
13 Portable Bar
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $25 $25 per hour
b) PYLUSD (Group B) $25 $25 per hour
c) Governmental Agencies (Group B) $25 $25 per hour
d) Resident Religious Organization $25 $25 per hour
e) Resident $25 $50 per hour
f) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $25 $50 per hour
g) Non-Resident $25 $50 per hour
h) Resident Commercial $25 $50 per hour
i) Non-Resident Commercial $25 $50 per hour

City of Yorba Linda

PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
Thomas Lasorda Jr. Field House
14 Gymnasium
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $48 $49 per hour
b) Resident $58 $59 per hour
c) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $93 $95 per hour
d) Non-Resident $93 $95 per hour
e) Resident Commercial $93 $95 per hour
f) Non-Resident Commercial $123 $126 per hour
15 Multi-Purpose
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $38 $39 per hour
b) Resident $43 $44 per hour
c) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $48 $49 per hour
d) Non-Resident $53 $54 per hour
e) Resident Commercial $58 $59 per hour
f) Non-Resident Commercial $63 $64 per hour
Travis Ranch Activity Center
16 Gymnasium
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $33 $33 per hour
b) Resident $43 $44 per hour
c) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $78 $80 per hour
d) Non-Resident $78 $80 per hour
e) Resident Commercial $78 $80 per hour
f) Non-Resident Commercial $108 $111 per hour
17 Multi-Purpose
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $33 $33 per hour
b) Resident $38 $39 per hour
c) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $43 $44 per hour
d) Non-Resident $48 $49 per hour
e) Resident Commercial $53 $54 per hour
f) Non-Resident Commercial $58 $59 per hour

City of Yorba Linda

PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
Cultural Arts Center
18 Weekday Rates
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $75 $75 per hour
b) Resident $140 $140 per hour
c) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $165 $165 per hour
d) Non-Resident $195 $195 per hour
e) Resident Commercial $200 $200 per hour
f) Non-Resident Commercial $215 $215
g) Auxiliary Spaces (incl. lobby, dance room, paseo, etc.) $50 $50 per hour 19 Weekend Rates
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $120 $120 per hour
b) Resident $165 $165 per hour
c) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $195 $195 per hour
d) Non-Resident $240 $240 per hour
e) Resident Commercial $245 $245 per hour
f) Non-Resident Commercial $260 $200 per hour
g) Auxiliary Spaces (incl. lobby, dance room, paseo, etc.) $50 $50 per hour, per additional space Parks
20 Monday - Thursday Rates
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $0 $75 ff flat fee
b) Resident $0 $75 ff flat fee
c) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $120 ff $250 ff flat fee
d) Non-Resident $120 ff $250 ff flat fee
e) Resident Commercial $60 ff $75 ff flat fee
f) Non-Resident Commercial $120 ff $250 ff flat fee
21 Friday - Sunday Rates
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $60 ff $75 ff flat fee b) Resident $60 ff $75 ff flat fee
c) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $120 ff $250 ff flat fee
d) Non-Resident $120 ff $250 ff flat fee
e) Resident Commercial $60 ff $75 ff flat fee
f) Non-Resident Commercial $120 ff $250 ff flat fee

City of Yorba Linda

PARKS & RECREATION FACILITY FEES
Activity Description Current Recommended Charge Basis
Amphitheater
22 Monday - Thursday Rates
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $0 $0 no charge
b) Resident $0 $0 no charge
c) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $50 $51 per hour
d) Non-Resident $100 $103 per hour
e) Resident Commercial $125 $128 per hour
f) Non-Resident Commercial $150 $154 per hour
23 Friday - Sunday Rates
a) Resident Non-Profit (Group B) $15 $15 per hour
b) Resident $30 $30 per hour
c) Non-Resident, Non-Profit $50 $51 per hour
d) Non-Resident $100 $103 per hour
e) Resident Commercial $125 $128 per hour
f) Non-Resident Commercial $150 $154 per hour
Adventure Playground Reservation Fee
24 1-8 people
a) Resident Weekday $0 $0
b) Resident Weekend $0 $0
c) Non-Resident Weekend (summer, fall, spring) $0 $30 ff flat fee d) Non-Resident Weekend (winter) $0 $10 ff flat fee
e) Non-Resident Weekday (summer) $0 $10 ff flat fee
25 Group Rate 20-50 people
a) Resident $0 $0
b) Non-Resident $0 $150 ff flat fee
[a] Hourly fee is charged in addition to the flat fee.

City of Yorba Linda

BLACK GOLD GOLF COURSE FEE SCHEDULE
Current Recommended Current Recommended Current Recommended 1 Regular Non Resident $129 $133 $153 $158 $176 $182
2 Resident (0-14 days booking) $98 $101 $117 $121 $129 $133 3 Senior $81 $84 N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 Resident Senior $77 $80 N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 Roughneck's Club $93 $96 $106 $110 $117 $121
6 Roughneck's Club Senior $69 $71 $81 $84 N/A N/A
7 Roughneck's Club R-Guest $106 $110 $117 $121 $129 $133 8 Roughneck's Club Senior R-Guest $93 $96 $106 $110 N/A N/A 9 Twilight $81 $84 $93 $96 $106 $110
10 Resident Twilight $70 $72 $82 $85 $94 $97
11 Roughneck's Twilight $69 $71 $53 $55 $93 $96
12 Roughneck's Twilight R-Guest $77 $80 $59 $61 $100 $103 13 Junior (Walk On) $32 $33 $32 $33 $32 $33
14 Junior (Tee Time) $55 $57 $55 $57 $55 $57
15 Spr Twil/Back 9 Early Morning $59 $61 $70 $72 $77 $80 16 Spr Twil/Back 9 Early Morning
Roughneck's
$46 $48 $53 $55 $57 $59
17 Spr Twil/Back 9 Early Morning
Rough R-Guest
$53 $55 $59 $61 $65 $67
18 Replay $40 $41 $40 $41 $47 $49
* Rates shown are maximum rates
Rate Type Monday - Thursday* Friday* Saturday - Sunday* Kemper Sports Management will continue to be authorized to establish special promotional rates for play to maximize utilization of the golf course.

City of Yorba Linda

BLACK GOLD GOLF COURSE MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Current Recommended
Roughneck's Club
1 Resident $415 $429
2 Non-Resident $474 $490
Range Balls
Prior to Play - Resident, member, full fee non-resident and tournament rounds will receive a warm-up bucket prior to play 3 Small $6 $8
4 Medium $11 $13
5 Large $15 $17
Rate Type
[a] Kemper Sports Management will continue to be authorized to establish special promotional rates for play to maximize utilization of the golf course.

MAY 19, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 18. APPROVE A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
REVISION TO PAGE 33 OF ATTACHMENT 2 WAS MADE AFTER POSTING

OF THE AGENDA

City of Yorba Linda

BLACK GOLD GOLF COURSE FEE SCHEDULE
Current Recommended Current Recommended Current Recommended 1 Regular Non Resident $129 $133 $153 $158 $176 $182
2 Resident (0-14 days booking) $98 $101 $117 $121 $129 $133 3 Senior $81 $84 N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 Resident Senior $77 $80 N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 Roughneck's Club $93 $96 $106 $110 $117 $121
6 Roughneck's Club Senior $69 $71 $81 $84 N/A N/A
7 Roughneck's Club R-Guest $106 $110 $117 $121 $129 $133 8 Roughneck's Club Senior R-Guest $93 $96 $106 $110 N/A N/A 9 Twilight $81 $84 $93 $96 $106 $110
10 Resident Twilight $70 $72 $82 $85 $94 $97
11 Roughneck's Twilight $69 $71 $53 $84 $93 $96
12 Roughneck's Twilight R-Guest $77 $80 $59 $91 $100 $103 13 Junior (Walk On) $32 $33 $32 $33 $32 $33
14 Junior (Tee Time) $55 $57 $55 $57 $55 $57
15 Spr Twil/Back 9 Early Morning $59 $61 $70 $72 $77 $80 16 Spr Twil/Back 9 Early Morning
Roughneck's
$46 $48 $53 $55 $57 $59
17 Spr Twil/Back 9 Early Morning
Rough R-Guest
$53 $55 $59 $61 $65 $67
18 Replay $40 $41 $40 $41 $47 $49
* Rates shown are maximum rates
Rate Type Monday - Thursday* Friday* Saturday - Sunday* Kemper Sports Management will continue to be authorized to establish special promotional rates for play to maximize utilization of the golf course.

CITY OF

YORBA LINDA

USER AND REGULATORY FEE STUDY
FINAL REPORT | APRIL 2026

CONTENTS

REPORTING

1 TRANSMITTAL
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5 PROJECT ORIENTATION
10 IMPLEMENTATION

APPENDICES

I FEE COMPARISON

II COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

III ILLUSTRATION OF PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE

7960 B Soquel Drive, Suite 363, Aptos, California 95003 831.288.0608 C L E A R S O U R C E F I N A N C I A L . C O M
April 2026

CITY OF YORBA LINDA
Attn: Donna Mullaly, Finance Director
4845 Casa Loma Avenue
Yorba Linda, CA 92886

USER AND REGULATORY FEE STUDY
Dear Ms. Mullaly:

ClearSource Financial Consulting submits the following report describing the findings of our preparation of a User and Regulatory Fee Study for the City of Yorba Linda.

Please refer to the Executive Summary for the key findings of the analysis. The balance of the report and its appendices provide the necessary documentation to support those outcomes.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City on this topic. We are happy to continue discussion on this study as the need arises or consult with you on additional topics.

Sincerely,
TERRY MADSEN, PRESIDENT | CLEARSOURCE FINANCIAL CONSULTING PHONE: 831.288.0608
EMAIL: [email protected]

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF Y ORBA LINDA | 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STUDY OVERVIEW
The City of Yorba Linda has completed a User and Regulatory Fee Study. California cities regularly conduct these studies to justify fee amounts imposed and to optimize the overall portfolio of revenues available to the municipality to fund its services.

Industry practice and fiscal conditions in the state have led most cities to link cost recovery for services of individual action, cause, or benefit to that same individual through user fee revenue, relieving the agency’s general revenues as much as possible for use toward services of broader community benefit.

USER AND REGULATORY FEES
Cities derive annual revenue from a number of sources. These include, but are not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes, license fees, franchise fees, fines, rents, and user and regulatory fees. User and regulatory fees are intended to cover all, or a portion of, the costs incurred by the City for providing fee-related services and activities that are not otherwise provided to those not paying the fee.

California law provides guidance regarding the amounts the City may charge for fee-related services and activities. Specifically, in order to avoid being considered taxes, the fees charged shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services, activities, or materials for which fees are charged.

At its conclusion, this study proposes for City Council review and consideration at public hearing a new Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees for application in Fiscal Year 2025-2026 and continued update in subsequent years.

COST RECOVERY POLICY AND PRACTICE
Recovering the costs of providing fee-related services directly influences the City’s fiscal health and increases the City’s ability to meet the service level expectations of fee payers.

The services for which the City imposes a user or regulatory fee typically derive from an individual person or entity’s action, request, or behavior. Therefore, except in cases where there is an overwhelming public benefit generated by the City’s involvement in the individual action, a fee for service ensures that the individual bears most, if not all, of the cost incurred by the City to provide that service. When a fee targets “100% or full cost recovery,” the individual is bearing the entirety of the cost. When a fee targets less than full cost recovery, another City revenue source – in most cases, the General Fund – subsidizes the individualized activity.

Generally, fees for service are targeted to full cost recovery, inclusive of operating, direct, indirect, and capital costs, except in cases where the City Council cites a public interest in lower fees. The City may also be influenced by market conditions, comparing to municipalities of similar size and service profile.

