Yorba Linda City Council
June 16, 2026

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zone L-2M

Local Landscaping Zone L-2N

Local Landscaping Zone L-2O

Local Landscaping Zone L-2P

Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 201 201 - 201.0000
Non-Residential Developed 9 - 9.065 27.1950
Exempt 18 - 9.641 -
Totals 228 201 18.706 228.1950
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Non-Residential Developed 2 - 22.740 68.2200
Park 2 - 10.000 7.5000
Special Case 1 - 1.102 0.8265
Exempt 1 - 3.493 -
Totals 6 - 37.335 76.5465
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 225 225 - 225.0000
Exempt 14 - 3.727 -
Totals 239 225 3.727 225.0000
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 88 88 - 88.0000
Park 1 - 2.480 1.8600
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 1 - 0.046 0.0345
Exempt 7 - 5.819 -
Totals 97 88 8.345 89.8945

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zone L-2Q

Local Landscaping Zone L-2R

Local Landscaping Zone L-2S

Local Landscaping Zone L-2T

Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 315 315 - 315.0000
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 2 - 4.161 3.1208
Exempt 13 - 3.763 -
Totals 330 315 7.924 318.1208
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 193 193 - 193.0000
Park 1 - 0.758 0.5685
Exempt 6 - 2.870 -
Totals 200 193 3.628 193.5685
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 118 118 - 118.0000
Non-Residential Developed 1 - 23.477 70.4310
Exempt 6 - 0.439 -
Totals 125 118 23.916 188.4310
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 274 274 - 274.0000
Exempt 10 - 5.943 -
Totals 284 274 5.943 274.0000

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zone L-2U

Local Landscaping Zone L-2V

Local Landscaping Zone L-3

Local Landscaping Zone L-4A

Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 117 117 - 117.0000
Exempt 1 - 0.388 -
Totals 118 117 0.388 117.0000
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 234 234 - 234.0000
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 14 - 18.492 13.8693
Exempt 20 - 26.733 -
Totals 268 234 45.225 247.8693
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Multi-Family 1 69 - 55.2000
Non-Residential Developed 63 - 152.288 456.8640
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 5 - 6.531 4.8984
Exempt 20 - 55.108 -
Totals 89 69 213.927 516.9624
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 140 140 - 140.0000
Park 1 - 2.537 1.9028
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 1 - 0.103 0.0773
Exempt 8 - 7.111 -
Totals 150 140 9.751 141.9801

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zone L-4B

Local Landscaping Zone L-5A

Local Landscaping Zone L-5B

Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 100 100 - 100.0000
Park 2 - 1.197 0.8978
Exempt 3 - 3.716 -
Totals 105 100 4.913 100.8978
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 745 745 - 745.0000
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 9 - 25.338 19.0038
Exempt 43 - 89.979 -
Totals 797 745 115.317 764.0038
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 1,131 1,131 - 1,131.0000
School (Public/Private) 1 - 11.230 16.8450
Park 2 - 10.000 7.5000
Golf Course 7 - 26.172 39.2580
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 7 - 26.977 20.2329
Exempt 112 - 146.935 -
Totals 1,260 1,131 221.314 1,214.8359

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zone L-5C

Arterial Landscaping Zones
Arterial Landscaping Zone A-1

Arterial Landscaping Zone A-2

Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 689 689 - 689.0000
School (Public/Private) 1 - 16.324 24.4860
Park 3 - 8.542 6.4066
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 1 - 8.934 6.7005
Special Case 1 - 47.150 58.9375
Exempt 46 - 260.637 -
Totals 741 689 341.587 785.5306
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 2,884 2,882 - 2,884.0000
Residential Multi-Family 2 469 - 375.2000
Non-Residential Developed 128 - 237.849 713.5470
School (Public/Private) 1 - 20.483 30.7245
Park 11 - 37.252 27.9391
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 23 - 44.524 33.3933
Exempt 213 - 1,654.758 -
Totals 3,262 3,351 1,994.866 4,064.8039
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 1,058 1,058 - 1,058.0000
Non-Residential Developed 2 - 3.982 11.9460
School (Public/Private) 1 - 0.812 1.2180
Park 5 - 13.560 10.1701
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 3 - 3.555 2.6663
Special Case 1 - 24.244 30.3050
Exempt 34 - 54.652 -
Totals 1,104 1,058 100.805 1,114.3054

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Arterial Landscaping Zone A-3

Arterial Landscaping Zone A-4

Arterial Landscaping Zone A-5

Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 1,230 1,230 - 1,230.0000
Residential Multi-Family 1 124 - 99.2000
Non-Residential Developed 12 - 33.463 100.3890
Park 2 - 10.000 7.5000
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 19 - 39.173 29.3801
Special Case 1 - 1.102 0.8265
Exempt 90 - 842.169 -
Totals 1,355 1,354 925.907 1,467.2956
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 2,714 2,714 - 2,714.0000
Residential Multi-Family 3 164 - 131.2000
Non-Residential Developed 13 - 21.795 65.3850
School (Public/Private) 4 - 42.932 64.3980
Park 10 - 20.469 15.3520
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 20 - 18.584 13.9384
Exempt 85 - 113.764 -
Totals 2,849 2,878 217.544 3,004.2734
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 2,867 2,867 - 2,867.0000
Non-Residential Developed 1 - 23.477 70.4310
School (Public/Private) 1 - 16.324 24.4860
Park 5 - 12.798 9.5986
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 20 - 42.564 31.9233
Special Case 4 - 49.953 61.0398
Exempt 115 - 346.816 -
Totals 3,013 2,867 491.932 3,064.4787

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Arterial Landscaping Zone A-6

Arterial Landscaping Zone A-7

Arterial Landscaping Zone A-8

Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 2,022 1,997 - 2,022.0000
Non-Residential Developed 4 - 44.804 134.4120
School (Public/Private) 1 - 11.230 16.8450
Park 2 - 10.000 7.5000
Golf Course 7 - 26.172 39.2580
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 20 - 49.155 36.8666
Exempt 158 - 241.705 -
Totals 2,214 1,997 383.066 2,256.8816
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 4,701 4,701 - 4,701.0000
Residential Multi-Family 46 393 - 314.4000
Mobile Home Park 2 288 - 144.0000
Non-Residential Developed 167 - 232.649 697.9470
School (Public/Private) 11 - 49.115 73.6725
Park 19 - 41.049 30.7872
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 55 - 32.321 24.2420
Special Case 2 - 0.951 0.7133
Exempt 378 - 105.013 -
Totals 5,381 5,382 461.098 5,986.7620
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 2,252 2,251 - 2,252.0000
Residential Multi-Family 2 4 - 3.2000
Non-Residential Developed 21 - 47.344 142.0320
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 47 - 31.002 23.2526
Exempt 85 - 125.852 -
Totals 2,407 2,255 204.198 2,420.4846

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Arterial Landscaping Zone A-9

Arterial Street Lighting Zone

Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 2,370 2,370 - 2,370.0000
Non-Residential Developed 1 - 4.889 14.6670
Park 2 - 7.967 5.9753
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 1 - 3.789 2.8418
Exempt 84 - 80.278 -
Totals 2,458 2,370 96.923 2,393.4841
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 22,098 22,072 - 22,098.0000
Residential Multi-Family 54 1,154 - 923.2000
Mobile Home Park 2 288 - 144.0000
Non-Residential Developed 349 - 650.252 1,950.7560
School (Public/Private) 19 - 140.896 211.3440
Park 56 - 153.095 114.8223
Golf Course 7 - 26.172 39.2580
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 208 - 264.667 198.5044
Special Case 8 - 76.250 92.8846
Exempt 1,242 - 3,565.007 -
Totals 24,043 23,514 4,876.339 25,772.7693

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Street Lighting Zone

Traffic Signal Zones
Traffic Signal Zone TS-1

Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 18,021 18,018 - 18,021.0000
Residential Multi-Family 48 654 - 523.2000
Mobile Home Park 2 288 - 144.0000
Non-Residential Developed 331 - 622.403 1,867.2090
School (Public/Private) 18 - 135.551 203.3265
Park 49 - 133.774 100.3314
Golf Course 7 - 26.172 39.2580
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 150 - 190.755 143.0694
Special Case 8 - 76.250 92.8846
Exempt 926 - 1,740.883 -
Totals 19,560 18,960 2,925.788 21,134.2789
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 2,884 2,882 - 2,884.0000
Residential Multi-Family 1 400 - 320.0000
Non-Residential Developed 65 - 85.561 256.6830
School (Public/Private) 1 - 20.483 30.7245
Park 11 - 37.252 27.9391
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 22 - 57.993 43.4949
Exempt 196 - 2,090.138 -
Totals 3,180 3,282 2,291.427 3,562.8415

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Traffic Signal Zone TS-2

Traffic Signal Zone TS-3

Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Single-Family 19,214 19,188 - 19,214.0000
Residential Multi-Family 52 685 - 548.0000
Mobile Home Park 2 288 - 144.0000
Non-Residential Developed 221 - 412.403 1,237.2090
School (Public/Private) 18 - 120.413 180.6195
Park 45 - 115.843 86.8832
Golf Course 7 - 26.172 39.2580
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 181 - 200.143 150.1111
Special Case 8 - 76.250 92.8846
Exempt 1,026 - 1,419.761 -
Totals 20,774 20,161 2,370.985 21,692.9654
Land Use Parcels Units
Applied
Acreage EBUs
Residential Multi-Family 1 69 - 55.2000
Non-Residential Developed 63 - 152.288 456.8640
Vacant/Rural (Undeveloped) 5 - 6.531 4.8984
Exempt 20 - 55.108 -
Totals 89 69 213.927 516.9624

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Calculation of Assessments
An assessment amount per EBU in each Zone is calculated by:

Taking the “Total Annual Expenses” (Total budgeted costs) and subtracting the “General Benefit Expenses (City Funded)”, to establish the “Total Eligible Special Benefit Expenses”; Total Annual Expenses – General Benefit Expenses = Total Eligible Special Benefit Expenses To the resulting “Eligible Special Benefit Expenses”, various “Funding Adjustments/Contributions” may be applied that may include, but are not limited to:
 “Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied” represents an adjustment (reduction) in the amount to be collected utilizing ad valorem revenue that may be available for the Zone that was not applied for general benefit expenses.
 “Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection” represents an adjustment (reduction) in the amount to be collected for “Operational Reserve Funding” that was budgeted as part of the Total Annual Expenses.
 “Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection” represents an adjustment (reduction) in the amount to be collected for “CIP & Rehabilitation Reserve Fund Collection” that was budgeted as part of the Total Annual Expenses.
 “Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction” represents an amount of available existing funds from the “Operational Reserve Fund Balances” being applied to pay a portion of the Special Benefit Expenses for the fiscal year.
 “City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments)” represents an advancement (loan) from available City resources to temporarily pay a portion of the Special Benefit Expenses for the fiscal year resulting from unusual or unexpected expenses. This advancement of funds from the City will be repaid from future assessments.  “Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions” represents a further adjustment that addresses the funding gap between the amount budgeted to provide the improvements and services (“Special Benefit Expenses”); and the amount that will be collected through the assessments. This funding gap may be addressed by an additional City contribution, reductions in service and service expenses, or a combination of the two.

These adjustments to the Special Benefit Expenses result in the net special benefit amount to be assessed “Balance to Levy”;
Eligible Special Benefit Expenses +/- Funding Adjustments/Contributions = Balance to Levy The amount identified as the “Balance to Levy” is divided by the total number of EBUs of parcels that benefit to establish the “Assessment Rate” or “Assessment per EBU” for the fiscal year. This Rate is then applied back to each parcel’s individual EBU to calculate the parcel’s proportionate special benefit and assessment for the improvements.

Balance to Levy / Total EBU = Assessment per EBU (Assessment Rate) Assessment per EBU x Parcel EBU = Parcel Assessment Amount

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Annual Inflationary Adjustment (Assessment Range Formula) In fiscal year 1997/1998, in part as a result of Proposition 218, which was approved on the November 1996 statewide ballot and added Article XIII D to the California State Constitution, the City took steps to reorganize the District to more fully reflect the special benefits associated with the District improvements and conducted a protest ballot proceeding for the proposed District assessments. Notices and ballots were mailed to all property owners within the District, outlining the changes to the method of apportionment and the resulting assessment amount proposed for each property and that such assessments would include an annual inflationary adjustment (often referred to as an Assessment Range Formula or escalator) based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). On July 1, 1997, the ballot results were tabulated with eighty-three percent (83%) of the returned assessment ballots approving the assessment rates and annual inflationary adjustment.

The purpose of establishing an Assessment Range Formula is to provide for reasonable increases and inflationary adjustment that are inevitably associated with providing for the maintenance and operation of landscaping and lighting improvements, thereby reducing the need for additional notice and balloting procedures simply because of normal inflationary factors.

The Assessment Range Formula for Local Landscaping Zone L-2V is defined by the following:

In fiscal year 2018/2019 the property owners of record within Local Landscaping Zone L-2V, through a Property Owner Protest Ballot Proceeding, approved a new/increased assessment that included an Assessment Range Formula (inflationary adjustment) that over an initial four year period would increase the maximum assessment rate by the percentage increase to the prevailing wage for Landscape Maintenance Laborer as a result of the State of California’s proposed minimum wage increase adjustments. Over the first four years those adjustments were as follows:
fiscal year 2019/2020 (8.91%); fiscal year 2020/2021 (8.18%); fiscal year 2021/2022 (7.56%); and fiscal year 2022/2023 (7.03%). Commencing in fiscal year 2023/2024 and each fiscal year thereafter, the maximum assessment rate established for the improvements in the prior fiscal year (commencing in fiscal year 2022/2023) may be adjusted by the percentage increase of the Local Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI used for the inflationary adjustment shall be for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area for All Urban Consumers, as developed by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPI used shall be determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a similar period of time.

For fiscal year 2026/2027, the “Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU” identified in the following budgets (“Part III - Estimate of Costs”) for Zone L-2V represents a 3.16% increase to the Maximum Assessment Rate approved in the prior fiscal year fiscal based on the Annual Inflationary Adjustment (Assessment Range Formula) described above.

The Assessment Range Formula for Local Landscaping Zones L-2E, L-4A, L-1B, and L-1A are defined by the following:
 Commencing in fiscal year 2021/2022 and each fiscal year thereafter, the maximum assessment rate established for the improvements in the previous fiscal year in Zones L-2E and L-4A may be adjusted by the percentage increase of the Local Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus three percent (CPI + 3.0%).