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF Y ORBA LINDA | 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FINDINGS AND PROPOSED ACTION
During the course of study, information and analysis was generated and is discussed substantively throughout this report and its technical appendices. However, summarized in the following table by broad fee category and highlighted in the subsequent findings statements, are outcomes and proposals of particular interest to City leaders and policymakers.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES
 BUILDING FEES
• Building plan review, permit processing and field inspection fees have been restructured to enhance the correlation between services provided and fees collected. The proposed fee methodology scales to allow for lower fees for less complex projects and higher fees for more complex projects.
• Establish fixed, consolidated fees for the City's most common minor permits. This will allow applicants to easily estimate permit fees and allow staff to efficiently administer the fee calculation and collection process.
• Full cost recovery is targeted for most services due to the regulatory nature of the services and the high level of direct benefit resulting from construction activities including enjoyment of property enhancements, increased property values, and the desire to avoid having other Yorba Linda residents and businesses subsidize an individual's private construction activities.
 PLANNING FEES
• The City currently uses a combination of fixed fees and time and materials billings to recover the costs of fee-related services.
• If approved, some planning fees would move to a flat fee charge basis to enhance efficiency. • The City’s hourly “time and materials” billing rates have been adjusted to allow for full cost recovery for deposit-based services. In order for the billing system to function properly, the City must have systems in place to track time amongst the various development requests examined by staff and contractors. For deposit-based projects the City should bill project applicants for effort including intake, processing, technical reviews, inspections, meetings, and issuance/approvals.
• Initial deposit amounts have been recalibrated to more closely correlate to estimated service costs.
 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT FEES
• Land development engineering and encroachment fees have been streamlined and recalibrated to enhance the correlation between services provided and fees collected.

The proposed fee methodology scales to allow for lower fees for less complex projects and higher fees for more complex projects.
• Fee categories have been organized to reflect the common phases of development, i.e., pre-entitlement review, post entitlement review, inspections, administrative/research

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF Y ORBA LINDA | 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
requests, and miscellaneous service requests.
• Full cost recovery is targeted for most services due to the regulatory nature of the services and the high level of direct benefit resulting from construction activities including enjoyment of property enhancements, increased property values, and the desire to avoid having other Yorba Linda residents and businesses subsidize private construction activities.
 REGIONAL FEE COMPARISON
• Similar fees are collected by communities throughout the region and the State. The proposed fee amounts do not exceed the City’s cost of service and are in-range of amounts charged by other jurisdictions. Regional fee comparison information is included in Appendix I of this report.

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF Y ORBA LINDA | 5

PROJECT ORIENTATION

SCOPE OF STUDY
The City of Yorba Linda has completed a User and Regulatory Fee Study, which represents an external review of prevailing practices and development of a new Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees. ClearSource Financial Consulting has prepared this analysis using FY 2024/25 organizational information and will be available to answer questions as the City proceeds in implementing findings as it chooses.

Key tasks expected by the City from this study included the following:
 Review eligible fee-related services Citywide to establish the reasonable relationship between current fees for service and the underlying costs of service.  Calculate the full cost of service, including estimated Citywide overhead costs.  Recommend fees to be charged for each service.
 Recommend cost recovery strategies and best practices in setting fees, while considering the complexities and demands of responsible programs or departments.  Identify underlying billable rates for cost recovery opportunities and as the basis for user fees.

DIRECT SERVICES UNDER REVIEW

FEE CATEGORIES
 Building – Services include, but are not limited to building plan review, permitting, and inspection for construction and sub-trades.
 Planning – Services include, but are not limited to entitlement review, permit review for compliance with City Zoning Code.
 Engineering – Services include land development review and encroachment permitting.  Community Preservation – Services include, but are not limited to, property inspections and code violation penalty assessments.
 Finance – Services include, but are not limited to, business licenses and permits, and fees assessed for returned checks.
 Library – Services include, but are not limited to, providing copies pf documents, passport processing, inter-library loans, and library room rentals.  Parks and Recreation – Parks and facility rental rates for various user groups.

REASON FOR STUDY
Cities derive annual revenue from a number of sources. These include, but are not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes, franchise fees, fines, rents, and user and regulatory fees. User and regulatory fees are intended to cover all, or a portion of, the costs incurred by a City for providing fee-related services and activities that are not otherwise provided to those not paying the fee.

California cities regularly conduct fee studies to justify fee amounts imposed and to optimize the overall body of revenues available to the municipality to fund its services. Widespread industry

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF Y ORBA LINDA | 6

PROJECT ORIENTATION
practice and fiscal conditions in the state have led most cities to link cost recovery for services of individual action, cause, or benefit to that individual through user fee revenue, relieving the agency’s general revenues for services of broader community benefit.

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF Y ORBA LINDA | 7

PROJECT ORIENTATION

PREVAILING GUIDANCE
The objectives of this study, the methodology used to complete the study, and the formulation of outcomes and recommendations for future consideration were significantly influenced by Article 13C of the California Constitution and Section 66014 of the California Government Code.

Article 13C states that the local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payer bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payer’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. Additionally, Article 13C identifies the following as items that are not defined as taxes:
 A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.  A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.  A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.  A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.
 A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation of law.
 A charge imposed as a condition of property development.  Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D.

Section 66014(a) of the California Government Code includes the following, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use permits; building inspections; building permits; …the processing of maps under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act…; or planning services…; those fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.

The outcomes and recommendations of the study are intended to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws including providing confirmation that the proposed fees (“charges”) recommended as a result of this study are not taxes as defined in Article 13C of the California Constitution and that the proposed fees are no more than necessary to the cover the reasonable costs of the City’s activities and services addressed in the fees. Additionally, this report is intended to show that the manner in which the costs are allocated to a payer bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer’s burdens on, or benefits received from the activities and services provided by the City.

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF Y ORBA LINDA | 8

PROJECT ORIENTATION

METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES
This study calculated the estimated reasonable cost of providing various fee-related services across the City organization. Generally, the estimated reasonable cost of providing the fee-related services and activities examined in this study can be calculated as the product of the composite fully-burdened hourly labor rate of the division responsible for providing services and the estimated labor time required to process a typical request for service.

The composite fully-burdened hourly rates calculated in this study are based on the estimated annual hours spent providing fee related services, and estimated labor, services and supplies, and Citywide overhead expenditures, sourced as follows:
 Labor expenditures for in-house personnel were based on budgeted salary and benefits expenditures.
 Contract service personnel and other services and supplies related costs were based on current industry market rates for service.
 Citywide overhead cost allocations were developed to assign a reasonable share of central service support to the City’s direct service units. Overhead costs are costs that are not readily identified with particular services but are necessary for general operations and to conduct services. Examples of typical central service indirect costs include, but are not limited to:
o City Management and Administration
o Facilities Maintenance
o Finance and Purchasing Support
o Human Resources Support
o Information Technology Support
o Insurance
 Estimated labor time spent providing fee related services were developed based on interviews with City staff and are in-line with typical direct service ratios experienced by the consultant via studies of similar municipalities throughout California. Commonly used industry data also aided in the development of time estimates and proposed fee structures.

Once cost of service levels are identified, the City may use this information to inform targeted cost recovery from fees. Fees set at the cost of service target full cost recovery. Fees set at any amount less than the cost of service target less than full cost recovery.

An illustration of the methods used in this analysis is shown in Exhibit 1.

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF Y ORBA LINDA | 9

PROJECT ORIENTATION
EXHIBIT 1 | STEPS IN ANALYZING COSTS OF SERVICE AND USER FEES

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF Y ORBA LINDA | 10

IMPLEMENTATION

CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
If the City decides to adopt or otherwise utilize outcomes generated through this study, it should:
 Update Systems for Fee Outcomes - Ensure that City staff begin using updated fees and associated outcomes once the updated schedule of fees becomes effective. Values should be included in all official fee schedules used throughout the City (e.g., departmental pamphlets, counter schedules, and online information). Additionally, ensure collections processes are updated, which may include coding in billing systems and training for personnel who handle fees directly with the public.
 Actively Monitor the Use of Fees - In order to recover accurate and eligible amounts expected, the City should be diligent about tracking time to projects for time and materials billings and ensuring fees are applied in the correct amount and using the correct and intended basis for fixed fee billings.
 Monitor Feedback and Permit Statistics - Monitor permit and application volume and applicant feedback to determine if fee modifications are resulting in any unanticipated changes in project frequency and to increase the level of detail available for revenue forecasting.
 Annually Review and Adjust Fee Values - In order to generally maintain pace with regional cost inflation and/or the City's salary cost inflation, the City should adjust its fees on an annual basis. A commonly used, reasonable inflation index is the annual change in the all-urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) representative of the region.  Periodically Perform Comprehensive Analysis - A comprehensive fee study should be conducted periodically (e.g., every three to five years) to ensure fee levels remain at or below legal limits and are consistent with evolving service practices and local conditions.

APPENDIX I

FEE COMPARISON

REGIONAL FEE COMPARISON
Similar fees are collected by communities throughout the region and the State. The proposed fee amounts do not exceed the City’s cost of service and are in-range of amounts charged by other jurisdictions.

In order to provide the City Council with additional information as it considers potential adjustments to fees, current and proposed fees were compared to amounts collected by other agencies. For sampling purposes, the fee comparison examined fees for:
 City of Anaheim
 City of Brea
 City of Chino Hills
 City of Corona
 City of Huntington Beach
 City of Laguna Niguel
 Cit of Lake Forest
 City of Newport Beach
 City of Placentia
The City of Yorba Linda, consistent with other cities throughout the State, has an existing fee schedule that contemplates hundreds of potential unique requests for service. Consequently, an exhaustive comparison of all scenarios is unrealistic. Instead, comparison information for several targeted fee categories (e.g., high volume categories, fee categories of particular interest to community, etc.) are provided in order to provide the City Council with a reasonable sense of changes expected. For Yorba Linda, outcomes will show that new fees may range from low, to mid, to upper end of the regional fee spectrum depending on the service provided. This is common among municipalities due to differing levels of service and review included among various fee categories.

Scenarios considered range from smaller scale projects to larger scale projects. Examples are illustrated in the charts on the following pages.

APPENDIX I

BUILDING FEES
$365
$250
$134
$120
$118
$112
$112
$100
$96
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400
Corona
Brea
Huntington Beach
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Lake Forest
Yorba Linda - Current
Anaheim
Placentia
Chino Hills
Residential HVAC Change-Out Fee
$139
$120
$112
$112
$109
$85
$56
$47
$30
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160
Anaheim
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Chino Hills
Yorba Linda - Current
Corona
Lake Forest
Brea
Huntington Beach
Placentia
Water Heater Change-Out Fee

APPENDIX I
$535
$361
$354
$309
$250
$230
$196
$150
$126
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600
Chino Hills
Corona
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Yorba Linda - Current
Brea
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach
Placentia
Anaheim
Service Panel Upgrade - Residential
$802
$798
$750
$337
$234
$223
$220
$177
$134
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900
Chino Hills
Laguna Niguel*
Brea
Lake Forest*
Corona*
Yorba Linda - Current
Anaheim*
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Placentia*
Fences Requiring a Building Permit (100 LF)

APPENDIX I
$10,167
$9,915
$9,181
$7,980
$7,311
$6,698
$6,216
$5,001
$4,503
$4,500
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000
Chino Hills
Newport Beach
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Yorba Linda - Current
Placentia
Huntington Beach
Anaheim
Corona
Lake Forest
Brea*
Building Permit & Plan Review - 3,000 SF New Tract Home $1,720
$1,702
$1,394
$1,284
$1,047
$901
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 Newport Beach
Yorba Linda - Current
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Corona
Huntington Beach
Placentia
Building Permit & Plan Review - $25,000 Project

APPENDIX I
$2,476
$2,382
$2,323
$1,530
$1,437
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000
Yorba Linda - Current
Newport Beach
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Huntington Beach
Placentia
Building Permit & Plan Review - $50,000 Project
$3,310
$3,175
$3,094
$2,181
$2,093
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500
Newport Beach
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Yorba Linda - Current
Placentia
Huntington Beach
Building Permit & Plan Review - $100,000 Project

APPENDIX I

PLANNING FEES
* Deposit
* Deposit
$6,000
$3,730
$2,698
$2,675
$2,000
$1,860
$1,000
$500
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
Lake Forest*
Placentia
Corona
Chino Hills*
Brea*
Laguna Niguel
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Yorba Linda - Current
Administrative Adjustment/Minor Variance
$8,296
$6,500
$5,552
$5,198
$4,323
$2,180
$2,116
$2,000
$1,551
$1,000
$500
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 Chino Hills*
Lake Forest*
Placentia
Anaheim
Huntington Beach
Corona
Newport Beach
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Laguna Niguel*
Yorba Linda - Current*
Brea*
Processing Fee for Appeal to City Council

APPENDIX I
* Deposit
* Deposit
$11,237
$10,609
$8,655
$8,358
$6,314
$5,030
$3,652
$3,000
$3,000
$2,016
$2,000
$1,860
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000
Chino Hills*
Anaheim*
Corona - Major
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach
Corona - Modification
Corona - Minor
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Lake Forest*
Yorba Linda - Current*
Brea*
Laguna Niguel
Conditional Use Permit - Single Family Residential
$33,728
$17,363
$16,257
$12,000
$11,351
$9,147
$8,500
$6,324
$4,119
$2,000
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 Chino Hills*
Huntington Beach
Yorba Linda - Current*
Lake Forest*
Anaheim*
Corona
Yorba Linda - Proposed*
Newport Beach
Placentia
Brea*
Tentative Tract Map - 25 Lots

APPENDIX I
* Deposit
$16,053
$7,224
$6,000
$3,975
$3,000
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 Chino Hills - Tract*
Chino Hills - Custom Home*
Yorba Linda - Proposed*
Huntington Beach
Yorba Linda - Current*
Design Review
$2,936
$2,606
$1,880
$1,867
$687
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500
Placentia
Huntington Beach
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Yorba Linda - Current
Lake Forest
Accessory Dwelling Unit Request

APPENDIX I
* Deposit

ENGINEERING FEES
* Deposit
$9,934
$8,494
$8,026
$6,389
$6,000
$6,000
$6,000
$5,533
$2,654
$2,000
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000
Placentia
Anaheim
Chino Hills*
Corona*
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Laguna Niguel*
Lake Forest*
Huntington Beach
Yorba Linda - Current
Brea*
Variance
$2,130
$1,190
$930
$876
$788
$662
$310
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500
Anaheim
Placentia
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Yorba Linda - Current
Newport Beach
Lake Forest**
Huntington Beach*
Minor Encroachment Permit

APPENDIX I
* Deposit
* Deposit
$8,526
$9,060
$8,000
$6,014
$6,000
$5,994
$5,000
$4,213
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 Corona
Anaheim
Brea
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Huntington Beach*
Yorba Linda - Current
Lake Forest*
Chino Hills**
Subdivision/2+ Lots Rough Grade Plan
$7,920
$2,728
$2,722
$2,688
$2,130
$1,110
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 Huntington Beach*
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Newport Beach
Yorba Linda - Current
Anaheim
Lake Forest*
Moderate Encroachment Permit

APPENDIX I
* Deposit
* Deposit
$5,675
$5,000
$4,120
$4,107
$3,559
$2,515
$2,300
$1,984
$1,519
$1,500
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
Chino Hills*
Lake Forest*
Anaheim
Corona
Placentia
Newport Beach
Brea
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Yorba Linda - Current
Huntington Beach*
Lot Line Adjustment
$13,377
$6,900
$6,500
$6,193
$4,119
$2,976
$2,918
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 Chino Hills*
Huntington Beach*
Brea
Corona
Placentia
Yorba Linda - Proposed
Yorba Linda - Current
Final Tract Map - 25 Lots

APPENDIX II

COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

Cost of Service Calculations

Services / Activities / Subject Matter Page
Building Fees 1
Planning Fees 12
Community Preservation Fees 20
Public Works Fees 25
Library Fees 61
City Clerk Fees 67
Finance Fees 72
Parks and Recreation Fees 78
General Plan Maintenance Fee 82
Development Specific Technology Enhancements / Land Management Tracking Fee 84 City of Yorba Linda

COST OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
Building Fees

1 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Building Division
Position Hourly FTE Yearly
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE
Total
Productive Notes
Building Inspector $47 3.50 $340,032 2,080 216 1,864 6,524 [a],[b] Building Official $82 1.00 $171,312 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Building Permit Technician $42 2.00 $174,888 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 [a],[b] Community Development Director $105 0.30 $65,480 2,080 216 1,864 559 [a],[b] Office Assistant II $28 1.00 $58,092 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Plan Check Engineer $61 1.00 $126,288 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Senior Building Inspector $51 1.00 $106,872 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Senior Building Permit Technician $46 1.00 $96,180 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Total 10.80 $1,139,144 20,131
Contract Services
Description Total Est Hrly Cost Total Hours Notes
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION $120,000 $110 1,091 [c]
PLAN CHECK SERVICE $205,000 $140 1,464 [c]
Total Productive Hours Total Notes
In-House 20,131
Contract 2,555
Total 22,686
Allocation of Hours Share Total Notes
Indirect 35% 7,940 [b]
Direct 65% 14,746 [b]
Total 100% 22,686
[a] Source: FY 24/25 authorized positions.
[b] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities. [c] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract service providers.

2 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Development - Building Division Recurring Expenditures [a]
Fund Division Account Acct Desc Budget Adjust Total Notes General Fund Building 410010 SALARIES F/T PERM $1,130,770 $0 $1,130,770 General Fund Building 410120 SALARIES P/T TEMP $46,187 $0 $46,187 General Fund Building 410210 SALARIES O/T $10,000 $0 $10,000 General Fund Building 410250 VACATION BUYBACK/MIP $12,554 $0 $12,554 General Fund Building 411100 RETIREMENT $100,769 $0 $100,769 General Fund Building 411140 CITY 457 MATCH $6,000 $0 $6,000 General Fund Building 411150 PST RETIREMENT 3.75% $1,732 $0 $1,732 General Fund Building 411200 EMPLOYEE INS $341,166 $0 $341,166 General Fund Building 411300 MEDICARE INS $21,488 $0 $21,488 General Fund Building 411500 AUTO ALLOWANCE $2,391 $0 $2,391 General Fund Building 411510 CELL PHONE STIPEND $1,170 $0 $1,170 General Fund Building 421050 OFFICE SUPPLIES $3,950 $0 $3,950 General Fund Building 421100 SPECIAL SUPPLIES $1,100 $0 $1,100 General Fund Building 421240 BOOKS/DEPT USE $12,000 $0 $12,000 General Fund Building 424150 MAINT/OFFICE MACHINES $300 $0 $300 General Fund Building 424330 MICROFILMING SERVICE $40,000 $0 $40,000 General Fund Building 424380 PRINTING SERVICE $1,300 $0 $1,300 General Fund Building 424550 UNIFORMS $1,400 $0 $1,400
General Fund Building 426050 TRAVEL/MEETINGS/SEMINARS $7,500 $0 $7,500 General Fund Building 426250 DUES/PUBLICATIONS $1,200 $0 $1,200 General Fund Building 431400 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION $120,000 $0 $120,000 General Fund Building 431530 PLAN CHECK SERVICE $205,000 $0 $205,000 General Fund Building 433200 TEMPORARY PERSONNEL $17,300 $0 $17,300 General Fund Building 433950 MISC OTHER CONTRACT SERVICE $2,500 $0 $2,500 General Fund Building 461100 OFFICE EQUIP/FURNITURE $1,000 $0 $1,000 General Fund Building 461120 COMPUTER HARDWARE/SOFTWARE $0 $0 $0 Total $2,088,777 $0 $2,088,777
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
C'wide OH
Rate Mod Op Exp
Allocation of
C'wide OH Notes
Citywide Overhead Allocation 25% $2,088,777 $522,194 [b] Allocation of Total Costs
Description Total Share Notes
Direct Expenses $2,088,777 80%
Allocation of Citywide Overhead $522,194 20%
Total $2,610,971 100%

3 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Development - Building Division Revenue Summary
Fund Desc Acct Desc FY 21/22 Actual FY 22/23 Actual
FY 23/24
Estimated
FY 24/25
Budget
FY 24/25
Budget
General Fund BUILDING PERMITS $1,812,143 $1,732,551 $1,246,782 $1,702,745 $ 1,524,182 General Fund PLAN CHECKS $619,411 $637,354 $392,712 $590,720 $629,555 General Fund RECORDS SEARCH $0 $0 $0 $500 $500
General Fund OTHER BUILDING PERMITS $67,246 $74,896 $69,625 $55,000 $55,000 General Fund MISC LICENSES/PERMITS $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 Total $2,498,800 $2,444,801 $1,709,119 $2,351,965 $2,212,237 Description Total
Average Revenue $2,243,384
Expenditures $2,610,971
Cost Recovery Rate 86%
General Fund Subsidy $367,587
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total
Costs $2,610,971
Direct Hours 14,746
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $177

4 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Development - Building Division Calculation of Cost Multiplier for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate (Apply to Base Salary Cost Per Hour) Description FTE
Annual Hours
Per FTE
Total Annual
Hours
Estimated
Salaries
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming Total
Annual Hours
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Indirect Cost
Rate Multiplier
(ICR)
Building 10.80 2,080 22,464 $1,139,144 $51 $177 3.49
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate by Position
Position Total Salaries Total FTE
Avg Salary
Per FTE
Avg Salary
Per Hour
ICR for FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Building Inspector $340,032 3.50 $97,152 $47 3.49 $163
Building Official $171,312 1.00 $171,312 $82 3.49 $287
Building Permit Technician $174,888 2.00 $87,444 $42 3.49 $147 Community Development Director $65,480 0.30 $218,268 $105 3.49 $366 Office Assistant II $58,092 1.00 $58,092 $28 3.49 $97
Plan Check Engineer $126,288 1.00 $126,288 $61 3.49 $212 Senior Building Inspector $106,872 1.00 $106,872 $51 3.49 $179 Senior Building Permit Technician $96,180 1.00 $96,180 $46 3.49 $161 [a] Source: FY 25/26 Adopted Budget.
[b] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate for analysis purposes only.

5 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Est.

Cost Recovery
Proposed
Cost Recovery Proposed Fee Note
1 HVAC Change-Out - Residential 1.75 x $177 = $310 varies varies 39% $120 2 Water Heater Change-Out - Residential 1.50 x $177 = $266 varies varies 45% $120 3 Line Repair - Sewer/Water/Gas/ Ventilation/Repipe 1.25 x $177 = $221 varies varies 100% $221 4 Re-Roof - Residential (without calculations) 1.50 x $177 = $266 varies varies 100% $266 5 Siding/Stucco - Residential 1.50 x $177 = $266 varies varies 100% $266 6 Service Panel Upgrade - Residential 2.00 x $177 = $354 varies varies 100% $354 7 Battery Backup Storage - Residential 1.75 x $177 = $310 varies varies 100% $310 8 Electric Vehicle Charger - Residential 1.75 x $177 = $310 varies varies 100% $310 9 Generator - Residential 1.75 x $177 = $310 varies varies 100% $310 10 Rooftop Solar Permit - Residential
a) 15kW or less varies varies $450 [a]
b) Above 15kW varies varies $15 [a]
11 Rooftop Solar Permit - Non-Residential
a) 50kW or less varies varies $1,000 [a]
b) 50kW – 250kW varies varies $7 [a]
c) Above 250kW varies varies $2,400 base fee, plus $5 per kW for each kW above 250 kW
[a]
12 Ground-Mount Solar 1.75 x $177 = $310 varies varies 100% $310 13 Swimming Pool/Spa Equipment Change-out Only 1.75 x $177 = $310 varies varies 100% $310 14 New Swimming Pool/Spa
a) Standard 8.50 x $177 = $1,505 varies varies 100% $1,505 b) Specialty 11.00 x $177 = $1,947 varies varies 100% $1,947 15 Swimming Pool Replaster 2.25 x $177 = $398 varies varies 100% $398 16 Residential Voluntary Seismic Retrofit 2.25 x $177 = $398 varies varies 100% $398

6 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Est.

Cost Recovery
Proposed
Cost Recovery Proposed Fee Note
17 Retaining Wall
a) Wall Under 4' in height 2.75 x $177 = $487 varies varies 100% $487 [b] b) Wall Over 4' in height
i) Up to 100 LF 4.00 x $177 = $708 varies varies 69% $487 ii) Each Additional 100 LF 0.25 x $177 = $44 varies varies 100% $44 18 CMU Wall
a) Wall Under 6' in height 2.00 x $177 = $354 varies varies 100% $354 b) Wall Over 6' in height
i) Up to 100 LF 2.25 x $177 = $398 varies varies 100% $398 ii) Each Additional 100 LF 0.25 x $177 = $44 varies varies 100% $44 19 Window / Door - New 1.75 x $177 = $310 varies varies 100% $310 20 Window / Door - Retrofit / Repair
a) Retrofit 1.50 x $177 = $266 varies varies 100% $266
b) All Other 5.00 x $177 = $885 varies varies 100% $885 21 Fences Requiring a Building Permit 1.00 x $177 = $177 varies varies 100% $177 22 Patio Covers / Solid Roof (City Standard) 2.25 x $177 = $398 varies varies 100% $398 23 Signs 3.00 x $177 = $531 varies varies 100% $531
[a] Total fees shall not exceed amounts outlined in California Government Code 66015(a)(1). [b] No charge for retaining walls under 4 feet and not retaining a surcharge.