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

 Commencing with fiscal year 2025/2026 and each fiscal year thereafter, the maximum assessment rate established for the improvements in the previous fiscal year in Zone L-1B may be adjusted by the percentage increase of the Local Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus three percent (CPI + 3.0%).
 Commencing with fiscal year 2027/2028 and each fiscal year thereafter, the maximum assessment rate established for the improvements in the previous fiscal year in Zone L-1A may be adjusted by the percentage increase of the Local Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus three percent (CPI + 3.0%).

The Consumer Price Index used for the inflationary adjustment shall be the CPI for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA, Area for All Urban Consumers, as developed by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPI applied shall be based on the CPI determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a similar period of time.

Each fiscal year, the City shall identify the annual percentage change in the CPI, using the difference over a 12-month period between the current year and the previous year. This annual percentage change is generally established based on the annual percentage change from the prior year, but a similar 12-month time period may be used if more current data is available. This percentage difference plus three percent (3%) shall then establish the range of increase to the maximum assessment rate allowed for Zone L-1A, Zone L-1B, Zone L-2E, and Zone L-4A. If the percentage change in CPI is negative, the maximum assessment rate may be adjusted from the previous fiscal year by three percent. Should the Bureau of Labor Statistics revise such index or discontinue the preparation of such index, the City may use the revised index or comparable system as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of living.

For fiscal year 2026/2027, the “Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU” identified in the following budgets (“Part III - Estimate of Costs”) for Zones L-1B, L-2E, and L-4A represent a

6.16% increase to the Maximum Assessment Rate adopted in the prior fiscal year fiscal based on the Annual Inflationary Adjustment (Assessment Range Formula) described above, (3.16% CPI + 3.0% = 6.16% ). The fiscal year 2026/2027 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU for Zone L-1A represents the Maximum Assessment Rate approved as part of the public hearing and Protest Ballot Proceeding for the Zone which concluded on May 5, 2026.

The Assessment Range Formula for all other District Zones is defined by the following:

Commencing in fiscal year 1998/1999, and each fiscal year thereafter, the maximum assessment rates established for the improvements in the previous fiscal year for each Zone may be adjusted by the percentage increase of the Local Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI used for the inflationary adjustment shall be for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area for All Urban Consumers, as developed by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPI used shall be determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a similar period of time.

Each fiscal year, the City shall identify the annual percentage change in the CPI, using the difference over a 12-month period between the current year and the previous year. This annual percentage change is generally established based on the annual percentage change from the prior year, but a similar 12-month time period may be used if more current data is available. This percentage difference shall then establish the range of increase to the maximum assessment rates allowed. If the percentage change in the CPI is negative, the maximum assessment rates shall not be adjusted from the previous fiscal year (unchanged). Should the Bureau of Labor Statistics revise such index or discontinue the preparation of such index, the City may use the

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

revised index or comparable system as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of living.

For fiscal year 2026/2027, the “Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU” identified in the following budgets (“Part III - Estimate of Costs”), for all Zones except Zone L-1A, Zone L-1B, Zone L-2E, and Zone L-4A represent a 3.16% increase to the Maximum Assessment Rates approved in the prior fiscal year based on the Annual Inflationary Adjustment (Assessment Range Formula) described above.

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Part III - Estimate of Costs
The following outlines the estimated costs (budgets) to maintain and service the various landscaping and lighting improvements described in “Part I - Plans and Specifications” of this Report for fiscal year 2026/2027. In some cases, the costs to properly service and maintain the improvements cannot be fully funded by the existing assessment revenues. Even with some additional funding support from the City, many of the desired services and activities, particularly those associated with long term repairs, replacements, and rehabilitation, will need to be postponed or eliminated. While City staff will ultimately determine which services and activities shall be eliminated or reduced to keep the actual costs and expenditures for the fiscal year within the current available revenues, the revenue shortfalls are expected to increase over the years as a result of inflation. To the extent any assessment funds remain after those funds are used to pay the cost of the special benefit in any particular Zone, those monies shall be placed in a reserve account for the respective Zone.

The City annually receives ad valorem funding for lighting and landscaping. These General Fund revenues are used to fund in whole or in part the General Benefit Expenses, and/or Additional City Contributions in specified Zones. For fiscal year 2026/2027, the ad valorem revenues are estimated to be $1,062,659 for lighting (used for Traffic Signals, Arterial Lighting, and/or Local Lighting), and $87,677 for landscaping (which may be used in Local Landscaping Zones L-4A or L-4B, and any of the nine Arterial Landscaping Zones).These ad valorem revenues are not restricted to District Expenses and portions of the available revenues may be applied to nondistrict lighting or landscaping expenses.

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zones L-1 (A through D)

Local Local Local Local
BUDGET ITEMS Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Zone L-1A Zone L-1B Zone L-1C Zone L-1D

ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Annual Maintenance Expenses
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations 159,674$ 112,145$ 27,722$ 2,655$ Contractual Services 591,385 461,107 110,065 8,513
Landscape Utilities 162,469 174,358 51,706 7,855
Lighting Electrical Service - - - -
Total Annual Maintenance Expenses 913,527$ 747,610$ 189,494 $ 19,024$ Capital Improvement Project & Rehabilitation
Planned CIP & Rehabilitation Expenditures -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ CIP & Rehabilitation Fund Collection 128,906 155,151 25,839 2,461 Total CIP & Rehabilitation Funding 128,906$ 655,151$ 25,839$ 2,461$ Incidental Operational Expenses
Operational Reserve Funding 91,353$ 74,761$ 18,949$ 1,902$ City Administration/Professional Fees 69,072$ 50,728$ 17,858$ 5,108$ County Administration Fees 3,335 4,360 700 80
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses 761 1,036 268 77
Annual Administration Expenses 73,443 55,849 18,826 5,264 Total Annual Incidental Expenses 164,796$ 130,610$ 37,775$ 7,166$ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 1,207,228$ 1,533,371$ 253,107$ 28,651$ General Benefit Expenses (City Funded) (72,199) (118,106) (33,519) (3,505) TOTAL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES 1,135,029$ 1,415,265$ 219,588$ 25,146$

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied -$ -$ -$ -$
Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection -$ -$ (18,949)$ (1,218)$ Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection - - (25,839) - Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction - - - -
City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments) - - (2,834) - Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions - - - - Total Funding Adjustments / Contributions -$ -$ (47,622)$ (1,218)$ BALANCE TO LEVY 1,135,029$ 1,415,265$ 171,967$ 23,928$

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 1,216 636 380 51
Parcels Levied 1,209 625 374 50
Total Benefit Units 1,247.31 628.36 376.81 52.43
Full Special Benefit Cost Recovery Rate per EBU $909.98 $2,252.33 $582.76 $479.61 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU $910.0000 $2,252.3498 $456.3823 $456.3823 Applied Assessment Rate per EBU $909.98 $2,252.34 $456.38 $456.38

RESERVE & CIP FUND BALANCES
Beginning Fund Balance (29,358)$ 1,531,253$ (16,889)$ (970)$ Collections / (Contributions) 220,258 229,912 - 3,145
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 190,900$ 1,761,164$ (16,889)$ 2,175$

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zones L-1E; and L-2 (A through C)
Local Local Local Local
BUDGET ITEMS Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Zone L-1E Zone L-2A Zone L-2B Zone L-2C

ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Annual Maintenance Expenses
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations 2,056$ 46,434$ 38,948$ 155,830$ Contractual Services 11,378 175,312 156,411 592,600
Landscape Utilities 190 99,771 69,609 323,239
Lighting Electrical Service - - - -
Total Annual Maintenance Expenses 13,624$ 321,518$ 264,968$ 1,071,670$ Capital Improvement Project & Rehabilitation
Planned CIP & Rehabilitation Expenditures 30,000$ 3,000$ 5,000$ -$ CIP & Rehabilitation Fund Collection - 43,239 36,265 144,589 Total CIP & Rehabilitation Funding 30,000$ 46,239$ 41,265$ 144,589$ Incidental Operational Expenses
Operational Reserve Funding -$ 32,152$ 26,497$ 107,167$ City Administration/Professional Fees 13,619$ 22,599$ 25,876$ 77,075$ County Administration Fees 172 1,171 996 3,880
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses 204 339 388 1,156 Annual Administration Expenses 13,995 24,109 27,261 82,111 Total Annual Incidental Expenses 13,995$ 56,261$ 53,758$ 189,278$ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 57,619$ 424,018$ 359,991$ 1,405,536$ General Benefit Expenses (City Funded) (1,980) (26,906) (26,884) (96,139) TOTAL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES 55,639$ 397,112$ 333,107$ 1,309,397$

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied -$ -$ -$ -$
Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection -$ (32,152)$ (26,497)$ (107,167)$ Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection - (43,165) (36,124) (108,690) Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction (3,451) - - -
City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments) - - - - Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions - - - - Total Funding Adjustments / Contributions (3,451)$ (75,317)$ (62,621)$ (215,857)$ BALANCE TO LEVY 52,187$ 321,795$ 270,486$ 1,093,540$

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 256 302 580 1,148
Parcels Levied 244 302 565 1,089
Total Benefit Units 563.00 304.75 566.23 1,091.75
Full Special Benefit Cost Recovery Rate per EBU $98.83 $1,303.07 $588.29 $1,199.36 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU $456.3823 $1,055.9341 $477.7069 $1,001.6435 Applied Assessment Rate per EBU $92.70 $1,055.92 $477.70 $1,001.64

RESERVE & CIP FUND BALANCES
Beginning Fund Balance 557,310$ 335,031 $ 413,105$ 166,770$ Collections / (Contributions) (3,451) 74 141 35,899
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 553,859$ 335,105$ 413,246$ 202,670 $

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zones L-2 (D through G)
Local Local Local Local
BUDGET ITEMS Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Zone L-2D Zone L-2E Zone L-2F Zone L-2G

ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Annual Maintenance Expenses
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations 49,886$ 14,802$ 5,017$ 40,741$ Contractual Services 150,124 53,566 19,228 149,091
Landscape Utilities 140,800 33,329 9,966 92,152
Lighting Electrical Service - - - -
Total Annual Maintenance Expenses 340,810$ 101,697$ 34,211$ 281,984$ Capital Improvement Project & Rehabilitation
Planned CIP & Rehabilitation Expenditures 16,000$ 7,000$ 15,000$ 20,000$ CIP & Rehabilitation Fund Collection 44,082 13,588 4,634 37,690 Total CIP & Rehabilitation Funding 60,082$ 20,588$ 19,634$ 57,690$ Incidental Operational Expenses
Operational Reserve Funding 34,081$ 10,170$ 3,421$ 28,198$ City Administration/Professional Fees 22,918$ 7,411$ 4,512$ 28,763$ County Administration Fees 1,271 389 175 1,105
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses 344 111 68 431
Annual Administration Expenses 24,534 7,911 4,755 30,299 Total Annual Incidental Expenses 58,615$ 18,081$ 8,176$ 58,497$ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 459,507$ 140,366$ 62,021$ 398,172$ General Benefit Expenses (City Funded) (36,470) (8,448) (2,973) (19,195) TOTAL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES 423,037$ 131,918$ 59,048$ 378,977$

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied -$ -$ -$ -$
Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection (34,081)$ (10,170)$ (968)$ (28,198)$ Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection (44,082) (6,924) - (37,690) Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction (7,221) - - (7,874)
City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments) - - - - Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions - - - - Total Funding Adjustments / Contributions (85,384)$ (17,095)$ (968)$ (73,762)$ BALANCE TO LEVY 337,653$ 114,824$ 58,080$ 305,214$

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 281 108 125 677
Parcels Levied 278 107 124 648
Total Benefit Units 278.00 107.22 124.00 651.62
Full Special Benefit Cost Recovery Rate per EBU $1,521.72 $1,230.38 $476.19 $581.59 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU $1,214.5804 $1,070.9414 $468.3984 $468.3984 Applied Assessment Rate per EBU $1,214.58 $1,070.94 $468.38 $468.38

RESERVE & CIP FUND BALANCES
Beginning Fund Balance 451,645$ 73,790$ 137,685$ 272,282$ Collections / (Contributions) (7,221) 6,664 7,087 (7,874) Estimated Ending Fund Balance 444,425$ 80,453$ 144,773$ 264,408$

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zones L-2 (H through K)
Local Local Local Local
BUDGET ITEMS Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Zone L-2H Zone L-2I Zone L-2J Zone L-2K

ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Annual Maintenance Expenses
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations 27,155$ 23,020$ 10,938$ 33,332$ Contractual Services 108,147 85,361 44,937 106,791
Landscape Utilities 52,805 49,723 20,215 91,891
Lighting Electrical Service - - - -
Total Annual Maintenance Expenses 188,108$ 158,104$ 76,090$ 232,015$ Capital Improvement Project & Rehabilitation
Planned CIP & Rehabilitation Expenditures 30,000$ 10,000$ 30,000$ 15,000$ CIP & Rehabilitation Fund Collection 25,576 - - 30,208
Total CIP & Rehabilitation Funding 55,576$ 10,000$ 30,000$ 45,208$ Incidental Operational Expenses
Operational Reserve Funding 18,811$ -$ -$ 23,201$
City Administration/Professional Fees 18,827$ 21,667$ 13,786$ 22,024$ County Administration Fees 788 569 360 898
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses 282 325 207 330
Annual Administration Expenses 19,897 22,561 14,353 23,252 Total Annual Incidental Expenses 38,708$ 22,561$ 14,353$ 46,453$ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 282,392$ 190,665$ 120,443$ 323,676$ General Benefit Expenses (City Funded) (15,611) (16,074) (7,071) (22,714) TOTAL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES 266,781$ 174,591$ 113,372$ 300,962$

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied -$ -$ -$ -$
Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection (18,811)$ -$ -$ (23,201)$ Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection (25,576) - - (24,041) Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction (24,807) - - -
City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments) - - - - Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions - - - - Total Funding Adjustments / Contributions (69,194)$ -$ -$ (47,242)$ BALANCE TO LEVY 197,586$ 174,591$ 113,372$ 253,720$

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 423 633 400 468
Parcels Levied 420 608 394 440
Total Benefit Units 421.84 607.69 438.72 541.68
Full Special Benefit Cost Recovery Rate per EBU $632.42 $287.30 $258.42 $555.60 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU $468.3984 $468.3984 $468.3984 $468.3984 Applied Assessment Rate per EBU $468.38 $287.32 $258.42 $468.38