7 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description
Est. City
Staff Labor
Hrs
FullyBurdened
Hourly
Est. Cost
of Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Notes
Permit Fee for New Buildings, Additions, Tenant Improvements, Residential Remodels, and Combined Mechanical, Electrical, and/or Plumbing Permits 1 $1 - $2,000 2.00 x $177 = $354 varies varies $354 100% 2 $2,001 - $25,000 3.50 x $177 = $620 varies varies $620 100% 3 $25,001 - $50,000 4.50 x $177 = $797 varies varies $797 100% 4 $50,001 - $100,000 7.50 x $177 = $1,328 varies varies $1,328 100% 5 $100,001 - $500,000 10.25 x $177 = $1,814 varies varies $1,814 100% 6 $500,001 - $1,000,000 28.00 x $177 = $4,956 varies varies $4,956 100% 7 $1,000,001 and up 48.50 x $177 = $8,585 varies varies $8,585 100% For permits requiring plumbing, electric, or mechanical review, the following percentages shall be added to the base permit fee
8 Mechanical 12% 12% 100%
9 Plumbing 12% 12% 100%
10 Electrical 12% 12% 100%

8 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Est. City Staff Labor Hrs
FullyBurdened
Hourly
Est. Cost
of Service Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Notes
1 Building Plan Check Fees - Building
a) Plan Review Fee, if applicable 75% varies 75% 100% [a] b) Expedited Plan Check - At Application Submittal (when applicable) 1.5x standard plan check fee varies 1.5x standard plan check fee c) Revision Application Fee (per hour) (1-hour minimum) 1.00 x $177 = $177 varies $177 100% d) Tract Home / Master Plan Construction (Production Units) 20% varies 20% of standard plan check fee 100% [b] e) Alternate Materials and Materials Review (per hour) 1.00 x $177 = $177 varies $177 100% f) Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) (per hour) 1.00 x $177 = $177 varies $177 100% g) Revisions (per hour) 1.00 x $177 = $177 varies $177 100% 2 Building Plan Check Fees - Planning
(Fees Only Applied to Projects Requiring Review)
a) Zoning Clearance Verification 0.50 x $188 = $94 varies $94 100% b) Planning Plan Check
i) Alterations/Additions - Residential 1.25 x $188 = $235 varies $235 100% ii) New Construction - Single Family Residential 2.25 x $188 = $423 varies $423 100% iii) New Construction - 2-4 Residential Units 4.25 x $188 = $799 varies $799 100% iv) New Construction - 5+ Residential Units 11.00 x $188 = $2,068 varies $2,068 100% v) New Construction - Non-Residential 4.25 x $188 = $799 varies $799 100% vi) Alterations/Additions - Non-Residential 2.25 x $188 = $423 varies $423 100% 3 Building Plan Check Fees - Public Works Engineering
(Fees Only Applied to Projects Requiring Review)
a) Swimming Pool 1.00 x $248 = $248 varies $248 100%
b) Block Wall 0.50 x $248 = $124 varies $124 100%
c) Fence 0.50 x $248 = $124 varies $124 100%
d) Sign 0.50 x $248 = $124 varies $124 100%
e) Alterations/Additions - Residential 0.75 x $248 = $186 varies $186 100% f) New Construction - Single Family Residential 2.00 x $248 = $496 varies $496 100% g) New Construction - 2-4 Residential Units 3.00 x $248 = $744 varies $744 100% h) New Construction - 5+ Residential Units 6.00 x $248 = $1,488 varies $1,488 100% i) New Construction - Non-Residential 4.00 x $248 = $992 varies $992 100% j) Alterations/Additions - Non-Residential 1.00 x $248 = $248 varies $248 100% k) Trash Capture, SWPPP, and NPDES Review Fees varies See Eng. Fee Schedule l) Permits / Plan checks not listed above varies See footnote [c] [a] Includes up to three plan checks. The City will bill hourly for additional plan review required. Excludes ADUs until June 30, 2029. [b] For identical buildings built by the same builder on the same lot or in the same tract and for which building permits are issued at the same time. [c] Engineer/technician to determine hours and applicable fee at time of application.

9 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description
Est. City
Staff Labor
Hrs
FullyBurdened
Hourly
Est. Cost
of Service Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Notes
1 Permit Processing Fee 0.67 x $177 = $118 $92 78%
2 Business License Inspection Fee
a) Residential Home Occupation 0.50 x $177 = $89 $89 100% b) Non-Residential 0.50 x $177 = $89 $89 100%
3 General Plan Maintenance Fee (% of permit fee) 12% 2.5% 20% 6% 50% [a] 4 Technology Fee (% of plan review and permit fee) 12% 5% 42% [b] 5 Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) Fee Calculation a) Residential $0.50 or valuation x .00013
b) Commercial $0.50 or valuation x .00028
6 Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund (BSASRF) - SB 1473 Fee Calculation (Valuation)
a) $1 - $25,000 $1
b) $25,001 - $50,000 $2
c) $50,001 - $75,000 $3
d) $75,001 - $100,000 $4
e) Every $25,000.01 or Fraction Thereof Above $100,000 Add $1 7 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 2.50 x $177 = $443 $443 100% each 30 days 8 Permit Extension 0.67 x $177 = $118 $92 78%
9 Permit Reactivation Fee
a) Reactivation Fee if All Inspections Have Been Performed and Approved Up to But Not Including Final Inspection

0.67 x $177 = $118 $92 78%
b) Reactivation Fee - All Other Scenarios
i) Permit Expired Up to One Year 50% of Original Base Building Permit Fee ii) Permit Expired More than One Year 100% of Original Base Building Permit Fee 10 Damaged Building Survey (Fire, Flood, Vehicle Damage, Etc.) 1.50 x $177 = $266 $266 100% 11 Investigation Fee 1.00 x $177 = $177 $177 100% per hour 12 Occupancy Inspection Fee
a) Planning Inspection 1.00 x $188 = $188 $188 100% per hour b) Engineering Inspection 1.00 x $248 = $248 $248 100% per hour 13 Planning Review 1.00 x $188 = $188 $188 100% per hour 14 Engineering Review 1.00 x $248 = $248 $248 100% per hour Other Fees
15 Credit Card Transaction Processing Fee 2.75% 2.75% 100%

10 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description
Est. City
Staff Labor
Hrs
FullyBurdened
Hourly
Est. Cost
of Service Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Notes
16 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (4-hour minimum) 1.20 x $177 = $212 $212 100% 17 Re-inspection Fee (each) 1.00 x $177 = $177 $177 100% [c] 18 Duplicate Copy of Permit 0.17 x $177 = $30 $30 100%
19 Duplicate Copy of Certificate of Occupancy 0.17 x $177 = $30 $30 100% 20 Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedule (per 1/2 hour) 0.50 x $177 = $89 $89 100% Violation Fees
21 Investigation Fee For Work Done Without Permits
(In addition to applicable permit fees)
equal to
permit fee
Refunds
22 Refunds
a) Fees Erroneously Paid or Collected by the City 100% refund b) Refund of Plan Review Fees - Prior to Plan Review Commencing up to 80% refund c) Refund of Permit Fees - Prior to Inspection Commencing up to 80% refund d) 180 Days After Payment of Fees no refund
[a] Fee applies to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels requiring building permits. [b] Fee applies to all permits except solar permits.
[c] Reinspection fee applies after the second failed inspection. [d] In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17951.5, the City may waive or reduce all building permit fees for improvements to the home of a veteran with a qualifying disability to accommodate that disability. [e] In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17951.7, the City may waive or reduce all building permit fees for improvements to the home of a person at least 60 years of age with a qualifying disability that are made to accommodate that disability.

11 User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
Planning Fees

12 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Planning Division
Position Hourly FTE Yearly
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE
Total
Productive Notes
Administrative Secretary $37 1.00 $76,848 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Assistant Planner $45 1.00 $92,712 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Associate Planner $52 1.00 $107,544 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Community Development Director $105 0.50 $109,134 2,080 216 1,864 932 [a],[b] Planning Manager $81 1.00 $169,272 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Senior Office Assistant $31 1.00 $63,900 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Senior Planner $61 1.00 $127,524 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Total 6.50 $746,934 12,116
Contract Services
Description Total Est Hrly Cost Total Hours Notes
Annual Contract Services $170,000 $170 1,000 [c]
Total Productive Hours Total Notes
In-House 12,116
Contract 1,000
Total 13,116
Allocation of Hours Share Total Notes
Indirect 35% 4,591 [b]
Direct 65% 8,525 [b]
Total 100% 13,116
[a] Source: FY 24/25 authorized positions.
[b] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities. [c] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract service providers.

13 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Development - Planning Division Recurring Expenditures [a]
Fund Division Account Acct Desc Budget Adjust Total Notes General Fund Planning 410010 SALARIES F/T PERM $736,673 $0 $736,673 [a] General Fund Planning 410130 COMMISSIONS/STIPENDS $0 $0 $0 [a] General Fund Planning 410210 SALARIES O/T $5,000 $0 $5,000 [a] General Fund Planning 410250 VACATION BUYBACK/MIP $22,617 $0 $22,617 [a] General Fund Planning 411100 RETIREMENT $80,963 $0 $80,963 [a] General Fund Planning 411140 CITY 457 MATCH $3,000 $0 $3,000 [a] General Fund Planning 411200 EMPLOYEE INS $213,944 $0 $213,944 [a] General Fund Planning 411300 MEDICARE INS $13,345 $0 $13,345 [a] General Fund Planning 411500 AUTO ALLOWANCE $3,986 $0 $3,986 [a] General Fund Planning 411510 CELL PHONE STIPEND $450 $0 $450 [a] General Fund Planning 421050 OFFICE SUPPLIES $2,500 $0 $2,500 [a] General Fund Planning 424380 PRINTING SERVICE $1,000 $0 $1,000 [a] General Fund Planning 424400 PUBLICATION/ADVERTISING $7,000 $0 $7,000 [a] General Fund Planning 426050 TRAVEL/MEETINGS/SEMINARS $7,000 $0 $7,000 [a] General Fund Planning 426060 PLANNING COMMISSION SEMINARS $2,000 $0 $2,000 [a] General Fund Planning 426250 DUES/PUBLICATIONS $4,000 $0 $4,000 [a] General Fund Planning 431930 PC MINUTES CLERK $5,000 $0 $5,000 [a] General Fund Planning 431950 MISC CONSULTANT SERVICE $170,000 $0 $170,000 [a] General Fund Planning 461100 OFFICE EQUIP/FURNITURE $1,000 $0 $1,000 [a] Total $1,279,478 $0 $1,279,478
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
C'wide OH
Rate Mod Op Exp
Allocation of
C'wide OH Notes
Citywide Overhead Allocation 25% $1,279,478 $319,870 [b] Allocation of Total Costs
Description Total Share Notes
Direct Expenses $1,279,478 80%
Allocation of Citywide Overhead $319,870 20%
Total $1,599,348 100%
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort Among Core Services
Description Total Total Notes
Current Planning and Permitting 60% $959,609 [c]
All Other Planning Services (e.g., Advance Planning / Regional Planning) 40% $639,739 [c] Total 100% $1,599,348

14 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Development - Planning Division Average Annual Revenues
Fund Desc Acct Desc FY 21/22 Actual FY 22/23 Actual
FY 23/24
Estimated
FY 24/25
Budget
FY 25/26
Budget
General Fund PLANNING FEES $95,149 $123,011 $100,571 $100,000 $100,000 Total $95,149 $123,011 $100,571 $100,000 $100,000
Description Total
Average Revenue $103,746
Expenditures $959,609
Cost Recovery Rate 11%
General Fund Subsidy $855,862
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total
Costs $1,599,348
Direct Hours 8,525
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $188

15 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Development - Planning Division Calculation of Cost Multiplier for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate (Apply to Base Salary Cost Per Hour) Description FTE
Annual Hours
Per FTE
Total Annual
Hours
Estimated
Salaries
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming Total
Annual Hours
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Indirect Cost
Rate Multiplier
(ICR)
Planning 6.50 2,080 13,520 $746,934 $55 $188 3.40
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate by Position
Position Total Salaries Total FTE
Avg Salary
Per FTE
Avg Salary
Per Hour
ICR for FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Administrative Secretary $76,848 1.00 $76,848 $37 3.40 $126 Assistant Planner $92,712 1.00 $92,712 $45 3.40 $152
Associate Planner $107,544 1.00 $107,544 $52 3.40 $176
Community Development Director $109,134 0.50 $218,268 $105 3.40 $357 Planning Manager $169,272 1.00 $169,272 $81 3.40 $277
Senior Office Assistant $63,900 1.00 $63,900 $31 3.40 $105 Senior Planner $127,524 1.00 $127,524 $61 3.40 $209
[a] Source: FY 25/26 Adopted Budget.
[b] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate for analysis purposes only.

16 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description
Annual
Volume
Est. Service
Time (Hrs.) Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee
Current Est.

Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee Unit Note
1 Accessory Dwelling Unit Request 50 10.00 x $188 = $1,880 $1,867 99% 100% $1,880 flat 2 Administrative Adjustments 15 12.00 x $188 = $2,256 $500 22% 44% $1,000 flat 3 Annexation/Detachment 0-1 100.00 x $188 = $18,800 $12,632 67% 93% $17,500 deposit 4 Amendment of Final Map 0-1 20.00 x $188 = $3,760 $2,052 55% 100% $3,760 deposit flat 5 Appeals
a) Set Fee Applications Planning Commission 2 15.00 x $188 = $2,820 $500 18% 35% $1,000 flat b) Actual Cost Applications City Council 1 15.00 x $188 = $2,820 $1,000 35% 71% $2,000 deposit flat 6 City Attorney Review (formal) actual costs actual costs hourly [a] 7 Conditional Use Permit [b]
a) Single-Family Residential 45 35.00 x $188 = $6,580 $2,016 31% 46% $3,000 minimum fee deposit b) Zoning Administrator 20.00 x $188 = $3,760 53% $2,000 minimum fee deposit c) All Other 10 45.00 x $188 = $8,460 $4,460 53% 95% $8,000 deposit 8 Design Review 20 35.00 x $188 = $6,580 $3,000 46% 91% $6,000 deposit [b] 9 Development Agreement 0-1 45.00 x $188 = $8,460 $12,632 149% 95% $8,000 deposit 10 Determination of Similar Use 0-1 30.00 x $188 = $5,640 $1,579 28% 89% $5,000 minimum fee deposit 11 Environmental Evaluation - IS/MND and EIR 0-1 actual cost + 15% admin
deposit [c]
a) City Administrative Fee 0-1 30.00 x $188 = $5,640 $3,066 54% b) Consultant Costs actual cost
Environmental Evaluation EIR
a) City Administrative Fee 0-1 50.00 x $188 = $9,400 $6,131 65% b) Consultant Costs actual cost
12 Environmental Mitigation Monitoring Program 0-1 30.00 x $188 = $5,640 $316 6% 100% $5,640 minimum fee deposit 13 Fish and Wildlife Filing Fees 0-1 1.00 set by state set by state flat 14 General Plan Amendment 0-1 60.00 x $188 = $11,280 $12,632 112% 93% $10,500 deposit 15 General Plan Maintenance Fee 2.4% of fees
charged

2.4% of fees
charged
percentage
16 Landscape Review: Preliminary Review, Plan Check,
and Inspection
a) City Administrative Fee (per project) 5 5.00 x $188 = $940 $4,782 509% 100% $940 flat b) Consultant Costs actual cost actual cost actual cost [c] 17 Lot Line Adjustment 5 30.00 x $188 = $5,640 $3,051 54% 100% $5,640 deposit flat

17 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description
Annual
Volume
Est. Service
Time (Hrs.) Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee
Current Est.

Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee Unit Note
18 Minor Change of Approved Tentative Maps
a) If Planning Commission hearing is required 0-1 25.00 x $188 = $4,700 $2,635 56% 85% $4,000 deposit b) If Planning Commission hearing is not required 0-1 15.00 x $188 = $2,820 $1,256 45% 89% $2,500 deposit 19 Preliminary Project Review
a) Minor - Over the Counter 50 5.00 x $188 = $940 no charge no charge flat b) Major - Formal Meeting / Multiple City
Departments
15 20.00 x $188 = $3,760 $3,163 84% 100% $3,760 deposit flat 20 Projects for which there is No Appropriate Fee
Category
1 1.00 x $188 = $188 $316 168% 100% $188 hourly
21 Public Noticing / Mailing 1.50 x $188 = $282 $473 168% 100% $282 flat 22 Revised Tentative Tract Map (after Planning
Commission approval)
0-1 15.00 x $188 = $2,820 $3,581 127% 89% $2,500 deposit 23 Sign Program/Master Plan of Signage 0-1 35.00 x $188 = $6,580 $2,789 42% 91% $6,000 deposit 24 Sign Review by Planning Commission (Freestanding
Signs)
0-1 25.00 x $188 = $4,700 $2,158 46% 100% $4,700 flat
25 Special Events
a) City Administrative Fee 10 5.00 x $188 = $940 $307 33% i) Resident, non-profit 5 5.00 x $188 = $940 $307 33% 48% $450 flat ii) Commercial, for profit 5 5.00 x $188 = $940 $307 33% 100% $940 flat b) Refundable Deposit $606 $700 deposit
26 Specific Plans 0-1 100.00 x $188 = $18,800 $12,632 67% 93% $17,500 deposit 27 Temporary Use Permit 5 2.00 x $188 = $376 no charge 100% $376 flat [d] 28 Tentative Parcel Maps 2 40.00 x $188 = $7,520 $12,040 160% 93% $7,000 deposit 29 Tentative Tract Map 2 50.00 x $188 = $9,400 $16,748 178% 90% $8,500 deposit Time Extension Requests/Land Use Requests 3 8.00 x $188 = $1,504 $1,421 94% 30 Time Extension Requests/Land Use Requests - Single
Family
3 8.00 x $188 = $1,504 $948 63% 100% $1,504 flat
Time Extension Requests and Parcel Maps 1 8.00 x $188 = $1,504 $1,421 94% 31 Variance 0-1 35.00 x $188 = $6,580 $2,735 42% 91% $6,000 deposit 32 Zone Change (including pre-annexation zone changes) 0-1 100.00 x $188 = $18,800 $12,632 67% 93% $17,500 deposit [b] 33 Zoning Ordinance Amendments 3 40.00 x $188 = $7,520 $3,158 42% 93% $7,000 deposit 34 Zoning Review of Building Permit Applications 60 1.00 x $188 = $188 $316 168% 100% $188 hourly

18 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description
Annual
Volume
Est. Service
Time (Hrs.) Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee
Current Est.

Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee Unit Note
35 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate
fee based on the established hourly rates for the
Planning Division. Additionally, the City will passthrough to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application.
0-1 1.00 x $188 = $188 $316 168% 100% $188 hourly
36 Construction Noise Permit no charge no charge flat
[a] Any project requiring extensive City Attorney review shall require an additional deposit or be drawn out of the existing deposit. [c] Consultant Costs established per competitive bid procedure. [d] No charge for garage sales or banners.
[b] Affordable housing projects may have fees waived or reduced by the City Council for projects with at least 20 percent of the dwelling units restricted and affordable to lower income households for a minimum of thirty (30) years. Additionally, the City Council may require that the City's Affordable Housing Fund reimburse the City for the waived and/or reduced fees in accordance with all applicable housing laws.

19 User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
Community Preservation Fees

20 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Community Preservation Division Position Hourly FTE Yearly
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE
Total
Productive Notes
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR $105 0.20 $43,654 2,080 216 1,864 373 [a],[b] COMMUNITY PRESERVATION OFFICER $42 1.00 $87,396 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] COMMUNITY PRESERVATION OFFICER / CDBG COORDINATOR $44 1.00 $91,764 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] SENIOR COMMUNITY PRESERVATION OFFICER $59 0.90 $109,696 2,080 216 1,864 1,678 [a],[b] Total 3.10 $332,509 5,778
Contract Services
Description Total Est Hrly Cost Total Hours Notes
N/A
Total Productive Hours Total Notes
In-House 5,778
Contract 0
Total 5,778
Allocation of Hours Share Total Notes
Indirect 35% 2,022 [b]
Direct 65% 3,756 [b]
Total 100% 5,778
[a] Source: FY 24/25 authorized positions.
[b] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities. [c] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract service providers.

21 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Development - Community Preservation Division Recurring Expenditures [a]
Fund Division Account Acct Desc Budget Adjust Total Notes General Fund Community Preservation 410010 SALARIES F/T PERM $326,281 $0 $326,281 General Fund Community Preservation 410210 SALARIES O/T $2,500 ($2,500) $0 General Fund Community Preservation 410250 VACATION BUYBACK/MIP $2,977 $0 $2,977 General Fund Community Preservation 411100 RETIREMENT $32,380 $0 $32,380 General Fund Community Preservation 411140 CITY 457 MATCH $1,740 $0 $1,740 General Fund Community Preservation 411200 EMPLOYEE INS $102,313 $0 $102,313 General Fund Community Preservation 411300 MEDICARE INS $6,084 $0 $6,084 General Fund Community Preservation 411500 AUTO ALLOWANCE $1,594 $0 $1,594 General Fund Community Preservation 411510 CELL PHONE STIPEND $990 $0 $990 General Fund Community Preservation 421050 OFFICE SUPPLIES $1,200 $0 $1,200 General Fund Community Preservation 424200 MAINT/RADIO EQUIPMENT $50 $0 $50 General Fund Community Preservation 424380 PRINTING SERVICE $300 $0 $300 General Fund Community Preservation 424550 UNIFORMS $1,200 $0 $1,200 General Fund Community Preservation 426050 TRAVEL/MEETINGS/SEMINARS $2,850 $0 $2,850 General Fund Community Preservation 426100 MILEAGE/AUTO ALLOWANCE $50 $0 $50 General Fund Community Preservation 426250 DUES/PUBLICATIONS $350 $0 $350 General Fund Community Preservation 432610 PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT $18,532 $0 $18,532 General Fund Community Preservation 461100 OFFICE EQUIP/FURNITURE $500 $0 $500 Total $501,891 ($2,500) $499,391
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
C'wide OH
Rate Mod Op Exp
Allocation of
C'wide OH Notes
Citywide Overhead Allocation 25% $499,391 $124,848 [b]
Allocation of Total Costs
Description Total Share Notes
Direct Expenses $499,391 80%
Allocation of Citywide Overhead $124,848 20%
Total $624,239 100%
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total
Costs $624,239
Direct Hours 3,756
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $166

22 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Development - Community Preservation Division Calculation of Cost Multiplier for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate (Apply to Base Salary Cost Per Hour) Description FTE
Annual Hours
Per FTE
Total Annual
Hours
Estimated
Salaries
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming Total
Annual Hours
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Indirect Cost
Rate Multiplier
(ICR)
Community Preservation 3.10 2,080 6,448 $332,509 $52 $166 3.22 Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate by Position
Position Total Salaries Total FTE
Avg Salary
Per FTE
Avg Salary
Per Hour
ICR for FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR $43,654 0.20 $218,268 $105 3.22 $338 COMMUNITY PRESERVATION OFFICER $87,396 1.00 $87,396 $42 3.22 $135 COMMUNITY PRESERVATION OFFICER / CDBG COORDINATOR $91,764 1.00 $91,764 $44 3.22 $142 SENIOR COMMUNITY PRESERVATION OFFICER $109,696 0.90 $121,884 $59 3.22 $189 [a] Source: FY 25/26 Adopted Budget.
[b] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate for analysis purposes only.