RESERVE & CIP FUND BALANCES
Beginning Fund Balance 313,385$ 555,608 $ 386,044$ 153,591$ Collections / (Contributions) (24,807) - - 6,167
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 288,578$ 555,608$ 386,044$ 159,758 $

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zones L-2 (L through O)
Local Local Local Local
BUDGET ITEMS Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Zone L-2L Zone L-2M Zone L-2N Zone L-2O

ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Annual Maintenance Expenses
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations 10,900$ 3,249$ 4,878$ 6,278$ Contractual Services 30,268 10,375 8,605 26,866
Landscape Utilities 32,958 9,062 20,609 9,020
Lighting Electrical Service - - - -
Total Annual Maintenance Expenses 74,126$ 22,685$ 34,092$ 42,164$ Capital Improvement Project & Rehabilitation
Planned CIP & Rehabilitation Expenditures 5,000$ 50,000$ 5,000$ 15,000$ CIP & Rehabilitation Fund Collection 9,471 25,950 4,083 - Total CIP & Rehabilitation Funding 14,471$ 75,950$ 9,083$ 15,000$ Incidental Operational Expenses
Operational Reserve Funding 7,413$ 5,608$ 3,409$ -$
City Administration/Professional Fees 6,654$ 6,352$ 3,414$ 7,223$ County Administration Fees 286 315 140 193
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses 100 95 51 108
Annual Administration Expenses 7,040 6,762 3,605 7,524
Total Annual Incidental Expenses 14,453$ 12,370$ 7,014$ 7,524$ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 103,049$ 111,005$ 50,190$ 64,689$ General Benefit Expenses (City Funded) (7,987) (1,590) (2,114) (1,931) TOTAL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES 95,062$ 109,415$ 48,076$ 62,758$

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied -$ -$ -$ -$
Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection (3,632)$ (2,531)$ (3,409)$ -$ Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection - - (4,083) - Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction - - (4,730) -
City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments) - - - - Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions - - - - Total Funding Adjustments / Contributions (3,632)$ (2,531)$ (12,222)$ -$ BALANCE TO LEVY 91,431$ 106,884$ 35,854$ 62,758$

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 134 228 6 239
Parcels Levied 133 210 5 225
Total Benefit Units 133.00 228.20 76.55 225.00
Full Special Benefit Cost Recovery Rate per EBU $714.75 $479.48 $628.06 $278.92 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU $687.4571 $468.3984 $468.3984 $468.3984 Applied Assessment Rate per EBU $687.44 $468.38 $468.38 $278.94

RESERVE & CIP FUND BALANCES
Beginning Fund Balance 52,970$ 174,742$ 49,317$ 344,355$ Collections / (Contributions) 13,252 29,027 (4,730) -
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 66,222$ 203,768$ 44,587$ 344,355$

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zones L-2 (P through S)
Local Local Local Local
BUDGET ITEMS Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Zone L-2P Zone L-2Q Zone L-2R Zone L-2S

ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Annual Maintenance Expenses
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations 18,243$ 5,906$ 8,854$ 2,514$ Contractual Services 59,732 23,651 37,956 8,107
Landscape Utilities 46,089 11,118 14,101 6,825
Lighting Electrical Service - - - -
Total Annual Maintenance Expenses 124,064$ 40,676$ 60,911$ 17,446$ Capital Improvement Project & Rehabilitation
Planned CIP & Rehabilitation Expenditures 5,000$ 25,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ CIP & Rehabilitation Fund Collection 16,305 - 8,432 -
Total CIP & Rehabilitation Funding 21,305$ 25,000$ 23,432$ 15,000$ Incidental Operational Expenses
Operational Reserve Funding 12,406$ -$ 6,091$ -$
City Administration/Professional Fees 8,083$ 9,294$ 7,408$ 5,183$ County Administration Fees 460 225 275 113
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses 121 139 111 78
Annual Administration Expenses 8,664 9,658 7,794 5,373
Total Annual Incidental Expenses 21,070$ 9,658$ 13,885$ 5,373$ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 166,439$ 75,334$ 98,228$ 37,820$
General Benefit Expenses (City Funded) (10,634) (3,584) (3,530) (1,719) TOTAL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES 155,805$ 71,750$ 94,698$ 36,101$

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied -$ -$ -$ -$
Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection (12,406)$ -$ (4,033)$ -$ Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection (16,305) - - - Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction (5,947) - - -
City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments) - - - - Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions - - - - Total Funding Adjustments / Contributions (34,658)$ -$ (4,033) $ -$ BALANCE TO LEVY 121,147$ 71,750$ 90,666$ 36,101$

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 97 330 200 125
Parcels Levied 90 317 194 119
Total Benefit Units 89.89 318.12 193.57 188.43
Full Special Benefit Cost Recovery Rate per EBU $1,733.20 $225.54 $489.22 $191.58 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU $1,347.6659 $468.3984 $468.3984 $468.3984 Applied Assessment Rate per EBU $1,347.66 $225.56 $468.38 $191.60

RESERVE & CIP FUND BALANCES
Beginning Fund Balance 47,153$ 267,720$ 171,473$ 137,813$ Collections / (Contributions) (5,947) - 10,490 -
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 41,206$ 267,720$ 181,963$ 137,813$

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zones L-2 (T through V); and L-3
Local Local Local Local
BUDGET ITEMS Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Zone L-2T Zone L-2U Zone L-2V Zone L-3

ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Annual Maintenance Expenses
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations 16,394$ 8,281$ 34,632$ 3,017$ Contractual Services 81,270 46,221 152,604 12,548
Landscape Utilities 15,173 3,552 52,532 5,358
Lighting Electrical Service - - - -
Total Annual Maintenance Expenses 112,838$ 58,053$ 239,768$ 20,923$ Capital Improvement Project & Rehabilitation
Planned CIP & Rehabilitation Expenditures 15,000$ -$ 25,000$ 5,000$ CIP & Rehabilitation Fund Collection - 8,530 33,338 2,871 Total CIP & Rehabilitation Funding 15,000$ 8,530$ 58,338$ 7,871$ Incidental Operational Expenses
Operational Reserve Funding -$ 5,805$ 23,977$ 2,092$
City Administration/Professional Fees 11,776$ 5,507$ 17,352$ 12,747$ County Administration Fees 419 216 946 125
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses 177 83 260 191
Annual Administration Expenses 12,372 5,806 18,558 13,063 Total Annual Incidental Expenses 12,372$ 11,611$ 42,535$ 15,155$ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 140,209$ 78,194$ 340,641$ 43,949$ General Benefit Expenses (City Funded) (9,232) (3,154) (15,843) (1,116) TOTAL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES 130,977$ 75,040$ 324,798$ 42,833$

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied -$ -$ -$ -$
Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection -$ (5,805)$ (23,977)$ (2,092)$ Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection - (8,530) (23,946) (2,871) Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction (2,638) (5,903) - (4,035) City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments) - - - - Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions - - - - Total Funding Adjustments / Contributions (2,638)$ (20,238)$ (47,923)$ (8,998)$ BALANCE TO LEVY 128,339$ 54,802$ 276,875$ 33,835$

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 284 118 268 89
Parcels Levied 274 117 248 69
Total Benefit Units 274.00 117.00 247.87 516.96
Full Special Benefit Cost Recovery Rate per EBU $478.02 $641.37 $1,310.36 $82.86 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU $468.3984 $468.3984 $1,117.0220 $65.4519 Applied Assessment Rate per EBU $468.38 $468.38 $1,117.02 $65.44

RESERVE & CIP FUND BALANCES
Beginning Fund Balance 315,093$ 106,933 $ 277,927$ 59,310$ Collections / (Contributions) (2,638) (5,903) 9,392 (4,035) Estimated Ending Fund Balance 312,454$ 101,029$ 287,319$ 55,275$

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zones L-4 (A and B); and L-5 (A and B) * The City annually receives ad valorem funding for lighting and landscaping. These General Fund revenues are used to fund in whole or in part, the General Benefit Expenses, and/or Additional City Contributions in specified Zones. For fiscal year 2026/2027 the ad valorem revenues being applied are estimated to be $985,126 for lighting (may be used for Arterial Lighting, Local Lighting, and/or Traffic Signals), and $87,677 for landscaping (which may be used in Local Landscaping Zones L-4A or L-4B, and any of the nine Arterial Landscaping Zones).

Local Local Local Local
BUDGET ITEMS Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Zone L-4A Zone L-4B Zone L-5A Zone L-5B

ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Annual Maintenance Expenses
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations 14,302$ 6,301$ 73,851$ 73,276$ Contractual Services 57,595 28,134 211,432 281,352
Landscape Utilities 25,185 7,459 219,715 138,886
Lighting Electrical Service - - - -
Total Annual Maintenance Expenses 97,083$ 41,894$ 504,999$ 493,514$ Capital Improvement Project & Rehabilitation
Planned CIP & Rehabilitation Expenditures 25,000$ 4,000$ -$ 50,000$ CIP & Rehabilitation Fund Collection 11,504 5,810 64,765 67,083 Total CIP & Rehabilitation Funding 36,504$ 9,810$ 64,765$ 117,083$ Incidental Operational Expenses
Operational Reserve Funding -$ 4,189$ 50,500$ 49,351$
City Administration/Professional Fees 7,974$ 4,353$ 42,209$ 51,883$ County Administration Fees 425 168 1,836 1,987
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses 120 65 633 778
Annual Administration Expenses 8,518 4,587 44,678 54,649 Total Annual Incidental Expenses 8,518$ 8,776$ 95,178$ 104,000$ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 142,105$ 60,479$ 664,941$ 714,597$ General Benefit Expenses (City Funded) (9,565) (4,367) (65,235) (54,327) TOTAL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES 132,540$ 56,112$ 599,706$ 660,270$

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied (8,715)$ (43,555)$ -$ -$ Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection -$ -$ (50,500)$ (49,351)$ Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection - - (31,181) (67,083) Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction - - - (44,125)
City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments) - - - - Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions - - - - Total Funding Adjustments / Contributions (8,715)$ (43,555)$ (81,681)$ (160,559)$ BALANCE TO LEVY 123,825$ 12,557$ 518,025$ 499,711$

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 150 105 797 1,260
Parcels Levied 142 102 754 1,148
Total Benefit Units 141.98 100.90 764.00 1,214.84
Full Special Benefit Cost Recovery Rate per EBU $933.51 $556.13 $784.95 $543.51 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU $872.1794 $124.4614 $678.0443 $411.3435 Applied Assessment Rate per EBU $872.14 $124.46 $678.04 $411.34

RESERVE & CIP FUND BALANCES
Beginning Fund Balance 221,381$ 24,845$ 175,897$ 930,687$ Collections / (Contributions) 11,504 9,999 33,584 (44,125) Estimated Ending Fund Balance 232,886$ 34,844$ 209,481$ 886,561$

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zone L-5C and Arterial Landscaping Zones (A-1 through A-3) * The City annually receives ad valorem funding for lighting and landscaping. These General Fund revenues are used to fund in whole or in part, the General Benefit Expenses, and/or Additional City Contributions in specified Zones. For fiscal year 2026/2027 the ad valorem revenues being applied are estimated to be $985,126 for lighting (may be used for Arterial Lighting, Local Lighting, and/or Traffic Signals), and $87,677 for landscaping (which may be used in Local Landscaping Zones L-4A or L-4B, and any of the nine Arterial Landscaping Zones).

Local Arterial Arterial Arterial
BUDGET ITEMS Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Zone L-5C Zone A-1 Zone A-2 Zone A-3

ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Annual Maintenance Expenses
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations 20,502$ 15,853$ 33,538$ 16,245$ Contractual Services 66,992 50,158 114,104 53,316
Landscape Utilities 52,150 40,503 83,022 42,585
Lighting Electrical Service - - - -
Total Annual Maintenance Expenses 139,644$ 106,514$ 230,664 $ 112,146$ Capital Improvement Project & Rehabilitation
Planned CIP & Rehabilitation Expenditures 100,000$ 75,000$ -$ -$ CIP & Rehabilitation Fund Collection - - 30,448 14,693
Total CIP & Rehabilitation Funding 100,000$ 75,000$ 30,448$ 14,693$ Incidental Operational Expenses
Operational Reserve Funding -$ -$ -$ -$
City Administration/Professional Fees 25,027$ 23,740$ 17,514$ 12,283$ County Administration Fees 794 616 836 417
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses 375 356 263 184
Annual Administration Expenses 26,196 24,712 18,613 12,885 Total Annual Incidental Expenses 26,196$ 24,712$ 18,613$ 12,885$ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 265,840$ 206,226$ 279,725$ 139,724$ General Benefit Expenses (City Funded) (18,480) (4,759) (12,503) (10,680) TOTAL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES 247,360$ 201,467$ 267,222$ 129,044$

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied -$ -$ -$ -$
Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection -$ -$ -$ -$
Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection - - (30,448) (14,693) Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction - - (35) (4,642)
City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments) - - - - Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions - - (153,422) - Total Funding Adjustments / Contributions -$ -$ (183,905)$ (19,335)$ BALANCE TO LEVY 247,360$ 201,467$ 83,317$ 109,710$

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 741 3,262 1,104 1,355
Parcels Levied 695 3,049 1,070 1,265
Total Benefit Units 785.53 4,064.80 1,114.31 1,467.30
Full Special Benefit Cost Recovery Rate per EBU $314.90 $49.56 $239.81 $87.95 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU $411.3435 $74.7753 $74.7753 $74.7753 Applied Assessment Rate per EBU $314.90 $49.58 $74.76 $74.76

RESERVE & CIP FUND BALANCES
Beginning Fund Balance 890,904$ 1,309,733$ 35$ 27,787$
Collections / (Contributions) - - (35) (4,642)
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 890,904$ 1,309,733$ -$ 23,145$

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Arterial Landscaping Zones (A-4 through A-7)
* The City annually receives ad valorem funding for lighting and landscaping. These General Fund revenues are used to fund in whole or in part, the General Benefit Expenses, and/or Additional City Contributions in specified Zones. For fiscal year 2026/2027 the ad valorem revenues being applied are estimated to be $985,126 for lighting (may be used for Arterial Lighting, Local Lighting, and/or Traffic Signals), and $87,677 for landscaping (which may be used in Local Landscaping Zones L-4A or L-4B, and any of the nine Arterial Landscaping Zones).

Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial
BUDGET ITEMS Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping Zone A-4 Zone A-5 Zone A-6 Zone A-7

ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Annual Maintenance Expenses
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations 25,710$ 35,011$ 26,634$ 73,518$ Contractual Services 89,192 130,730 103,080 257,503
Landscape Utilities 61,606 72,480 52,099 175,539
Lighting Electrical Service - - - -
Total Annual Maintenance Expenses 176,508$ 238,221$ 181,812 $ 506,560$ Capital Improvement Project & Rehabilitation
Planned CIP & Rehabilitation Expenditures 15,000$ -$ -$ -$ CIP & Rehabilitation Fund Collection 47,683 32,109 24,667 67,207 Total CIP & Rehabilitation Funding 62,683$ 32,109$ 24,667$ 67,207$ Incidental Operational Expenses
Operational Reserve Funding -$ -$ -$ -$
City Administration/Professional Fees 22,904$ 26,560$ 19,845$ 53,152$ County Administration Fees 786 891 679 1,881
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses 344 398 298 797
Annual Administration Expenses 24,033 27,849 20,822 55,830 Total Annual Incidental Expenses 24,033$ 27,849$ 20,822$ 55,830$ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 263,225$ 298,180$ 227,301$ 629,597$ General Benefit Expenses (City Funded) (22,119) (25,174) (19,558) (42,997) TOTAL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES 241,106$ 273,006$ 207,743$ 586,600$

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied -$ -$ -$ -$
Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection -$ -$ -$ -$
Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection (16,476) (32,109) (24,667) (67,207) Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction - (5,218) (14,329) -
City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments) - - - - Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions - (6,548) - (71,763) Total Funding Adjustments / Contributions (16,476)$ (43,875)$ (38,996)$ (138,970)$ BALANCE TO LEVY 224,630$ 229,131$ 168,747$ 447,630$

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 2,849 3,013 2,214 5,381
Parcels Levied 2,764 2,898 2,056 5,003
Total Benefit Units 3,004.27 3,064.48 2,256.88 5,986.76 Full Special Benefit Cost Recovery Rate per EBU $80.25 $89.09 $92.05 $97.98 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU $74.7753 $74.7753 $74.7753 $74.7753 Applied Assessment Rate per EBU $74.76 $74.76 $74.76 $74.76

RESERVE & CIP FUND BALANCES
Beginning Fund Balance 693,684$ 5,218$ 33,290$ (44,139)$ Collections / (Contributions) 31,207 (5,218) (14,329) - Estimated Ending Fund Balance 724,891$ -$ 18,960$ (44,139)$

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Arterial Landscaping Zones (A-8 and A-9), Arterial and Local Street Lighting * The City annually receives ad valorem funding for lighting and landscaping. These General Fund revenues are used to fund in whole or in part, the General Benefit Expenses, and/or Additional City Contributions in specified Zones. For fiscal year 2026/2027 the ad valorem revenues being applied are estimated to be $985,126 for lighting (may be used for Arterial Lighting, Local Lighting, and/or Traffic Signals), and $87,677 for landscaping (which may be used in Local Landscaping Zones L-4A or L-4B, and any of the nine Arterial Landscaping Zones).

Arterial Arterial
BUDGET ITEMS Landscaping Landscaping Arterial Local
Zone A-8 Zone A-9 Lighting Lighting

ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Annual Maintenance Expenses
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations 21,710$ 52,428$ 2,275$ 6,826$ Contractual Services 83,249 155,424 18,953 9,750
Landscape Utilities 42,922 153,371 - -
Lighting Electrical Service - - 250,000 1,250,000
Total Annual Maintenance Expenses 147,881$ 361,223$ 271,228 $ 1,266,576$ Capital Improvement Project & Rehabilitation
Planned CIP & Rehabilitation Expenditures 15,000$ -$ -$ -$ CIP & Rehabilitation Fund Collection 20,036 46,515 - -
Total CIP & Rehabilitation Funding 35,036$ 46,515$ -$ -$ Incidental Operational Expenses
Operational Reserve Funding -$ -$ -$ -$
City Administration/Professional Fees 18,713$ 30,287$ 11,251$ 21,911$ County Administration Fees 605 1,314 847 3,865
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses 281 454 169 329
Annual Administration Expenses 19,599 32,056 12,267 26,105 Total Annual Incidental Expenses 19,599$ 32,056$ 12,267$ 26,105$ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 202,516$ 439,794$ 283,495$ 1,292,681$ General Benefit Expenses (City Funded) (14,489) (29,478) (85,049) (258,536) TOTAL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES 188,027$ 410,316$ 198,446$ 1,034,145 $

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied -$ -$ (147,551)$ (493,990)$ Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection -$ -$ -$ -$
Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection (7,047) (46,515) - - Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction - (60) - -
City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments) - - - - Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions - (184,780) - - Total Funding Adjustments / Contributions (7,047)$ (231,355)$ (147,551)$ (493,990)$ BALANCE TO LEVY 180,980$ 178,961$ 50,896$ 540,155$

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 2,407 2,458 24,043 19,560
Parcels Levied 2,322 2,374 22,801 18,634
Total Benefit Units 2,420.48 2,393.48 25,772.77 21,134.28 Full Special Benefit Cost Recovery Rate per EBU $77.68 $171.43 $7.70 $48.93 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU $74.7753 $74.7753 $1.9833 $25.5669 Applied Assessment Rate per EBU $74.76 $74.76 $1.98 $25.56

RESERVE & CIP FUND BALANCES
Beginning Fund Balance 431,681$ 60$ -$ - $
Collections / (Contributions) 12,989 (60) - -
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 444,669$ -$ -$ -$

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Traffic Signal Zones TS-1 through TS-3; and District Total * The City annually receives ad valorem funding for lighting and landscaping. These General Fund revenues are used to fund in whole or in part, the General Benefit Expenses, and/or Additional City Contributions in specified Zones. For fiscal year 2026/2027 the ad valorem revenues being applied are estimated to be $985,126 for lighting (may be used for Arterial Lighting, Local Lighting, and/or Traffic Signals), and $87,677 for landscaping (which may be used in Local Landscaping Zones L-4A or L-4B, and any of the nine Arterial Landscaping Zones).

Traffic Traffic Traffic Total
BUDGET ITEMS Signals Signals Signals District
Zone TS-1 Zone TS-2 Zone TS-3 Budget

ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Annual Maintenance Expenses
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations 2,275$ 33,222$ 910$ 1,407,891$ Contractual Services 16,108 205,620 7,519 5,262,433
Landscape Utilities - - - 2,773,997
Lighting Electrical Service 5,949 80,640 1,362 1,587,951 Total Annual Maintenance Expenses 24,332$ 319,482$ 9,791 $ 11,032,272$ Capital Improvement Project & Rehabilitation
Planned CIP & Rehabilitation Expenditures -$ -$ -$ 1,145,000$ CIP & Rehabilitation Fund Collection 2,992 26,385 584 1,263,690 Total CIP & Rehabilitation Funding 2,992$ 26,385$ 584$ 2,408,690$ Incidental Operational Expenses
Operational Reserve Funding -$ -$ -$ 641,503$
City Administration/Professional Fees 1,384$ 10,187$ 268$ 924,281$ County Administration Fees 86 1,068 32 43,096
Miscellaneous Administration Expenses 21 153 4 13,864
Annual Administration Expenses 1,491 11,407 304 981,241 Total Annual Incidental Expenses 1,491$ 11,407$ 304$ 1,622,744$ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 28,816$ 357,275$ 10,679$ 15,063,706$ General Benefit Expenses (City Funded) (12,912) (165,445) (5,048) (1,430,949) TOTAL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES 15,904$ 191,830$ 5,631$ 13,632,757$

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
Available Ad Valorem Revenues Applied -$ -$ -$ (693,810)$ Unfunded Reserve Fund Collection -$ -$ -$ (459,147)$
Unfunded CIP/Rehabilitation Fund Collection - - - (745,293) Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction - - - (135,017)
City Loan (To be recovered from future assessments) - - - (2,834) Additional City Contribution and/or Service Reductions - - - (416,513) Total Funding Adjustments / Contributions -$ -$ - $ (2,452,613)$ BALANCE TO LEVY 15,904$ 191,830$ 5,631$ 11,180,144$

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 3,180 20,774 89
Parcels Levied 2,984 19,748 69
Total Benefit Units 3,562.84 21,692.97 516.96
Full Special Benefit Cost Recovery Rate per EBU $4.46 $8.84 $10.89 Authorized Maximum Assessment Rate per EBU $4.4879 $8.8599 $10.9158 Applied Assessment Rate per EBU $4.48 $8.84 $10.90

RESERVE & CIP FUND BALANCES
Beginning Fund Balance -$ -$ -$ 12,006,148$
Collections / (Contributions) 2,992 26,385 584 565,736
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 2,992$ 26,385$ 584$ 12,571,885$

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Part IV - Assessment Roll
Due to the number of parcels in the District, the Assessment Roll for fiscal year 2026/2027 (a listing of the parcels to be assessed within this District along with the assessment amounts) has been filed with the City Clerk in an electronic format and is, by reference, made part of this Report.

The proposed Assessment Roll shall be available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office during normal office hours.

The Assessment Roll reflects all properties identified within the District and their assessment amount(s) for fiscal year 2026/2027. Each parcel listed on the Assessment Roll is currently shown and illustrated on the County Assessor’s Roll and the County Assessor’s Parcel Number Maps (APN maps). These records are, by reference, made part of this Report and shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels. All assessments presented on the assessment roll are subject to change as a result of parcel changes made by the County including parcel splits, parcel merges, or development changes that occur prior to the County Assessor’s Office securing the final roll and generating tax bills for fiscal year 2026/2027.

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Part V - Assessment Diagrams
The boundary of the Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District is coterminous with the City boundaries and consists of all lots, parcels, and subdivisions of land within the City of Yorba Linda. The following section contains various diagrams that show the boundaries of the Zones within the District that were previously identified and discussed. In addition to depicting the boundaries of the Zones within the District, some diagrams also show the location and extent of the landscape improvements within the Zone.

The parcels within each District Zone consist of all lots, parcels, and subdivisions of land within the boundaries as depicted by these diagrams and shall consist of, and be dictated by, the lines and dimensions as those lots, parcels, and subdivisions of land shown on the Orange County Assessor’s parcel maps for the current year, and by reference, the Orange County Assessor’s parcel maps are incorporated herein and made part of this Report. The following diagrams show the boundaries of the District Zones for fiscal year 2026/2027. These diagrams along with the Assessment Roll incorporated in this Report constitute the District Assessment Diagram for fiscal year 2026/2027.

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Landscaping Zones

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Arterial Landscaping Zones

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Arterial Street Lighting Zone

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Local Street Lighting Zone

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Traffic Signal Zones

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Appendix A - Historical District Changes
In accordance with the 1972 Act, the Yorba Linda City Council had previously formed the following six (6) Maintenance Assessment Districts:
 Citywide Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2, in 1979  Landscape Maintenance No. 1, in 1980
 Landscape Maintenance No. 2, in 1980
 Landscape Maintenance No. 3, in 1981
 Landscape Maintenance No. 5, in 1988
 Landscape Maintenance No. 7, in 1990
These districts were formed to provide a means of funding the maintenance of public improvements including parkway side-panel and median landscaping, greenbelt and slope landscaping within residential developments, and the street lighting and traffic signal systems that benefited properties and developments within the City.

In order to continue to provide for the expenses and servicing of facilities within the boundaries of these districts and to reduce the administrative cost incurred in administering the districts, the City Council at their meeting of June 21, 1994, approved the consolidation of all the districts into a single city-wide consolidated district designated as the Street Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District.

Fiscal Year 1997/1998:

In response to the new procedures required by Proposition 218 (Prop. 218), which was approved on the November 1996 Statewide ballot and added Article XIII D to the California State Constitution, the City initiated steps to reorganize the District to reflect the special benefits associated with the improvements for each property in the District, commencing with the fiscal year 1997/1998. This reorganized District established a citywide Arterial Landscaping Zone, a citywide Arterial Street Lighting Zone, a non-contiguous Local Street Lighting Zone, three Traffic Signal Zones (TS-1, TS-2, and TS-3), and four Local Landscaping Zones (L-1, L-2, L-3, and L-4).

As part of this District reorganization, notices and ballots were mailed to all property owners within the District, outlining the changes to the method of apportionment and the resulting assessment amount proposed for each property and that such assessments would include an annual inflationary adjustment (escalator) based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). On July 1, 1997, the ballot results were tabulated with eighty-three percent (83%) of the returned assessment ballots approving the assessment rates and annual inflationary adjustment.

Fiscal Year 2000/2001 - Fiscal Year 2002/2003:

In fiscal year 2000/2001, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing Local Landscaping Zone L-5 within the District. The boundaries of Zone L-5 include the area involved in the “Shell Reorganization” (RO 94-01) recorded October 15, 1996, under a Certificate of Completion by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Orange County. Zone L-5 was created to fund the maintenance and servicing of slopes, parkway side-panels, median islands, trails, and greenbelt areas for the Vista Del Verde master planned project. Subsequently, various developing tracts adjacent to the original Zone boundaries were annexed to Zone L-5. However, even with the annexation of additional territory, the overall number of housing units for the Zone was less

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

than what was originally anticipated, but the area of landscaping to be maintained within the Zone increased. As a result, the annual assessments did not sufficiently account for the costs associated with the special benefits received by parcels within that Zone and in fiscal year 2003/2004, the City Council established Local Landscaping Zone L-5A (Vista Del Verde) over a portion of the original Zone L-5 in order to provide for the additional funds required to maintain the level of landscaping and special benefits to parcels within the Vista Del Verde project area.

The new zone was formed in compliance with proceedings outlined in Article XIII D of the California State Constitution for the implementation of new or increased assessments. The remaining developments that were annexed into Zone L-5 after the original establishment of the Zone were not included as part of Zone L-5A and were not part of the balloting.

Fiscal Year 2012/2013:

A review, analysis and evaluation of the improvements and properties within Local Landscaping Zone L-2 was conducted and as a result of that analysis, this Local Landscaping Zone was reengineered to establish sixteen (16) Local Landscaping Zones (L-2A through L-2P) to more accurately identify the local landscaping improvements associated with the properties and the proportional special benefit derived from those improvements. While this restructuring of Zone L2 did not increase the previously adopted maximum assessments allowed, the re-engineering did bring to light that to fully fund the maintenance and operation of the improvements that provide special benefit to properties within many of these newly established Zones, assessment increases may likely be warranted in the future.

Fiscal Year 2013/2014:

As part of an ongoing effort to clarify and ensure that the annual District assessments are consistent with the substantive provisions of the California Constitution Article XIII D and the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, in fiscal year 2013/2014 a similar review and analysis of the improvements and properties was conducted for Local Landscaping Zones L1, L-3, L-4 and L-5. As a result of that review and analysis the following zone restructuring was implemented: Zone L-1 was split into three zones (L-1A, L-1B and L-1C); Zone L-3 was left unchanged; Zone L-4 was split into two zones (L-4A and L-4B); and Zone L-5 and L-5A were reorganized into three zones (L-5A, L-5B and L-5C).

In addition to the Local Landscaping Zone changes, an initial re-engineering of the Arterial Landscaping Zone was implemented establishing three arterial zones: Zone A-1 which generally included properties in the eastern portion of the City (east of Yorba Linda Boulevard); Zone A-2, which generally included properties and developments in the western and northern portion of the City that were within one of the Local Landscaping Zones (excluding Zones L-4A & L-4B); and Zone A-3 which includes all other properties not included within Zone A-1 or Zone A-2.

Fiscal Year 2014/2015:

In response to recommendations put forth by the Yorba Linda Landscape Maintenance Citizen Advisory Committee (LMCAC) established by the City Council and the recommendations of the City Council itself, additional changes and refinements to the District were implemented in fiscal year 2014/2015. These changes included:
 Local Landscaping Zone L-2B (originally established in fiscal year 2012/2013) was split into four smaller Local Landscaping Zones:

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

 the residential area east of Village Center Drive and south of Yorba Linda Boulevard (which was a large part of the original Zone) continued to be designated as Zone L-2B;  the area located north of Bastanchury Road and west of Village Center Drive was designated as Zone L-2Q;
 the area between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Bastanchury Road on the west side of Village Center Drive was designated as Zone L-2R; and,
 the remaining area located between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Bastanchury Road on the east side of Village Center Drive was designated as Zone L-2S.  Local Landscaping Zone L-1B (originally established in fiscal year 2013/2014) was split into two smaller Local Landscaping Zones:
 the area east of Camino De Bryant Village between La Palma Avenue and the railroad tracks being designated as Zone L-1D; and,
 the residential area north of the railroad tracks on the west side of Camino De Bryant up to Meadow Land Drive, and then both sides of Camino De Bryant and Kodiak Mountain Drive remaining as Zone L-1B.
 The Arterial Landscaping Zone structure was modified to establish nine smaller, more localized Arterial Landscaping Zones (Zones A-1 through A-9). These nine Zones were established based on the various landscape improvements segments being maintained as part of the arterial improvements, the streets where those improvements are located, and the properties and developments that are typically accessed by those streets and improvement areas.

Fiscal Year 2015/2016:

In fiscal year 2015/2016 the following District changes were implemented:
 Local Landscaping Zone L-1C (located east of Camino De Bryant at the end of La Palma Avenue and originally established in fiscal year 2013/2014) was physically bifurcated by a railroad right-of-way running east and west through the Zone. It was determined that the improvements on either side of this railroad right-of-way were substantially different enough to warrant the splitting of this Zone into two smaller Local Landscaping Zones. The residential area south of the railroad right-of-way was established as Zone L-1E with the remaining residential area north of the railroad right-of-way continuing to be designated as Zone L-1C.  Local Landscaping Zone L-1D (originally established in fiscal year 2013/2014) and comprised of primarily Residential Single-Family properties was expanded to include the Non-Residential properties just west of the Zone and east of Via Lomas De Yorba East. It was determined that these Non-Residential properties (previously part of Zone L-1A) regularly utilize and access the trail and improvements within Zone L-1D and therefore receive similar and proportional special benefit from those improvements. Therefore, these Non-Residential properties were reclassified as part of Zone L-1D and removed from Zone L-1A.  Local Landscaping Zone L-1A (originally established in fiscal year 2013/2014, and comprised of both Residential Single-Family and Non-Residential Developed properties), like Zone L-1C was physically bifurcated by a railroad right-of-way running east and west through the Zone with the area north of the railroad right-of-way being primarily Residential Single-Family and the area south of the railroad right-of-way being primarily Non-Residential, but also having a 330-unit residential development. It was determined that the improvements being maintained for the Zone were the result of and directly associated with the developments north of the

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

railroad right-of-way and the area south of the railroad right-of-way did not receive the same level of direct benefit from those improvements. Therefore, the area south of the railroad rightof-way (excluding the Non-Residential properties east of Via Lomas De Yorba East which were incorporated into L-1D as noted above) were detached from L-1A and established as Zone L-1F. The residential area north of the railroad right-of-way continued to be designated as Zone L-1A.
 Local Landscaping Zone L-2H (located in the central part of the City and originally established in fiscal year 2012/2013) is comprised almost entirely of developed residential properties but physically bifurcated by Yorba Linda Boulevard. While the properties and landscape improvements both north and south of Yorba Linda Boulevard are very similar in nature, in order to make the Local Landscaping Zone structure more consistent with Arterial Zones this large local Zone was split into two Local Landscaping Zones with the residential area north of Yorba Linda Boulevard being established as Zone L-2T (being within Arterial Landscaping Zone A-5) and the residential area south of Yorba Linda Boulevard remaining as L-2H (being within Arterial Landscaping Zone A-9).
 In addition to the Local Landscaping Zone adjustments outlined above, the area commonly known as the Hidden Hills area (previously designated in 2014/2015 as part of Arterial Landscaping Zone A-1) was reassigned to Arterial Landscaping Zone A-3. Similar to some of the Local Landscaping Zone changes made, it was determined that the properties in the Hidden Hills area (located north of the railroad right-of-way) are accessed, utilize and benefit from the arterial streets and associated improvements within Zone A-3 rather than those streets and improvements within Zone A-1.

These preceding modifications to the District did not increase the maximum assessments previously authorized and approved for any parcel or the amount paid annually by any property owner and have not changed the nature or extent of the landscape maintenance services provided by the District. These changes are described in more detail in the sections of the Report that follow and the location and extent of both the improvements and boundaries of each of these Zones are shown in “Part V - Assessment Diagrams” of this Report.

Fiscal Year 2016/2017:

In fiscal year 2016/2017 the following District changes were addressed:

Prior to the writing of the fiscal year 2016/2017 Engineer’s Report, the City Council conducted Property Owner Protest Ballot Proceedings for increased assessments for twelve underfunded Local Landscaping Zones pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIII D.

The twelve Local Landscaping Zones that were balloted included Zones L-1B, L-2A, L-2B, L-2C, L-2D, L-2E, L-2K, L-2L, L-2N, L-2P, L-4A, and L-5A. As a result of those protest ballot proceedings, Zones L-2B, L-2C, and L-2D approved the proposed increase to their maximum assessments and those approved new maximum assessment rates were implemented for fiscal year 2016/2017.

In the nine Local Landscaping Zones (L-1B, L-2A, L-2E, L-2K, L-2L, L-2N, L-2P, L-4A, and L-5A) that had a majority protest and the proposed assessment increases were not implemented, the City Council directed City staff to begin implementing steps to minimize service levels and reduce the overall cost of maintaining the improvements in each of those nine Zones over the course of fiscal year 2016/2017.

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

As a result of these planned service reductions for specified improvement areas, it was determined that the extent of the improvements to be maintained at regular services levels within the existing Local Landscaping Zone L-2E would be different for the residential properties on the west side of Village Center Drive as compared to the residential properties on the east side of Village Center Drive which had been collectively included in the same Zone because of the overall similarity in the improvements being maintained in those residential tracts. Therefore, for fiscal year 2016/2017 those residential properties and associated improvements on the east side of Village Center Drive were established as a new Local Landscaping Zone L-2U with the improvements and parcels on the west side of Village Center Drive remaining as Zone L-2E.

Fiscal Year 2017/2018:

In fiscal year 2017/2018 the following District changes were addressed:

After the approval of the fiscal year 2016/2017 District assessments and prior to the writing of fiscal year 2017/2018 Report, the City Council conducted Property Owner Protest Ballot Proceedings for increased assessments for four underfunded Local Landscaping Zones pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIII D. The five Local Landscaping Zones that were balloted for increased assessments included Zones L-2A, L-2K, L-2L, L-2N, and L-2P.

The protest ballot proceedings resulted in Zones L-2A, L-2L and L-2P approving the proposed increase to their maximum assessments and those approved new maximum assessment rates were reflected in the fiscal year 2017/2018 Report. In the remaining two Local Landscaping Zones (L-2K and L-2N), there was a majority protest for the proposed assessment increases and those proposed increases were not implemented. As a result of these majority protests, the City Council subsequently directed City staff to implement steps to minimize service levels and reduce the overall cost of maintaining the improvements in these two Zones.

In addition, the fiscal year 2017/2018 Report also incorporated the overall service level and cost reductions that had been implemented for Local Landscaping Zones L-2E, L-2P, L-4A, and L-5A which were previously balloted for increased assessments but did not approve those increases.

The steps taken to reduce costs targeted specific improvement areas within each Zone. In many cases, various improvement areas previously being maintained through the District assessments were removed as Zone improvements, reducing the overall maintenance area within those Zones.

Additionally, in some Zones, reduced levels of maintenance were implemented in specific areas which may have included limited tree management such as tree removal for dead/diseased trees, weed abatement to meet fire clearance requirements, rodent control, and best management practices (BMP) installation for erosion control when necessary. These services were to be provided on an as-needed basis similar to the baseline servicing identified for establishing general benefit costs. The extent of the areas being reduced to the minimized maintenance service level and the areas that will continue to be maintained at regular services levels or at a modified service level was based on available assessment revenues and varied for each Zone.

On June 26, 2017, the property owners within Local Landscaping Zone L-1B approved a proposed new/increased assessment through a second Property Owner Protest Ballot Proceeding.

However, at the request of property owners in Zone L-1B, the new/increased assessments that were approved incorporated the elimination of specific improvement areas that had been previously maintained as part of the Zone improvements in order to reduce costs and associated assessment rate. The fiscal year 2017/2018 Report incorporated the improvements, budget, diagram, and assessments for Zone L-1B outlined in the Engineer’s Report prepared in

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

connection with the new/increased assessment that was approved and adopted by the City Council at the conclusion of the Ballot Proceeding.

Fiscal Year 2018/2019:

In fiscal year 2018/2019 the following District changes were addressed:

As part of the City’s ongoing efforts to clarify and ensure that the annual District assessments are consistent with the substantive provisions of the California Constitution Article XIII D and the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and in part as a result of planned service reductions for specified improvement areas within the District, it was determined that the overall extent of the improvements to be maintained within the previously established Local Landscaping Zone L-2N (originally established in fiscal year 2013/2014), was different for the overall residential developments as compared to the non-residential properties on Eastside Circle near the entryway to the Zone on Esperanza Road (Esperanza Road/Hidden Hills Road). Therefore, as part of the fiscal year 2018/2019 annual report, the residential properties and development area east of Eastside Circle were established as a new Local Landscaping Zone L-2V and the remaining nonresidential properties accessed from Eastside Circle remained as Zone L-2N. While this reorganization of the Zone did not increase the previously adopted maximum assessments allowed, the new Local Landscaping Zone L-2V and new boundaries for Local Landscaping Zone L-2N provided a more accurate reflection of the proportional special benefits that properties received from the local landscaping improvements.

Although the reorganization into Local Landscaping Zone L-2V and the revised Local Landscaping Zone L-2N did not increase the previously adopted maximum assessments allowed, on May 1, 2018, the City Council initiated proceedings and declared its intention to expand the improvements and servicing (maintenance) for Local Landscaping Zone L-2V and to ballot the properties within Zone L-2V for a new or increased assessment. At the fiscal year 2018/2019 annual public hearing, the outcome of the ballot proceeding for Local Landscaping Zone L-2V was unknown and the Annual Engineer’s Report was adopted, approving the maximum assessments for both Zone L-2N and L-2V at the same previously authorized adjusted maximum assessment rate. Subsequently, on August 7, 2018, public hearing for Zone L-2V, property owner ballots regarding the new/increased assessment were tabulated and majority protest did not exist.

The City Council approved and adopted the new Maximum Assessment and fiscal year 2018/2019 assessment for Local Landscaping Zone L-2V which included a modified Assessment Range Formula (New inflationary adjustment) and by reference these changes to Local Landscaping Zone L-2V were incorporated into the Annual Report for fiscal year 2018/2019.

Fiscal Year 2019/2020:

In fiscal year 2019/2020 the following District change was implemented:

In fiscal year 2015/2016, the primarily non-residential development area within Local Landscaping Zone L-1A located north and northeast of La Palma Avenue, and south and southwest of the railroad right-of-way running east and west through Zone L-1A (originally established in fiscal year 2013/2014) was established as Zone L-1F with the residential developments north of the railroad right-of-way being retained as Zone L-1A. At that time, it was determined that the improvements being maintained within the original L-1A Zone were the result of and directly associated with the residential developments north of the railroad right-of-way and the properties in the new Zone L1F primarily received direct special benefit from just the arterial landscaping on La Palma Avenue and the properties within Zone L-1F were no longer assessed for local improvements. In fiscal

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

year 2019/2020 Local Landscaping Zone L-1F was dissolved pursuant to the provisions of the 1972 Act and any fund balance remaining in that Zone’s account was transferred and applied to the fund balance of Arterial Landscaping Zone A-1.

No other notable or consequential changes to the District and/or improvements were proposed or implemented for fiscal year 2019/2020.

Fiscal Year 2020/2021:

In fiscal year 2020/2021 the following District changes were implemented:

Pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIII D the City Council conducted three separate Property Owner Protest Ballot Proceedings for new/increased assessments in three underfunded Local Landscaping Zones. The three Local Landscaping Zones that were balloted for increased assessments included Zones L-2G, L-4A, and L-2E. The separate protest ballot proceedings resulted in approval of new maximum assessments and new assessment range formulas (increased assessments) commencing in fiscal year 2020/2021 for Local Landscaping Zone L-4A on May 5, 2020, and for Local Landscaping Zone L-2E on May 19, 2020.