23 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Community Preservation Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Svc Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note
1 Property Inspection (following issuance of a final notice) - Initial Inspection 1.75 x $166 = $291 $213 73% $291 100% 2 Property Inspection (following issuance of a final notice) - Each Additional Inspection 1.00 x $166 = $166 $118 71% $166 100% 3 Code Violation Penalty Assessment - 1st Offense $100 $250 4 Code Violation Penalty Assessment - 2nd Offense $200 $500 5 Code Violation Penalty Assessment - 3rd Offense $500 $1,000 6 Follow-Up Inspection After Initial Inspection and Notice Issuance 1.50 x $166 = $249 $212 85% $249 100% per offense 7 Inspection If Case Has Not Been Abated After Initial Inspection 2.00 x $166 = $332 $285 86% $332 100% per offense 8 Inspection If Case Has Not Been Abated After Follow-Up Inspection 1.00 x $166 = $166 $118 71% $166 100% per offense 9 Oil Well Annual Inspection Fee 2.00 x $166 = $332 $206 62% $332 100% 10 Hourly Rate For Other Services Not Listed Herein 1.00 x $166 = $166 $212 128% $166 100% per hour 11 Noise Permit $26 No Charge

24 User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
Public Works Fees

25 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost Recovery Analysis Public Works
Fund Division Desc Account No Account Desc Total Adjust Subtotal Notes General Fund Public Works Administration 410010 SALARIES F/T PERM $ 303,604 $ - $ 303,604 General Fund Public Works Administration 410210 SALARIES O/T $ 3,000 $ - $ 3,000 General Fund Public Works Administration 410250 VACATION BUYBACK/MIP $ 9,703 $ - $ 9,703 General Fund Public Works Administration 411100 RETIREMENT $ 33,824 $ - $ 33,824 General Fund Public Works Administration 411140 CITY 457 MATCH $ 840 $ - $ 840 General Fund Public Works Administration 411200 EMPLOYEE INS $ 65,443 $ - $ 65,443 General Fund Public Works Administration 411300 MEDICARE INS $ 5,315 $ - $ 5,315 General Fund Public Works Administration 411500 AUTO ALLOWANCE $ 4,783 $ - $ 4,783 General Fund Public Works Administration 411510 CELL PHONE STIPEND $ 1,125 $ - $ 1,125 General Fund Public Works Administration 421050 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 2,500 $ - $ 2,500 General Fund Public Works Administration 421100 SPECIAL SUPPLIES $ 1,000 $ - $ 1,000 General Fund Public Works Administration 424340 DOCUMENT SCANNING SERVICE $ 500 $ - $ 500 General Fund Public Works Administration 424380 PRINTING SERVICE $ 500 $ - $ 500 General Fund Public Works Administration 424400 PUBLICATION/ADVERTISING $ 500 $ - $ 500 General Fund Public Works Administration 425500 POSTAGE SERVICE $ 250 $ - $ 250 General Fund Public Works Administration 426050 TRAVEL/MEETINGS/SEMINARS $ 9,000 $ - $ 9,000 General Fund Public Works Administration 426250 DUES/PUBLICATIONS $ 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 General Fund Public Works Administration 431480 MISC ENGINEERING SERVICE $ 10,000 $ - $ 10,000 General Fund Public Works Administration 431950 MISC CONSULTANT SERVICE $ 120,000 $ - $ 120,000 General Fund Public Works Administration 461100 OFFICE EQUIP/FURNITURE $ 1,500 $ - $ 1,500 $ 578,387 $ - $ 578,387
Allocation of Central Services
Description
Indirect
Rate Salaries Total Adjust Subtotal Notes
Citywide Overhead Rate 25% $ 350,131 $ 87,533 $ - $ 87,533 Total $ 87,533 $ - $ 87,533
Allocation of Department Administration
Description Total Adjust Subtotal Notes
Department Administration $ 578,387 $ - $ 578,387
Total $ 578,387 $ - $ 578,387
Total Costs for Allocation
Description Total Adjust Subtotal
Project
Development Notes
Direct Costs $ 578,387 $ - $ 578,387
Citywide Overhead Costs $ 87,533 $ - $ 87,533
Total $ 665,920 $ - $ 665,920 $ 158,896

26 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Public Works Division Position Hourly FTE Yearly
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE
Total
Productive Notes
Administrative Secretary $37 0.30 $23,054 2,080 216 1,864 559 [a],[b] Assistant Engineer $53 1.65 $182,992 2,080 216 1,864 3,076 [a],[b] Deputy Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer $95 0.45 $88,652 2,080 216 1,864 839 [a],[b] Principal Civil Engineer $79 0.60 $98,446 2,080 216 1,864 1,118 [a],[b] Public Works Director/City Engineer $111 0.10 $23,029 2,080 216 1,864 186 [a],[b] Public Works Superintendent $82 0.10 $17,120 2,080 216 1,864 186 [a],[b] Senior Office Assistant $31 0.10 $6,390 2,080 216 1,864 186 [a],[b] Senior Public Works Inspector $50 1.00 $104,868 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Traffic Engineering Manager $86 0.10 $17,840 2,080 216 1,864 186 [a],[b] Total 4.40 $562,391 8,202
Total Productive Hours Total Notes
In-House 8,202
Total 8,202
Allocation of Hours Share Total Notes
Indirect 37% 3,035 [b]
Direct 63% 5,167 [b]
Total 100% 8,202
[a] Source: FY 24/25 authorized positions.
[b] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities. [c] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract service providers.

27 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Public Works Division Recurring Expenditures [a]
Fund Division Account Acct Desc Budget Adjust Total Notes General Fund Project Development 410010 SALARIES F/T PERM $570,378 $0 $570,378 General Fund Project Development 410210 SALARIES O/T $4,000 $0 $4,000 General Fund Project Development 410250 VACATION BUYBACK/MIP $10,325 $0 $10,325 General Fund Project Development 411100 RETIREMENT $51,681 $0 $51,681 General Fund Project Development 411140 CITY 457 MATCH $2,580 $0 $2,580 General Fund Project Development 411200 EMPLOYEE INS $144,725 $0 $144,725 General Fund Project Development 411300 MEDICARE INS $10,183 $0 $10,183 General Fund Project Development 411500 AUTO ALLOWANCE $1,993 $0 $1,993 General Fund Project Development 411510 CELL PHONE STIPEND $1,173 $0 $1,173 General Fund Project Development 426050 TRAVEL/MEETINGS/SEMINARS $5,500 $0 $5,500 General Fund Project Development 426250 DUES/PUBLICATIONS $1,500 $0 $1,500 General Fund Project Development 431480 MISC ENGINEERING SERVICE $40,000 $0 $40,000 General Fund Project Development 431510 REAL PROPERTY SERVICE $3,000 $0 $3,000 General Fund Project Development 431520 SOILS ENGINEER $5,000 $0 $5,000 General Fund Project Development 431560 TRACT MAP/PLAN CHECK $10,000 $0 $10,000 General Fund Project Development 433200 TEMPORARY INSPECTION SERVICE $35,000 $0 $35,000 Total $897,038 $0 $897,038
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
C'wide OH
Rate Mod Op Exp
Allocation of
C'wide OH Notes
Citywide Overhead Allocation 25% $897,038 $224,260 [b]

28 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Public Works Division Allocation of Total Costs
Description Total Share Notes
Direct Expenses $897,038 70%
Allocation of Citywide Overhead $224,260 18%
Department Administration $158,896 12%
Total $1,280,194 100%
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort
Description Total Total Notes
Indirect: General Admin; Mgmt.; Policies; Procedures; Training; Public Info 35% $448,068 [c] Direct: Engineering Plan Review, Permit Processing, Inspections 65% $832,126 [c] Total 100% $1,280,194
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort Among Core Services
Description Total Total Notes
Development Engineering and Encroachments 75% $960,145 [c] CIP / Non-Fee Related 25% $320,048 [c]
Total 100% $1,280,194
Revenue Summary
Acct Acct Desc FY 21/22 Actual FY 22/23 Actual FY 23/24 Actual Multi-Year
Average
FY 24/25
Budget
FY 25/26
Budget
362010 GRADING PLAN CHECKS $ (1,580) $ - $ 285 $ (432) $ 30,000 $ 15,000 362020 GRADING PERMITS $ 811 $ 1,187 $ 1,453 $ 1,150 $ 1,725 $ 1,725 362030 EXCAVATION PERMITS $ 285,157 $ 299,148 $ 252,037 $ 278,781 $ 220,000 $ 250,000 362040 FINAL MAP CHECK $ (1,214) $ - $ 32 $ (394) $ 13,000 $ 1,000 362050 PUBLIC IMPROVE PLAN CHECK $ (3,000) $ - $ - $ (1,000) $ 5,750 $ 1,000 362060 PUBLIC IMPROVE INSPECTION $ 23,145 $ 4,255 $ 3,309 $ 10,236 362070 GRADING INSPECTIONS $ 8,533 $ 15,563 $ 15,497 $ 13,197 $ 25,000 $ 15,000 362080 TRANSPORTATION PERMITS $ 4,350 $ 3,904 $ 2,746 $ 3,667 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 362090 MISC ENGINEERING FEES $ 29,977 $ 34,140 $ 20,727 $ 28,281 $ 37,000 $ 40,000 Total $346,179 $358,196 $296,086 $333,487 $337,475 $328,725

29 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Public Works Division Aggregate Cost Recovery Rate based on Budget Expenditures Description Total
Average Revenue $333,487
Expenditures $960,145
Cost Recovery Rate 35%
General Fund Subsidy $626,659
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total
Costs $1,280,194
Direct Hours 5,167
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $248
Calculation of Cost Multiplier for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate (Apply to Base Salary Cost Per Hour) Description FTE
Annual Hours
Per FTE
Total Annual
Hours
Estimated
Salaries
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming Total
Annual Hours
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Indirect Cost
Rate Multiplier
(ICR)
Engineering 4.40 2,080 9,152 $562,391 $61 $248 4.04
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate by Position
Position Total Salaries Total FTE
Avg Salary
Per FTE
Avg Salary
Per Hour
ICR for FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Administrative Secretary $23,054 0.30 $76,848 $37 4.04 $149 Assistant Engineer $182,992 1.65 $110,904 $53 4.04 $215 Deputy Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer$88,652 0.45 $197,004 $95 4.04 $382 Principal Civil Engineer $98,446 0.60 $164,076 $79 4.04 $318 Public Works Director/City Engineer $23,029 0.10 $230,292 $111 4.04 $447 Public Works Superintendent $17,120 0.10 $171,204 $82 4.04 $332 Senior Office Assistant $6,390 0.10 $63,900 $31 4.04 $124 Senior Public Works Inspector $104,868 1.00 $104,868 $50 4.04 $203 Traffic Engineering Manager $17,840 0.10 $178,404 $86 4.04 $346 [a] Source: FY 25/26 Adopted Budget.
[b] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate for analysis purposes only. [c] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities.

30 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
Annual
Volume PW DEV PW TRAFFIC
PW
Inspection
(incl. NPDES) LMAD Review
LMAD
Inspection
PW
O&M
Parks & Rec
Trails Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc

ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
1 Curb Drain 8 0.50 0.00 0.50 x $248 = $124
2 Driveway Approach 5 0.67 0.00 0.67 x $248 = $165
3 Trail 2 0.50 0.00 0.50 x $248 = $124
4 Minor (i.e. Sidewalk) 306 1.75 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 7.75 x $248 = $1,922 Local and Collector Classifications (1/8 mile radius)
Includes traffic control per CAMUTCD typical layouts
Grading up to 250 sq ft
AC and PCC pavement up to 250 sq ft Curb and gutter 150 ft Trenches up to 150 ft
(a) Base Fee 306 1.75 0.00 2.00 3.75 x $248 = $930
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 5 Minor w/ (Traffic Control Only) Up to Primary Roadway Classifications CAMUTCD typical layouts
a) Up to two stages 120 0.75 1.00 1.00 2.75 x $248 = $682 b) Three or more (3+) stages 0.75 1.25 1.50 3.50 x $248 = $868 6 Moderate
Up to Major Roadway Classifications
Includes traffic control per CAMUTCD typical layouts and Traffic Control Plan Grading up to 1,000 sq ft
AC and PCC pavement up to 1,000 sq ft Curb and gutter 500 ft Trenches up to 500 ft
(a) Base Fee 26 3.00 3.00 5.00 11.00 x $248 = $2,728
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 2.00 1.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 7 Moderate w/ Traffic Control Only - Up to Major Roadway Classifications and Intersections Traffic control plan
a) Up to two stages 6 1.00 3.75 2.00 6.75 x $248 = $1,674 b) Three or more (3+) stages 1.00 4.00 2.50 7.50 x $248 = $1,860

31 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description

ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
1 Curb Drain
2 Driveway Approach
3 Trail
4 Minor (i.e. Sidewalk)
Local and Collector Classifications (1/8 mile radius)
Includes traffic control per CAMUTCD typical layouts
Grading up to 250 sq ft
AC and PCC pavement up to 250 sq ft Curb and gutter 150 ft Trenches up to 150 ft
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
5 Minor w/ (Traffic Control Only) Up to Primary Roadway Classifications CAMUTCD typical layouts
a) Up to two stages
b) Three or more (3+) stages
6 Moderate
Up to Major Roadway Classifications
Includes traffic control per CAMUTCD typical layouts and Traffic Control Plan Grading up to 1,000 sq ft
AC and PCC pavement up to 1,000 sq ft Curb and gutter 500 ft Trenches up to 500 ft
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
7 Moderate w/ Traffic Control Only - Up to Major Roadway Classifications and Intersections Traffic control plan
a) Up to two stages
b) Three or more (3+) stages
Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note

$0 0% $0 0% FLAT [a]
$143 86% $143 86% FLAT
$0 0% $0 0% FLAT [a]
$902 47%

$876 94% $930 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT

$468 69% $682 100% FLAT
NEW $868 100% FLAT

$2,688 99% $2,728 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
$1,523 91% $1,674 100% FLAT
NEW $1,860 100% FLAT

32 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
Annual
Volume PW DEV PW TRAFFIC
PW
Inspection
(incl. NPDES) LMAD Review
LMAD
Inspection
PW
O&M
Parks & Rec
Trails Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc
8 Major (square footage-based)
Up to Smart Street Roadway Classifications
Includes Traffic Control Plans, Grading greater than 1,000 sq ft, and AC and PCC pavement greater than 1,000 sq ft
a) Up to 5,000 linear ft or up to 10,000 sq ft 5 13.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 29.00 x $248 = $7,192 (i) Base Fee 13.00 2.00 3.00 18.00 x $248 = $4,464
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 4.00 3.00 7.00 x $248 = $1,736 (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 b) each additional 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof
b) Up to 25,000 linear ft or up to 50,000 sq ft 5,001 to 25,000 linear ft or 10,001 to 50,000 sq ft
2 21.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 45.00 x $248 = $11,160 (i) Base Fee 21.00 4.00 5.00 30.00 x $248 = $7,440
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 6.00 5.00 11.00 x $248 = $2,728 (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 d) each additional 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof
c) Up to 50,000 linear ft or up to 100,000 sq ft 25,001 to 50,000 linear ft or 50,001 to 100,000 sq ft
1 30.50 6.00 7.00 12.00 7.00 3.00 3.00 68.50 x $248 = $16,988 (i) Base Fee 30.50 6.00 7.00 43.50 x $248 = $10,788
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 12.00 7.00 19.00 x $248 = $4,712 (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 (iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 f) each additional 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof

33 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
8 Major (square footage-based)
Up to Smart Street Roadway Classifications
Includes Traffic Control Plans, Grading greater than 1,000 sq ft, and AC and PCC pavement greater than 1,000 sq ft
a) Up to 5,000 linear ft or up to 10,000 sq ft
(i) Base Fee
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
b) each additional 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof
b) Up to 25,000 linear ft or up to 50,000 sq ft 5,001 to 25,000 linear ft or 10,001 to 50,000 sq ft
(i) Base Fee
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
d) each additional 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof
c) Up to 50,000 linear ft or up to 100,000 sq ft 25,001 to 50,000 linear ft or 50,001 to 100,000 sq ft
(i) Base Fee
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
f) each additional 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof
Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note

$4,265 59%

$4,265 96% $4,464 100% FLAT
NEW $1,736 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
$72

$7,130 64%

$7,130 96% $7,440 100% FLAT
NEW $2,728 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
$64

$10,342 61%

$10,342 96% $10,788 100% FLAT
NEW $4,712 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
$12

34 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
Annual
Volume PW DEV PW TRAFFIC
PW
Inspection
(incl. NPDES) LMAD Review
LMAD
Inspection
PW
O&M
Parks & Rec
Trails Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc
d) Up to 250,000 linear ft or up to 500,000 sq ft 50,001 to 250,000 linear ft or 100,001 to 500,000 sq ft
1 38.50 12.00 12.00 18.00 10.00 3.00 3.00 96.50 x $248 = $23,932 (i) Base Fee 38.50 12.00 12.00 62.50 x $248 = $15,500
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 18.00 10.00 28.00 x $248 = $6,944 (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 (iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 h) each additional 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof
e) Up to 500,000 linear ft or up to 1,000,000 sq ft 1 43.50 24.00 20.00 24.00 16.00 5.00 5.00 137.50 x $248 = $34,100 (i) Base Fee 43.50 24.00 20.00 87.50 x $248 = $21,700
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 24.00 16.00 40.00 x $248 = $9,920 (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 5.00 5.00 x $248 = $1,240 (iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 5.00 5.00 x $248 = $1,240 j) each additional 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof
9 Major (linear footage-based)
Up to Smart Street Roadway Classifications
Includes Traffic Control Plans, Curb and gutter greater than 500 ft, and Trenches greater than 500 ft
a) Up to 5,000 LF 13.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 29.00 x $248 = $7,192 (i) Base Fee 13.00 2.00 3.00 18.00 x $248 = $4,464
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 4.00 3.00 7.00 x $248 = $1,736 (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 b) each additional 1,000 LF or fraction thereof

35 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
d) Up to 250,000 linear ft or up to 500,000 sq ft 50,001 to 250,000 linear ft or 100,001 to 500,000 sq ft
(i) Base Fee
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
h) each additional 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof
e) Up to 500,000 linear ft or up to 1,000,000 sq ft
(i) Base Fee
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
j) each additional 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof
9 Major (linear footage-based)
Up to Smart Street Roadway Classifications
Includes Traffic Control Plans, Curb and gutter greater than 500 ft, and Trenches greater than 500 ft
a) Up to 5,000 LF
(i) Base Fee
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
b) each additional 1,000 LF or fraction thereof
Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note
$14,959 63%
$14,959 97% $15,500 100% FLAT
NEW $6,944 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
$12

$21,156 62%

$21,156 97% $21,700 100% FLAT
NEW $9,920 100% FLAT
NEW $1,240 100% FLAT
NEW $1,240 100% FLAT
$20

$4,265 59%

$4,265 96% $4,464 100% FLAT
NEW $1,736 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
$72

36 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
Annual
Volume PW DEV PW TRAFFIC
PW
Inspection
(incl. NPDES) LMAD Review
LMAD
Inspection
PW
O&M
Parks & Rec
Trails Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc
b) 5,001 to 25,000 LF 21.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 45.00 x $248 = $11,160 (i) Base Fee 21.00 4.00 5.00 30.00 x $248 = $7,440
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 6.00 5.00 11.00 x $248 = $2,728 (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 d) each additional 1,000 LF or fraction thereof
c) 25,001 to 50,000 LF 30.50 6.00 7.00 12.00 7.00 3.00 3.00 68.50 x $248 = $16,988 (i) Base Fee 30.50 6.00 7.00 43.50 x $248 = $10,788
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 12.00 7.00 19.00 x $248 = $4,712 (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 (iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 f) each additional 1,000 LF or fraction thereof
d) 50,001 to 250,000 LF 38.50 12.00 12.00 18.00 10.00 3.00 3.00 96.50 x $248 = $23,932 (i) Base Fee 38.50 12.00 12.00 62.50 x $248 = $15,500
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 18.00 10.00 28.00 x $248 = $6,944 (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 (iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 h) each additional 1,000 LF or fraction thereof

37 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
b) 5,001 to 25,000 LF
(i) Base Fee
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
d) each additional 1,000 LF or fraction thereof
c) 25,001 to 50,000 LF
(i) Base Fee
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
f) each additional 1,000 LF or fraction thereof
d) 50,001 to 250,000 LF
(i) Base Fee
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
h) each additional 1,000 LF or fraction thereof
Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note
$7,130 64%
$7,130 96% $7,440 100% FLAT
NEW $2,728 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
$64

$10,342 61%

$10,342 96% $10,788 100% FLAT
NEW $4,712 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
$12

$14,959 63%

$14,959 97% $15,500 100% FLAT
NEW $6,944 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
$12

38 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
Annual
Volume PW DEV PW TRAFFIC
PW
Inspection
(incl. NPDES) LMAD Review
LMAD
Inspection
PW
O&M
Parks & Rec
Trails Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc
e) 250,001 to 500,000 LF 43.50 24.00 20.00 24.00 16.00 5.00 5.00 137.50 x $248 = $34,100 (i) Base Fee 45.00 24.00 20.00 89.00 x $248 = $22,072
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 24.00 16.00 40.00 x $248 = $9,920 (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 5.00 5.00 x $248 = $1,240 (iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 5.00 5.00 x $248 = $1,240 j) each additional 1,000 LF or fraction thereof
10 Major w/ Traffic Control Only - Up to Smart Street Roadway Classifications and Intersections Traffic control plan
a) Up to two stages 1 2.00 5.00 3.00 10.00 x $248 = $2,480 b) Three or more (3+) stages 3.00 5.50 4.00 12.50 x $248 = $3,100

GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Including but not limited to Geotechnical Reports, Hydrology and Hydraulics Reports, Water Quality Management Plan, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Miscellaneous Technical Documents, etc.
11 Subdivision/2+ Lots Rough Grade Plan
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 13 24.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 30.00 x $248 = $7,440 (a) Base Fee 24.25 24.25 x $248 = $6,014
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 6.00 0.00 6.00 x $248 = $1,488 ii) Consultant Costs

39 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
e) 250,001 to 500,000 LF
(i) Base Fee
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(iv) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
j) each additional 1,000 LF or fraction thereof
10 Major w/ Traffic Control Only - Up to Smart Street Roadway Classifications and Intersections Traffic control plan
a) Up to two stages
b) Three or more (3+) stages

GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Including but not limited to Geotechnical Reports, Hydrology and Hydraulics Reports, Water Quality Management Plan, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Miscellaneous Technical Documents, etc.
11 Subdivision/2+ Lots Rough Grade Plan
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
ii) Consultant Costs
Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note
$21,156 62%
$21,156 96% $22,072 100% FLAT
NEW $9,920 100% FLAT
NEW $1,240 100% FLAT
NEW $1,240 100% FLAT
$20

$2,171 88% $2,480 100% FLAT
NEW $3,100 100% FLAT

$5,994 81%

$5,994 100% $6,014 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
$6,368 $6,500 DEPOSIT
$1,402 94% $1,488 100% FLAT
$1,592 $1,600 DEPOSIT

40 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
Annual
Volume PW DEV PW TRAFFIC
PW
Inspection
(incl. NPDES) LMAD Review
LMAD
Inspection
PW
O&M
Parks & Rec
Trails Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc
12 Subdivision/2+ Lots Precise Grade Plan
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 11.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 17.00 x $248 = $4,216 (a) Base Fee 11.00 0.00 11.00 x $248 = $2,728
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 2.75 0.00 2.75 x $248 = $682 ii) Consultant Costs
13 Single Lot Precise Grade Plan
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 4.25 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 10.25 x $248 = $2,542 (a) Base Fee 4.25 0.00 4.25 x $248 = $1,054
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 1.00 0.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 ii) Consultant Costs

41 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
12 Subdivision/2+ Lots Precise Grade Plan
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
ii) Consultant Costs
13 Single Lot Precise Grade Plan
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
ii) Consultant Costs
Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note

$1,402 33%

$2,570 94% $2,728 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
$4,246 $4,300 DEPOSIT

$643 94% $682 100% EACH
$1,062 $1,100 DEPOSIT

$2,570 101%

$993 94% $1,054 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
$1,820 $2,000 DEPOSIT
$189 76% $248 100% EACH
$455 $1,000 DEPOSIT