However, at the conclusion of the public hearing on February 18, 2020, for Local Landscaping Zone L-2G, the ballot tabulation resulted in a majority protest for the proposed assessment increase. Therefore, in accordance with previously adopted City Council policy, City staff began implementing steps to minimize service levels and reduce the overall cost of maintaining the improvements within Zone L-2G for fiscal year 2020/2021 including the vacation of specific landscaping easements on private property as outlined by the City Council policy.

At the Annual Intent Meeting on June 16, 2020, the City Council preliminarily approved the Annual Engineer’s Report, which reflected the proposed vacation of approximately 374,473 square feet of improvements (342,587 square feet of sloped/mostly-sloped area and 31,886 square feet of flat/moderately-sloped area) within Local Landscaping Zone L-2G, reducing the overall maintenance costs for the Zone. However, as part of that approval, the City Council indicated it would delay the vacation proceedings if property owners within the Zone could garner sufficient petition signatures to re-ballot Zone L-2G for an increased assessment. Prior to the Public Hearing on July 21, 2020, the City received sufficient petitions to warrant the re-ballot of Zone L-2G and the Annual Engineer’s Report was revised to assume the postponement of the vacation process and reflect the continued maintenance of the existing Zone L-2G improvements. Subsequently, the City conducted a second Property Owner Protest Ballot Proceeding for a proposed new/increased assessment for Zone L-2G commencing in fiscal year 2021/2022. At the conclusion of the public hearing on November 17, 2020, the ballot tabulation resulted in a majority protest for the proposed assessment increase. Therefore, the City resumed proceedings to vacate specific landscaping easements on private property as soon as possible and implemented reductions in the levels of maintenance in specific areas as needed to reflect available assessment revenues including limited or modified tree management such as tree removal for dead/diseased trees, weed abatement to meet fire clearance requirements, rodent control, and best management practices (BMP) installation for erosion control when necessary. These services may be provided on an as-needed basis similar to the baseline servicing identified for establishing general benefit costs. The extent of any additional service level reductions as well as the specific locations and service level reductions are determined by the Public Works Director based on available assessment revenues and in accordance with City Council policy.

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

In addition, commencing with fiscal year 2020/2021, the landscaping and related improvements that are specifically associated with the Old Pomegranate Trail as well as the landscaping and related improvements adjacent to the Susanna Bixby Bryant Museum and Botanic Garden (previously maintained as part of Zone L-1D) were removed as District improvements. With the elimination of these improvements from the District, Local Landscaping Zone L-1D was reconfigured to include only those properties in proximity to the remaining landscape improvement areas within Zone L-1D and that receive a special benefit from those remaining improvements.

Fiscal Year 2021/2022:

In fiscal year 2021/2022, as part of the ongoing annual review of the improvements associated with each Zone, and to ensure consistency throughout the District, various improvement areas presented in “Part V - Assessment Diagrams” and the improvement descriptions in “Part I - Plans and Specifications” of the fiscal year 2021/2022 Report were updated to accurately reflect the landscaping areas and associated square footage currently being maintained in each landscaping Zone. As part of these updates, some improvement areas at the intersection of Valley View Avenue and Lakeview Avenue in proximity to Lakeview Elementary School, as well as on Bastanchury Road in proximity to Yorba Linda High School have been reclassified as arterial landscaping improvements rather than as local landscaping improvements. Also reflected were revised improvement areas to be maintained within Local Landscaping Zone L-2G commencing in fiscal year 2021/2022 after the second majority protest to increase the assessments in November 2020. These new improvement areas incorporated the elimination of the various vacated easements and service reductions necessary to bring the annual expenditures for L-2G in line with available revenues.

Fiscal Year 2022/2023:

In fiscal year 2022/2023, as part of the ongoing annual review of the improvements associated with each Zone, and to ensure consistency throughout the District, various improvement areas presented in “Part V - Assessment Diagrams” and the square footage discussed in the improvement descriptions in “Part I - Plans and Specifications” of the fiscal year 2022/2023 engineer’s report were updated to more accurately depict the landscaping areas and associated square footage being maintained by the LMAD. These modifications were not considered significant changes and for the most part involved minor updates to the maintained improvement areas previously depicted in the fiscal year 2021/2022 engineer's report. Specifically, the Assessment Diagrams and improvement descriptions for Local Landscaping Zones, L-1A, L-1D, L-2B, L-2D, and L-4A were updated.

No other notable or consequential changes to the District and/or improvements occurred since the adoption of the prior fiscal year’s engineer's report.

Fiscal Year 2023/2024:

On March 21, 2023, in accordance with the 1972 Act and the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIII D, the City Council conducted a public hearing and completed the balloting process for the annexation of the Cielo Vista Development (Tract 17341) to the District. Tract 17341 consists of 84.761 acres of land, to be subdivided into seventy-four (74) single-family residential units generally located north of Via Del Agua and Stonehaven Drive within the existing residential developments identified as Tract 13800 and Tract 10455. This territory was annexed to the City in or about early 2020, with the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission Certificate of Completion being recorded at the County on or about December 20, 2019.

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

The parcels that comprise Tract 17341 were annexed into the District and the following Zones based on the improvements to be provided and maintained through the District and for which parcels within the Annexation Territory receive special benefits:
 Arterial Lighting Zone;
 Arterial Landscaping Zone A-3 (“Zone A-3”);
 Traffic Signal Zone TS-2 (“Zone TS-2”); and
 Local Landscaping Zone L-2K (“Zone L-2K”).

The properties associated with this annexation (Tract 17341) have been incorporated into this Report’s improvements presented in “Part I - Plans and Specifications”, equivalent benefit unit summaries of “Part II - Method of Apportionment”, the budgets as outlined in “Part III - Estimate of Costs”, and the diagrams as presented in “Part V - Assessment Diagrams”.

For fiscal year 2023/2024, in addition to changes resulting from the annexation, as part of the ongoing annual review of the improvements associated with each zone, the Assessment Diagrams and/or improvement descriptions for the following Zones were notably updated:
 Local Landscaping Zone L-1B, incorporated the improvement areas previously identified as “Reduced Maintenance”;
 Local Landscaping Zone L-2A reflected the vacation of a section of non-street landscaping between homes located northeast of Rimcrest Drive and southeast of Falcon Ridge Drive;  Arterial Landscaping Zone A-4 was updated to include the newly constructed median island on the Fairmont Connector, just north of Esperanza Road; and  The diagram for Local Landscaping Zone L-2K was expanded into two parts (North and South) merely for presentation purposes due to the annexation of Tract 17341.

No other notable or consequential changes to the District and/or improvements occurred since the adoption of the prior fiscal year’s engineer's report.

Fiscal Year 2024/2025:

On December 5, 2023, in accordance with the 1972 Act and the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIII D, the City Council conducted a public hearing and completed the Property Owner Protest Ballot Proceeding for a new/increased assessment within Local Landscaping Zone L-1B that resulted in approval of new maximum assessments and new assessment range formula (increased assessments) commencing in fiscal year 2024/2025. In addition to funding the regular annual maintenance, servicing, and operation of approximately 1,181,360 square feet of designated full maintenance landscape improvement area, the new/increased assessment provides for the collection of additional funding to maintain approximately 1,582,930 square feet of landscaped area identified as “Transitional Maintenance” areas initially at a reduced maintenance level but also provides the needed funding to rehabilitate (transition) these areas to full regular maintenance levels over an estimated 30 to 35 years as available assessment revenues allow.

In addition, as part of the ongoing annual review of the improvements associated with each zone, the vacation of easements or expansion of improvement areas, and to ensure consistency throughout the District, the Annual Engineer’s Report incorporated some updates to diagrams

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

and square footages discussed in the improvement descriptions. Generally, these modifications were not considered significant changes and for the most part involve minor updates including:
 Local Landscaping Zone L-2A was updated to remove a section of non-street landscaping located south of Sherwood Drive behind homes on the south side of the Forest Glen Road cul-de-sac, which is privately maintained;
 Local Landscaping Zone L-5A incorporated a minor increase to the irrigated slope square footage resulting from GIS mapping adjustments;
 Local Landscaping Zone L-5B mapping adjustments eliminated a portion of irrigated sloped parkway landscaping on the south side of Via Miani just north of Lakeview Drive, an area of flat irrigated greenbelt landscaping located behind homes west of Elsie Dr, as well as areas of flat irrigated parkway landscaping located on the north side of Bruin Court and also located along Bastanchury Road;
 Arterial Landscaping Zone A-4 was updated to remove irrigated parkway landscaping behind the sidewalk in front of the commercial properties on the south side of Yorba Linda Blvd between Imperial Highway and Lakeview Avenue (The trees in the sidewalk tree wells in this area are still in the Arterial Zone);
 Arterial Landscaping Zone A-5 was updated to reflect the vacation of several small landscape areas around Bastanchury Road and Cornell Lane, and around Bastanchury Road and Clydesdale Drive. Collectively, approximately 29,820 square feet of landscaping was removed from Zone A-5 (24,020 irrigated slopes and 5,800 irrigated flat landscaping);  Arterial Landscaping Zone A-7 incorporated minor increases to the median and trail square footages resulting from GIS mapping adjustments; and
 Arterial Landscaping Zone A-8 included the vacation of the irrigated parkway landscaping and trails on the west side of Lakeview Avenue in the areas around Mariposa Avenue and Timberland Drive.

No other notable or consequential changes to the District and/or improvements occurred since the adoption of the prior fiscal year’s engineer's report.

Fiscal Year 2025/2026:

In fiscal year 2025/2026, as part of the ongoing annual review of the improvements associated with each Zone, and to ensure consistency throughout the District, various improvement areas presented in “Part V - Assessment Diagrams” and the square footage estimates discussed in the improvement descriptions in “Part I - Plans and Specifications” of the fiscal year 2025/2026 engineer’s report were updated to more accurately depict the landscaping areas and associated square footage being maintained by the LMAD. These modifications were not considered significant changes and for the most part involved minor updates to the maintained improvement areas outlined in previously engineer's reports. Specifically:
 L-1B: In Local Landscaping Zone L-1B, the slope area landscaping west of Camino de Bryant and north of the railroad was adjusted to exclude the portion of this area that was within the railroad right-of-way located along the southern edge of this landscaped area (and thus the boundary of the Zone). This eliminated approximately 72,400 square feet of landscape area that was previously maintained at a reduced service level.

Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Engineer’s Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2026/2027

 L-2A: The assessment diagram for Local Landscaping Zone L-2A was updated to reflect the removal of the area north of Falconridge Road and northeast of Rimcrest Drive (approximately 111,835 square feet of landscape area) that had actually been vacated in fiscal year 2023/2024 and reflected in the maintenance budgets and improvement square footage since that time but not reflect in the fiscal year 2024/2025 L-2A diagram.  L-2Q: The assessment diagram for Local Landscaping Zone L-2Q as well as the related maintenance budget and improvement square footage applied was updated to reflect the removal of the landscape corner return area on the northeast corner of Bastanchury Road and Fairmont Boulevard, which is maintained by the homeowner’s association and not the District. (Approximately 725 square feet of flat parkway landscaping).  L-2Q: The assessment diagram for Local Landscaping Zone L-2Q as well as the related maintenance budget and improvement square footage applied was updated to reflect the removal of the landscape corner return area on the northwest corner of Bastanchury Road and Village Center Drive, which is maintained by the homeowner’s association and not the District. (Approximately 940 square feet of flat parkway landscaping).  Minor modifications to the diagrams for Local Landscaping Zones L-2I, L-2K North, L-2O, L2P, and L-2S were made which may include the addition of more street names or expansion of the surrounding areas or zones illustrated for reference purposes, and/or updated parcel configurations as a result of parcel changes.

No other notable or consequential changes to the District and/or improvements occurred since the adoption of the prior fiscal year’s engineer's report.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: JUNE 16, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JAMIE LAI, P.E., DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER PREPARED BY: TONY WANG, P.E., TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MANAGER SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5994 APPROVING THE 2025-26 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY AND RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5995 APPROVING THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-5994 approving the 2025-26 Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-5995 approving the Transportation Impact Fee update.

SUMMARY
Public Works recently completed a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study to update the fees and ensure compliance with State law. The proposed update revises the fee schedule that new development pays to fund transportation improvements.

DISCUSSION
The City established the Transportation Impact Fee program in 1993 to fund transportation improvements needed to serve new developments. The California Mitigation Fee Act requires these fees to be supported by a specialized analysis called a nexus study and updated periodically.

The 2025-26 Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study identified maximum fee levels that are higher than the recommended fees. Public Works used the Nexus Study to establish the legal basis for the fee update and then used a survey of comparable Orange County cities to recommend lower initial fees (Attachment 4)
Public Works shared the recommended fees with the Building Industry Association in early June and did not receive any comments. Additionally, consistent with State law development projects with pre-applications already on file will to pay the current fee.

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE
P a g e | 2
Category Existing Fee
Recommended
Fee
Detached Dwelling $600 $3,000 per unit
Attached Dwelling $600 $2,000 per unit
Office $0.48 $10 per gross square foot
Commercial $1.98 $5 per gross square foot
Industrial/Manufacturing $0.15 $10.75 per gross square foot Senior Only Apartment - $822 per unit
Mobile Homes Dwelling - $5,156 per unit
Commercial Lodging - $978 per unit
Private Institutional - $10 per gross square foot

FISCAL IMPACT
The updated fees will ensure new development pays its fair share of growth-related transportation improvements.

ALTERNATIVES
Do not approve the recommendations and provide alternative direction.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2026-5994 Approving the TIF Nexus Study

2. Resolution No. 2026-5995 Approving the TIF Update

3. Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study

4. Orange County Cities TIF Survey Summary

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5994

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2025–2026 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE

NEXUS STUDY
WHEREAS, cities are authorized to adopt impact fees for transportation impacts pursuant to the California Constitution, Article 11, Section 7, and the California Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code §§ 66000-66025.

WHEREAS, the City has established a Transportation Impact Fee Program to ensure that future development contributes its fair share toward transportation facilities and improvements necessary to accommodate growth; and
WHEREAS, Government Code § 66016.5(a)(5) requires that when a city adopts or updates a Development Impact Fee (DIF) or Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) after July 1, 2022, the fee must either be calculated proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units or be supported by specific findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric and why an alternative basis bears a reasonable relationship to the burden of development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yorba Linda has completed a comprehensive and empirically based Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study (2025–26) which establishes the relationship between new development and the City’s need for expanded transportation infrastructure and related capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, the TIF Nexus Study identifies transportation facilities and improvements required to accommodate future growth and establishes the reasonable relationship between new development, the need for transportation improvements, and the proportional share of costs attributable to future development; and WHEREAS, infrastructure demands such as road use, intersection capacity, and traffic signal needs are determined primarily by the number of residential units constructed, rather than their size, and each additional dwelling unit, regardless of floor area, generates an approximately equal level of transportation service demand; and WHEREAS, the per-dwelling-unit methodology ensures that each new residential development contributes its fair share of the total infrastructure costs needed to maintain the City’s adopted transportation level of service; and WHEREAS, the City’s policy treats all residential development types fairly and consistently, aligning with the proportionality and nexus requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to reaffirm that the per-dwelling-unit fee structure remains the most accurate, equitable, and legally defensible method for assessing Transportation Impact Fees on residential development;

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that approval of the Nexus Study does not itself establish, increase, or impose any fee and instead constitutes approval of a technical study supporting future implementation actions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that this action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to the applicable provisions of the CEQA Guidelines because the action does not constitute a project or is otherwise exempt from environmental review.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Recitals.

The above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Resolution in their entirety.

Section 2: Approval of Nexus Study.

The City Council hereby approves the 2025–2026 Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study, attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda on this 16th day of June 2026.
__________________________

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 )
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 Council of the City of Yorba Linda held on the 16th day of June, 2026, and was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
________________________________

MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK

CITY OF YORBA LINDA

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5995

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT/MITIGATON FEE UPDATE
WHEREAS, cities are authorized to adopt impact fees for transportation impacts pursuant to the California Constitution, Article 11, Section 7, and the California Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code §§ 66000-66025.

WHEREAS, this resolution is intended to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, as may be amended from time to time.

WHEREAS, Government Code § 66016.5(a)(5) requires that when a city adopts or updates a Development Impact Fee (DIF) or Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) after July 1, 2022, the fee must either be calculated proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units or be supported by specific findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric and why an alternative basis bears a reasonable relationship to the burden of development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yorba Linda has completed a comprehensive and empirically based Transportation Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report (2025–26) which establishes the relationship between new development and the City’s need for expanded transportation infrastructure and related capital improvements; and WHEREAS, infrastructure demands such as road use, intersection capacity, and traffic signal needs are determined primarily by the number of residential units constructed, rather than their size, and each additional dwelling unit, regardless of floor area, generates an approximately equal level of transportation service demand; and WHEREAS, the per-dwelling-unit methodology ensures that each new residential development contributes its fair share of the total infrastructure costs needed to maintain the City’s adopted transportation level of service; and WHEREAS, the City’s policy treats all residential development types fairly and consistently, aligning with the proportionality and nexus requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to reaffirm that the per-dwelling-unit fee structure remains the most accurate, equitable, and legally defensible method for assessing Transportation Impact Fees on residential development;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Recitals. The above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Resolution in their entirety.

Section 2: Intent and Purpose.

This resolution shall be known as the City of Yorba Linda Transportation Impact Fee Resolution. This resolution is adopted under the authority of the California Constitution, Article 11, Section 7, and the California Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code §§ 66000- 66025. The provisions in this chapter are intended to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, as may be amended from time to time. In the event of any ambiguity in the provisions of this chapter, such provisions shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and shall not be interpreted to afford a developer greater rights than those afforded by the Mitigation Fee Act. In the event that any provisions of the chapter conflict with the Mitigation Fee Act, the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act shall be controlled.

Section 3: Incorporation Of Nexus Study and Analysis In Support Of Fee.

Attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference is the Nexus Study that sets forth the purpose of the Transportation Impact Fee, the use to which the Fee is to be put, the reasonable relationship between the Fee’s use and the type of Development Project on which the Fee is imposed, the reasonable relationship between the need for the Transportation Facilities and type of Development Project on which the Fee is imposed, and the reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the Transportation Facilities attributable to the Development Project on which the Fee is imposed.

Section 4: Findings For Transportation Impact Fee.

The City Council of the City of Yorba Linda finds that:

A. New development within the City imposes increased demand on the City’s transportation system. The purpose of the Fee is to raise funds for Transportation Facilities in the City.

B. The imposition of impact fees is a lawful method of ensuring that new development pays its proportionate share of the costs of new or expanded transportation facilities. New development creates additional vehicle trips, placing demands on the existing circulation system and requiring the construction of new or expanded Transportation Facilities. The Transportation Facilities for which the Fees are to be used are included within the Nexus Study, the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, and the City’s General Plan.

C. The Fees authorized by this resolution are based on a Nexus Study entitled the Yorba Linda Transportation Impact Fees Nexus Study, which demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use, the need for the Transportation Facilities, and the type of Development Projects upon which the Fee is imposed.

D. Implementation of this resolution is a necessary component for achieving the goals of the City’s General Plan, the Capital Improvement Plan, for necessary circulation system improvements, and for improvements identified in the Nexus Study.

E. This resolution is adopted to protect the public health, safety, and welfare pursuant to the City’s police powers to ensure new development funds for its fair share of traffic infrastructure.

Section 5: Findings For Use Of Per-Dwelling-Unit Residential Transportation Impact Fees.

The City Council of the City of Yorba Linda finds that:

A. Square footage is not an appropriate metric for determining residential Transportation Impact Fees, as there is no empirical data establishing a proportional relationship between floor area and infrastructure demand.

B. A per-dwelling-unit methodology bears a reasonable relationship with the actual burdens imposed by new residential development on the City’s transportation network.

C. The City’s analysis finds no empirical evidence that the size of a dwelling unit, measured in square feet, has a measurable or proportional relationship to the demand it places for transportation infrastructure or municipal services. This is further supported by the ITE Trip Generation Manual which establishes daily trip rates on a per dwelling unit basis rather than by square footage
D. The adopted fee structure treats all residential developments equitably, ensuring smaller projects are not disproportionately charged.

E. The methodology satisfies the nexus and proportionality requirements of Government Code § 66016.5 and the Mitigation Fee Act.

F. The City Council hereby affirms and adopts the continued use of per-dwelling-unit residential Transportation Impact Fees for detached, attached, and mobile home residential developments within the City of Yorba Linda.

Section 6. Definitions.

For the purposes of this resolution, the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:

A. Applicant: The person or entity applying for a development permit, including a building permit or other entitlement for a development project.

B. Development Project: Any construction, development or change of use that creates additional demand for the transportation system, for which a building permit or other entitlement or discretionary permit is required.

C. Nexus Study: The technical report prepared in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act that justifies the fees established by this resolution.

D. Transportation Facilities: Capital projects that expand the capacity of the transportation system, including but not limited to roadway and street improvements and supporting improvements, intersection improvements, traffic signalization, overpasses, bridges, transit facilities, bikeways, sidewalks and related facilities.

E. Transportation Impact Fee: The Transportation Impact Fee authorized by this Resolution. Sometimes herein referred to as the Fee.

Section 7. Transportation Impact Fee.

The Transportation Impact Fee is hereby established. . The Fee shall be payable at the earliest time allowed pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, as amended from time to time.

Payment may be required at an earlier date for phased projects or in other situations in accordance with the procedures in the Mitigation Fee Act, as amended from time to time.

Section 8. Fee Applicability And Rate.

A. Applicability. A Transportation Impact Fee shall be imposed on all new Development Projects, including changes of use that intensify existing transportation demands, unless exempted by this resolution.

B, Fee Rate. The specific Fee rates shall be as established by the City Council, based on the most recently adopted Nexus Study. The fee may be differentiated by factors defined in the Nexus Study.

C. Annual Adjustment. The Fee shall be adjusted on an annual basis as outlined in this resolution, separate resolution, or the Nexus Study.

D. Fee Calculation. The Fee shall be calculated based on the Development Project’s use and/or size, as defined in the resolution and Nexus Study.

E. Credits. An Applicant may receive a credit for the value of any dedication of land, construction of traffic improvements, or payment of a fee for traffic facilities that are included within the fee program to be paid by the Transportation Impact Fee.

F. Exemptions. Development Projects may be exempt from the Fee, or charged a reduced Fee, based upon the requirements of State or Federal law or as otherwise determined by the City Engineer
Section 9. Calculation of Fee; the fee for each land use/zoning category is as follows:

Land Use/Zoning Unit Fee Unit
Detached Dwelling $3,000.00 per unit
Attached Dwelling $2,000.00 per unit
Office $10.00 per gross square foot
Commercial $5.00 per gross square foot
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $10.75 per gross square foot Senior Only Apartment $822.00 per unit
Mobile Homes Dwelling $5,156.00 per unit
Commercial Lodging $978.00 per unit
Private Institutional $10.00 per gross square foot
Section 10. Procedures for Adoption of Fee.

The procedural requirements in the Mitigation Fee Act, as amended from time to time, shall be followed for the adoption or increase of the Fee.

Section 11. Annual Adjustment For Inflation.

The Fee established by this Resolution may be adjusted on July 1st of each year, beginning on July 1, 2027, in accordance with one or more nationally recognized inflation indices, to take into consideration the inflation in costs applicable to each fee category during the previous year.

Section 12. Creation of Separate Accounts.

The Mitigation Fee Act requires the City to account for all development impact fees collected. Fees shall be deposited into a separate capital facilities account or accounts and shall not be comingled with any other City funds, except for temporary investments or authorized and documented Interfund Transfer agreements. Impact fees shall be expended solely for the purpose for which they were collected. While funds are accruing for individual public facilities, the City shall track each account and provide the reports required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Section 13. Reporting Requirements.

In accordance with Government Code sections 66001 and 66006 or as otherwise amended by the Mitigation Fee Act, the City shall comply with the reporting requirements applicable to the Fee.

Section 14. Protest Procedures.

In accordance with Government Code section 66020 or as otherwise amended by the Mitigation Fee Act, a party may protest the imposition of Fees on a Development Project by complying with the timing and procedural requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. The statute of limitations for any legal action shall be the shortest time period authorized in the Mitigation Fee Act or other applicable law.

Section 15. Credit and Reimbursement Agreement. If, as a condition of approval of a transportation project, a developer constructs a Transportation Facility identified in the Nexus Study, for which a Transportation Impact Fee is imposed, then the developer shall be eligible to receive a fee credit toward the Transportation Impact Fee imposed on the transportation project for the same type of facility so constructed, and shall be entitled to reimbursement for eligible costs of constructing the facility.

Section 16. Performance Monitoring Program.

A. Any developer of any project which is required to be built in phases shall annually submit a report to the City Engineer. The report shall be due no later than January 31 of each year and shall cover activities for the previous calendar year. The report shall contain the following information:
(1) A listing by phase of the number of dwelling units completed during that previous calendar year and the number of dwelling units expected to be completed during the current calendar year.
(2) A listing by phase of the commercial acreage and square footage developed during that previous calendar year and the commercial acreage and square footage expected to be developed during the current calendar year.

(3) A listing by phase of the industrial acreage and square footage developed during that previous calendar year and the industrial acreage and square footage expected to be developed during the current calendar year. (4) A listing by phase of the office acreage and square footage developed during that previous calendar year and the office acreage and square footage expected to be developed during the current calendar year.
(5) A narrative report detailing the status of any required on-site and/or off-site roadway improvements.
(6) Any information required by the City Engineer pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Section.

The annual report shall not be required after submission of the report due by January 31 that covers the previous calendar year during which the project was completed or building permits were revoked.

B. The City Engineer shall annually prepare a list of developments subject to the above programs. This report shall include the identification, location, and description of applicable developments and/or modifications thereto and the fees assessed. Such report shall be submitted to the City Manager by the first day of March each year.

Section 17. Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 18. Effective Date.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 66017, this resolution shall become effective 60 days after its adoption. Upon the effective date of the fees authorized by this resolution, Resolution No. 93-2830 shall be superseded and shall have no further force or effect.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda on this 16th day of June 2026.
__________________________

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 )
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 Council of the City of Yorba Linda held on the 16th day of June, 2026, and was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

________________________________

MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK

CITY OF YORBA LINDA

Yorba Linda Transportation
Impact Fees

NEXUS STUDY
Prepared By: Scott Thorpe | [email protected]

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND YORBA LINDA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES ........................................................................................................................ 1 The Importance of Capital Infrastructure.............................................................................................................2 REQUIRED NOLLAN/DOLAN LEGAL STANDARDS.......................................................................................................2 Traffic Impact Fee Structure.................................................................................................................................5 CALCULATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES...................................................................................................................5 OTHER ASSUMPTIONS OF THE REPORT.....................................................................................................................6 Condition of Approval Projects Omitted...............................................................................................................6 "Normal" Subdivision Improvements Omitted. ....................................................................................................7 Land Acquisition Costs..........................................................................................................................................7 CHAPTER ORGANIZATION.........................................................................................................................................7 Distribution of Any Unobligated Existing Traffic Impact Fee Fund Balance.........................................................8 Use of Textual Acronyms......................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 2 DEMOGRAPHICS AND FINDINGS.....................................................................................................10 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS........................................................................................................................................10 TIF Land-use Types Definitions. ..........................................................................................................................11 Definitions of TIF Application Categories Status. ...............................................................................................13 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .........................................................................................................................................13 TIFs for the City’s General Plan Area..................................................................................................................14 FORMAT OF THIS REPORT .......................................................................................................................................15 CHAPTER 3 TRANSPORTATION (STREETS, SIGNALS, BRIDGES, ITS AND PLANNING DOCUMENTS) SYSTEM..........16 The Existing System............................................................................................................................................16 GENERAL CITY TIF SCHEDULE ..................................................................................................................................19 Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Undeveloped Parcels........................................19 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM COST DISTRIBUTION BY AVERAGE LAND-USE TRIP FREQUENCY/DISTANCE ..........................................26 Recommended Transportation System TIF Schedule. ........................................................................................32 Construction Responsibility vs. TIF Payment. .....................................................................................................32 RECAP OF RECOMMENDED TIFS..............................................................................................................................32

Appendices

APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX B - EXPANDED LAND-USE DATABASE

APPENDIX C - CALCULATION OF AVERGE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING SIZES

APPENDIX D - ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS COST CALCULATION EXPLANATION

List of Tables
TABLE 2-1 CITY OF YORBA LINDA LAND USE INVENTORY....................................................................................11 TABLE 2-2 TOTAL CITY-WIDE GENERAL PLAN BUILD-OUT CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................14 TABLE 2-3 SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FOR THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN AREA ................................................................................................................................................................14 TABLE 3-1 CITY OF YORBA LINDA’S GENERAL PLAN AREA MINIMUM NEEDS-BASED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT COSTS BY TIF LAND-USE TYPE.......................................................................................29 TABLE 3-2 SUMMARY OF AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING SQUARE FEET........................................................29 TABLE 3-3 AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING TIF COST PER SQUARE FEET .........................................................30 TABLE 3-4 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM COMMUNITY FINANCIAL COMMITMENT COMPARISON DATA .31

List of Abbreviated Terms
COAs Conditions of Approval
DIFs Development Impact Fees (in general)
FARs Floor Area Ratios
LUDB Land-use Database
LOS Level of Service
ROW Rights-of-way
TIF Traffic Impact Fee (specific to Yorba Linda)

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 1 Chapter 1
Background and Introduction
to Development Impact Fees and Yorba Linda Transportation Impact Fees The City of Yorba Linda recently determined it needed to undertake a comprehensive updated calculation of the future transportation-related development impact costs for the City. This document will serve as the update of the previous 1993 calculation. City staff contacted staff at Urban Crossroads who then put together a team that included Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC (henceforth referred to as RCS). The development impact cost calculation is intended to identify the cost of additional transportation-based infrastructure necessary to accommodate continued development within the City’s existing limits. The intent is to prevent the natural decrease in the transportation Level of Service (henceforth referred to as the LOS) currently enjoyed by the City’s existing residents and businesses that would occur by increasing demands from new development. This transportation development impact cost calculation can now be formalized as the Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) schedule by the City Council. Government Code §66000 et. seq. refers to such impositions as development impact fees. However, for consistency purposes, the City prefers to continue its current nomenclature of Traffic Impact Fees, or TIFs for its transportation system needs. The term Development Impact Fee will be reserved to any reference to Government Code §66000 et. seq. while Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) will refer to the City’s specific transportation-based impact fee schedule and will henceforth will be referred to as TIFs.