42 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
Annual
Volume PW DEV PW TRAFFIC
PW
Inspection
(incl. NPDES) LMAD Review
LMAD
Inspection
PW
O&M
Parks & Rec
Trails Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc
14 Stockpile Plan
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 3.25 0.00 3.25 x $248 = $806 ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248
ii) Consultant Costs

IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW
Including, but not limited to, Street, Storm Drain, Landscaping, Signing & Striping, Traffic Signal, Traffic Control Plan, etc.
15 Improvement Plan - Minor Up To 10 Sheets
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 2 12.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 30.00 x $248 = $7,440 (a) Base Fee 10.00 6.00 16.00 x $248 = $3,968
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 6.00 6.00 x $248 = $1,488 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 2 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 x $248 = $1,488 (a) Base Fee 2.00 1.00 3.00 x $248 = $744
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 ii) Consultant Costs

43 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
14 Stockpile Plan
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
ii) Consultant Costs

IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW
Including, but not limited to, Street, Storm Drain, Landscaping, Signing & Striping, Traffic Signal, Traffic Control Plan, etc.
15 Improvement Plan - Minor Up To 10 Sheets
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs
Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note

$759 94% $806 100% FLAT
$1,820 $1,900 DEPOSIT

$189 76% $248 100% EACH
$455 $500 DEPOSIT

$1,873 25%

$1,873 47% $3,968 100% FLAT
NEW $1,488 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
$1,820 $1,900 DEPOSIT

$702 47%
$702 94% $744 100% EACH
NEW $248 100% EACH
NEW $248 100% EACH
NEW $248 100% EACH
$455 $500 DEPOSIT

44 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
Annual
Volume PW DEV PW TRAFFIC
PW
Inspection
(incl. NPDES) LMAD Review
LMAD
Inspection
PW
O&M
Parks & Rec
Trails Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc
16 Improvement Plan - Moderate Up To 20 Sheets
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 18.00 8.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 42.00 x $248 = $10,416 (a) Base Fee 18.00 8.00 26.00 x $248 = $6,448
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 8.00 8.00 x $248 = $1,984 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 4.00 4.00 x $248 = $992 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 4.00 4.00 x $248 = $992 ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 4.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 x $248 = $2,480 (a) Base Fee 4.00 2.00 6.00 x $248 = $1,488
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 ii) Consultant Costs
17 Improvement Plan - Major Over 20 Sheets - Up To Three Plan Checks a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 24.00 16.00 16.00 6.00 6.00 68.00 x $248 = $16,864 (a) Base Fee 24.00 16.00 40.00 x $248 = $9,920
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 16.00 16.00 x $248 = $3,968 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 6.00 6.00 x $248 = $1,488 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 6.00 6.00 x $248 = $1,488 ii) Consultant Costs

45 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
16 Improvement Plan - Moderate Up To 20 Sheets
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs
17 Improvement Plan - Major Over 20 Sheets - Up To Three Plan Checks a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs
Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note

$4,098 39%

$4,098 64% $6,448 100% FLAT
NEW $1,984 100% FLAT
NEW $992 100% FLAT
NEW $992 100% FLAT
$5,762 $6,000 DEPOSIT

$1,025 41%

$1,025 69% $1,488 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $248 100% FLAT
NEW $248 100% FLAT
$1,441 $1,500 DEPOSIT

$7,258 43%
$7,258 73% $9,920 100% FLAT
NEW $3,968 100% FLAT
NEW $1,488 100% FLAT
NEW $1,488 100% FLAT
$10,917 $10,917 DEPOSIT

46 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
Annual
Volume PW DEV PW TRAFFIC
PW
Inspection
(incl. NPDES) LMAD Review
LMAD
Inspection
PW
O&M
Parks & Rec
Trails Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 7.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 13.00 x $248 = $3,224 (a) Base Fee 7.00 2.00 9.00 x $248 = $2,232
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 ii) Consultant Costs

MAPPING INSTRUMENTS
18 Parcel and Tract Maps
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 19 12.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 18.00 x $248 = $4,464 (a) Base Fee 12.00 0.00 12.00 x $248 = $2,976
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 3.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 x $248 = $1,488 (a) Base Fee 3.00 0.00 3.00 x $248 = $744
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 ii) Consultant Costs

47 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs

MAPPING INSTRUMENTS
18 Parcel and Tract Maps
a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs
Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note
$1,814 56%

$1,814 81% $2,232 100% EACH
NEW $496 100% EACH
NEW $248 100% EACH
NEW $248 100% EACH
$2,729 $2,800 DEPOSIT

$2,918 65%

$2,918 98% $2,976 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
$3,033 $3,100 DEPOSIT

$674 45%
$674 91% $744 100% FLAT
NEW $248 100% FLAT
NEW $248 100% FLAT
NEW $248 100% FLAT
$758 $800 DEPOSIT

48 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
Annual
Volume PW DEV PW TRAFFIC
PW
Inspection
(incl. NPDES) LMAD Review
LMAD
Inspection
PW
O&M
Parks & Rec
Trails Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc
19 Lot Line Adjustments, Quitclaim Deeds, Grant Deeds, etc. a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 8.00 0.00 8.00 3.00 3.00 22.00 x $248 = $5,456 (a) Base Fee 8.00 0.00 8.00 x $248 = $1,984
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 8.00 8.00 x $248 = $1,984 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee 2.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 x $248 = $1,488 (a) Base Fee 2.00 0.00 2.00 x $248 = $496
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 (c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 (d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 1.00 1.00 x $248 = $248 ii) Consultant Costs

49 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
19 Lot Line Adjustments, Quitclaim Deeds, Grant Deeds, etc. a) Up to 3 Reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs
b) 4th and subsequent reviews
i) City Administrative Fee
(a) Base Fee
(b) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(c) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(d) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
ii) Consultant Costs
Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note

$1,519 28%

$1,519 77% $1,984 100% FLAT
NEW $1,984 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
$2,426 $2,500 DEPOSIT

$381 26%
$381 77% $496 100% EACH
NEW $496 100% EACH
NEW $248 100% EACH
NEW $248 100% EACH
$606 $700 DEPOSIT

50 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
Annual
Volume PW DEV PW TRAFFIC
PW
Inspection
(incl. NPDES) LMAD Review
LMAD
Inspection
PW
O&M
Parks & Rec
Trails Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc

AGREEMENTS, REPORTS, AND STUDIES
20 Subdivision Improvement Agreements and Bonds, Encroachment Agreements, Covenants, Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (DORC), Vacations, Traffic Studies, Environmental Studies, Resolutions, Council Staff Reports, etc. a) City Administrative Fee (pending type of document) LMAD, Including PW O&M & Parks & Rec Trails

16.00 12.00 16.00 4.00 4.00 52.00 x $248 = $12,896
(i) Base Fee 8.00 8.00 x $248 = $1,984
(ii) City Council Approval, addt'l if needed 12.00 12.00 x $248 = $2,976 (iii) Traffic Commission, addt'l if needed 8.00 8.00 x $248 = $1,984 (iii) LMAD Review, Vacations, & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 12.00 12.00 x $248 = $2,976 (iv) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 4.00 4.00 x $248 = $992 (v) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 4.00 4.00 x $248 = $992 b) City Administrative Fee (pending type of document) Including PW O&M 16.00 12.00 16.00 4.00 48.00 x $248 = $11,904 (i) Base Fee 16.00 12.00 28.00 x $248 = $6,944
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 16.00 16.00 x $248 = $3,968 (iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 4.00 4.00 x $248 = $992 c) City Administrative Fee (pending type of document) Including PW Parks & Rec Trails

16.00 12.00 16.00 4.00 48.00 x $248 = $11,904
(i) Base Fee 16.00 12.00 28.00 x $248 = $6,944
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed 16.00 16.00 x $248 = $3,968 (iii) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed 4.00 4.00 x $248 = $992 b) City Attorney review
c) Consultant Costs

51 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description

AGREEMENTS, REPORTS, AND STUDIES
20 Subdivision Improvement Agreements and Bonds, Encroachment Agreements, Covenants, Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (DORC), Vacations, Traffic Studies, Environmental Studies, Resolutions, Council Staff Reports, etc. a) City Administrative Fee (pending type of document) LMAD, Including PW O&M & Parks & Rec Trails
(i) Base Fee
(ii) City Council Approval, addt'l if needed
(iii) Traffic Commission, addt'l if needed
(iii) LMAD Review, Vacations, & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed (iv) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
(v) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
b) City Administrative Fee (pending type of document) Including PW O&M (i) Base Fee
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(iii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
c) City Administrative Fee (pending type of document) Including PW Parks & Rec Trails
(i) Base Fee
(ii) LMAD Review & Plan Inspection, addt'l if needed
(iii) Parks & Rec Trails Review, addt'l if needed
b) City Attorney review
c) Consultant Costs
Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note

$1,286 10%

$1,286 65% $1,984 100% FLAT
NEW $2,976 100% FLAT
NEW $1,984 100% FLAT
NEW $2,976 100% FLAT
NEW $992 100% FLAT
NEW $992 100% FLAT
$1,286 11%

$1,286 11%

Actual Expected
Costs
Actual Expected
Costs

DEPOSIT
Actual Expected
Costs
Actual Expected
Costs

DEPOSIT

52 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description
Annual
Volume PW DEV PW TRAFFIC
PW
Inspection
(incl. NPDES) LMAD Review
LMAD
Inspection
PW
O&M
Parks & Rec
Trails Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc

INSPECTION
21 Grading Inspection Including Rough and Precise Grade a) Subdivision Tracts Over 25 Lots 0.00 0.00 74.00 74.00 x $248 = $18,352 b) Subdivision Tracts 5 To 25 Lots 0.00 0.00 40.50 40.50 x $248 = $10,044 c) Subdivision Parcels 2 To 4 Lots 0.00 0.00 19.00 19.00 x $248 = $4,712 d) Single Residential Lot 14 0.00 0.00 5.50 5.50 x $248 = $1,364 e) Single Commercial Lot 0.00 0.00 6.50 6.50 x $248 = $1,612 f) Stockpile 0.00 0.00 5.50 5.50 x $248 = $1,364
22 Improvement Inspection (square footage-based)
a) Up to 10,000 SF 0.00 0.00 9.50 2.00 11.50 x $248 = $2,852 (i) Base Fee 11.00 11.00 x $248 = $2,728
(ii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 2.00 2.00 x $248 = $496 b) each additional 1,000 SF or fraction thereof
b) 10,001 - 50,000 SF 0.00 0.00 14.50 3.00 17.50 x $248 = $4,340 (i) Base Fee 16.50 16.50 x $248 = $4,092
(ii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 3.00 3.00 x $248 = $744 d) each additional 1,000 SF or fraction thereof
c) 50,001 to 100,000 SF 0.00 0.00 28.00 4.00 32.00 x $248 = $7,936 (i) Base Fee 30.25 30.25 x $248 = $7,502
(ii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed 4.00 4.00 x $248 = $992 f) each additional 1,000 SF or fraction thereof

53 City of Yorba Linda
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Public Works Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Estimated Service Times
Fee Description

INSPECTION
21 Grading Inspection Including Rough and Precise Grade a) Subdivision Tracts Over 25 Lots
b) Subdivision Tracts 5 To 25 Lots
c) Subdivision Parcels 2 To 4 Lots
d) Single Residential Lot
e) Single Commercial Lot
f) Stockpile
22 Improvement Inspection (square footage-based)
a) Up to 10,000 SF
(i) Base Fee
(ii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
b) each additional 1,000 SF or fraction thereof
b) 10,001 - 50,000 SF
(i) Base Fee
(ii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
d) each additional 1,000 SF or fraction thereof
c) 50,001 to 100,000 SF
(i) Base Fee
(ii) PW O&M Review, addt'l if needed
f) each additional 1,000 SF or fraction thereof
Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Note
[b]
$17,449 95% $18,352 100% FLAT
$9,619 96% $10,044 100% FLAT
$4,596 98% $4,712 100% FLAT
$1,323 97% $1,364 100% FLAT
NEW $1,612 100% FLAT
$1,323 97% $1,364 100% FLAT

[b]
$2,688 94%

$2,688 99% $2,728 100% FLAT
NEW $496 100% FLAT
$35

$4,090 94%

$4,090 100% $4,092 100% FLAT
NEW $744 100% FLAT
$67

$7,479 94%

$7,479 100% $7,502 100% FLAT
NEW $992 100% FLAT
$16