A review and adjustment of the City's TIFs is appropriate and warranted in order to continue to ensure that the City collects sufficient monies to construct the additional transportation-based infrastructure needed to accommodate the anticipated traffic demands of new residents and businesses expected to be developed in the City. Continuous inflation, older project cost estimates, General Plan amendments and changing development are major factors in creating the need to update of this important fee schedule. This section also requires public agencies to quantify and defend the development costs. Such has been completed with the submission of this Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report.

This TIF Calculation and Nexus Report effort is consistent with the requirements contained within §66000, et, seq. of the Government Code. This document includes a complete list of the projects potentially financed by the TIF schedules as well as an investment comparison with the existing financial commitment of the existing community. TIF proceeds are limited for use only on the projects highlighted in this report and conversely cannot be used on any other project not listed.

Chapter 1 Background and Introduction
Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 2 The Importance of Capital Infrastructure. The LOS of any single City infrastructure is based upon (and limited by) the capacity of the cumulative improvements within that infrastructure to support the users, both residents and businesses. The design of any municipal project has a finite capacity, such as a four-lane roadway or a 30” storm drainage pipe. Each can only meet the needs of a defined number of users. For example, a four-lane collector street segment can only support so many vehicles per hour, especially at a speed that makes it worth using for driving over longer distances similarly as a storm drainage pipe that is 30” cannot handle storm flows twice that capacity.

However, the amount of and complexity of any infrastructure defines (in part or all) of the LOS.

This makes the one-time TIF financing of any City’s infrastructure that much more important. It takes a balance to accommodate development with the proper amount of major street lane-miles within the desired street segment. It will take additional lane miles, traffic signals, bridges, intelligent transportation systems and planning documents to maintain the existing LOS. The importance of having a properly calculated and documented TIF schedule necessary to accommodate development-related demands cannot be overstated. Of course, the City’s TIFs can only be used for the capital acquisitions, the short- and long-term maintenance costs will need to come from other sources.

REQUIRED NOLLAN/DOLAN LEGAL STANDARDS
Impact Fees in California must meet three nexus requirements:

1. The Federal Nollan Decision,

2. The Federal Dolan Decision; and

3. The five findings referred to in the State of California Government Code §66000 et. seq.

The Nollan/Dolan Standards require a public entity to show that a fee bears an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” directly related to the impact of the development being charged the fee. The standard or test is derived from two separate court cases, and most recently reaffirmed and clarified in the 2024 Sheetz v. County of El Dorado U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The first case was Nollan v. California Coastal Commission in 1986. This established the “essential nexus,” or the first part of the Standard. In this particular case, the Nollan’s wanted to tear down their dilapidated bungalow and build a larger new home. The California Coastal Commission stated that since the larger house would block the public’s view of the ocean, the Nollan’s would need to dedicate a strip of their land along the beach to allow the public to pass along the beach for 20 years. The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Nollan’s and found no clear relationship or “nexus” between the public’s view of the ocean and the Coastal Commission’s requirement that the Nollan’s dedicate a part of their land for public access. In this Report, the TIF is limited to transportation improvement projects based upon a Daily trip-mile basis.

Chapter 1 Background and Introduction
Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 3 The second case was Dolan v. City of Tigard in 1993. This case established the “rough proportionality,” the second part of the Standard. In the case, Dolan owned a plumbing supply store and wanted to expand the store and parking lot. The City of Tigard’s planning commission granted conditional approval of the expansion, dependent on Dolan dedicating 10% of her land to a public greenway along an adjacent creek and constructing a bicycle and pedestrian pathway.

The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Dolan. The Court found that although an “essential nexus” (in this case, increased runoff due to impervious surfaces) was established, there was no clear proportionality between the expansion of Dolan’s store and the city’s requirement for a public greenway and bike path. Therefore, the condition was found to be an unconstitutional exaction.

These cases combined resulted in the Nollan/Dolan Standards. The first part of the Standard is the “essential nexus.” When applied to Impact Fees, this means that each fee must have a nexus directly related to that development's impact on a city's infrastructure. For example, it would make sense to have development contribute to increasing the capacity of the water conveyance system in the city, since all new developments increase water demand. However, it would not make sense for all developments to contribute to a reverse osmosis plant that only benefits a few industrial uses.

The second part of the Standard is “rough proportionality.” This means that the fee charged to new development must be proportional to the impact that development will have on the city’s infrastructure. For example, a single-family home should not bear the cost of an entire new water treatment plant, but rather contribute based on its relative demand, such as gallons per day (or in a proportional manner).

PROPORTIONAL ANALYSIS
The infrastructure needs that are required to accommodate continued development of the City as compared to the existing infrastructure has been generated through years of taxes and other contributions and currently serves the existing community. This proportional analysis is intended to recognize and reconcile the difference between the City's desired LOS required of new development, per statements in the various General Plan elements, with that of the de-facto or actual LOS provided to the existing community. The City’s current transportation inventory of transportation assets generated by the existing community is nearly five times greater than will be asked of the development community through the new TIFs. The inclusion of this proportional analysis will assist the City Council in adopting a TIF structure that recognizes long term equity and assist the Council in making the difficult policy decisions regarding the required capital additions needed to accommodate new development by increasing the lay-person’s understanding of fairness.

The proportional analysis is important as a test for long term community equity, i.e., fairness in the infrastructure investment that has been made by existing residents and businesses with those of new residents and businesses that wish to use the existing transportation system infrastructure.

For example, new development may be required to expand the number of arterial and collector lane miles in the City but that same new development gains an immediate benefit from the use of the existing transportation improvements constructed over many decades. In short, previous

Chapter 1 Background and Introduction
Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 4 generations of businesses and residents have contributed to the massive development of the City’s existing infrastructure inventory and this fact should be recognized by future residents and businesses by contributing a similar (or lesser) amount of capacity towards completing the various infrastructure systems.

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

1. Existing Needs, i.e., projects that are required regardless of whether there is additional development or not. An example could be a traffic intersection currently controlled by an aging traffic signal that simply needs to be replaced or updated. This is not caused by new development. An additional example would be adding a 2” cap on any existing roadway. That improvement does not increase the capacity of that roadway to carry additional traffic.

2. Public improvement projects required as a result of the need to accommodate future development. An example of this would be a stop-controlled intersection but because of anticipated development will ultimately need to be signalized.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, further clarified and reinforced the application of the Nollan/Dolan Standards, particularly in the context of monetary impact fees. In that case, the Court held that development impact fees imposed on an individual basis must also meet the "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards, even if such fees are part of a legislatively adopted fee schedule rather than an ad hoc, project-specific condition.

Mr. Sheetz had challenged El Dorado County’s traffic impact fee, which was uniformly imposed on all new residential development under a county ordinance. The Court ruled that constitutional protections against takings under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments apply equally to fees imposed through legislation as they do to fees imposed on a case-by-case basis. This decision rejects the idea that legislative enactments are immune from individualized scrutiny when they demand concessions from property owners in exchange for building permits.

The ruling in Sheetz emphasizes that all exactions—monetary or otherwise—must be justified with a clear, individualized connection to the specific development's impacts. Cities and public agencies must be able to demonstrate that a fee relates to a public need caused by the development and that the amount charged is reasonably proportional to the development’s actual impact.

This Report provides the documentation of the City's costs serves as the basis for calculating the City’s TIF schedule. The updated Schedules and related information can be found in Chapter 3 and Appendices A through D of this Report.

Chapter 1 Background and Introduction
Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 5 Urban Crossroads and RCS staff has worked with the Finance, Public Works and Community Development staff to generate and review the supporting data which forms the recalculation of the City’s TIF schedule. The results of this review can be found on the schedules located at the end of Chapter 3.

Traffic Impact Fee Structure. The General Plan provides a range of potential densities for residential development, as such, the DIFs for residential uses need to be calculated on a more accurate per dwelling unit basis to reflect the impacts from a specific development. For example, a property zoned for detached dwelling residential development may contain from two to six units per acre. If fees are calculated on an acreage basis, the developer proposing three units per acre would pay the same amount as a developer constructing six units per acre. Similarly, fees are calculated on a square footage basis for business (retail/service, office and industrial, etc.) parcels to reflect the impacts of different building intensities for these types of development.

A second reason for the proposed TIF fee structure recommended in this Report involves the issue of building expansion or intensification of retail, office and industrial areas. For example, if a property owner of commercial or industrial property proposes an expansion to his building, the question exists about how to charge this proposed expansion for its impact on the City's transportation system. A TIF calculated on a building square footage (with an Average Floor Area Ratio, or FAR) for business uses basis simplifies this calculation.

CALCULATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
In California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of these fees. This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66009. This State law went into effect on January 1, 1989. Additional requirements and clarifications from the more recent AB602 are also chaptered in this section.

Government Code §66000 requires documentation of projects to be financed by Development Impact Fees prior to their levy and collection, and that the monies collected actually be committed within five years to a project of direct benefit to the development which paid the fees. It is important to note that the term committed does not equate with expended. The portion of this Repot identifying the list and description of the projects act suffices as the commitment of collection of the fees. Government Code §66000 requires the following nexus process commonly referred to as the five findings. They are:

1. Delineation of the purpose of the fee.

2. Determination of the use of the fee.

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

4. Determination of the relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development project.

Chapter 1 Background and Introduction
Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 6

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

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

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

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

3. Identify all additions to the transportation capital facilities necessary to maintain the existing LOS within the City and then determine the cost of those additions. This is accomplished in the Chapter 3 project descriptions and Schedule 3.1 in this Report.

4. Identify a level of responsibility, identifying, as termed in this Report, the relative need or as referred to in Schedule 3.1 as "Percent Need" for the facility necessary to accommodate future additional transportation demands as defined, and as opposed to current transportation requirements.

5. Distribute the identified project costs based on their relative use, or nexus, of the capital system. For example, future street costs were distributed to each land use based on their trip generation characteristics.

OTHER ASSUMPTIONS OF THE REPORT
In addition to the land use assumptions contained in the next Chapter of this Report, other important assumptions of this study include the following:

Condition of Approval Projects Omitted. Condition of Approval projects (henceforth referred to as COA’s) are required for and typically benefit limited private development and thus do not benefit the greater City at large. COA projects are identified in development documents approved by Council. The best example of a COA would be a mid-block traffic signal providing access in and out of a shopping center. But for that shopping center, that signal would probably not be needed and for that reason it is left out of the City-wide TIF calculation. An additional COA example would be the curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements adjacent to any City arterial or collector road segment. These projects are identified as specifically called-out as COA’s of the private development project that is generating 100% of the need for that public infrastructure

Chapter 1 Background and Introduction
Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 7 improvement. To do otherwise would require other developers in the City to unfairly subsidize those particular developers by requiring them to construct those very specific public improvements.
"Normal" Subdivision Improvements Omitted. “Local" public improvements generally associated with and identified as being the sole responsibility of the developer through the subdivision or development review process are not included in either of the project lists or consequent calculations. This type of "on site" and immediately adjacent improvement would include all such capital construction within the boundaries of any development, such as street lights, curb, gutter, sidewalks, neighborhood streets and all local utility pipes. These improvements would continue to be the direct responsibility of the developer, with or without the addition of DIFs. These COA projects are only required to meet specific local needs of the residential dwellings and business needs within that specific private development. No other development within the City benefits from those local improvements so they should not be put in a position of having to subsidize that developer in paying for them. They benefit only that one development.

Land Acquisition Costs. Land acquisition cost estimates have been developed based upon recent ROW acquisitions, the nature or value of the contiguous land-use or information about parcels similar to what is needed by the City. Arguments for higher or lower costs can be made; however, the herein contained per acre amounts appear to be the most appropriate current figure for the purposes of this study. However, City engineering staff should be vigilant in looking for marked swings that can occur to land acquisition costs that would affect the City’s TIF schedule.

CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
Within the Transportation System Chapter there will be three fee/cost comparison tables. They are:

Schedule 3.1, Allocation of Project Cost Estimates - The first schedule is the Allocation of Project Cost Estimates identifies the project titles, their costs and the relationship, in an allocation percentage, to future development. This list of the projects identifies projects proposed to maintain the City’s transportation system LOS.

Schedule 3.2. Minimum Needs-based Impact Fee – This schedule calculates the TIF schedule that would need to be adopted to meet the capital needs identified in Schedule 3.1 as necessary to maintain the City’s existing LOS, as best as possible. Strictly speaking, this schedule is a calculation of the development impact costs, suitable to be adopted as a TIF schedule, by the legislative body determining City policy, in this case the Yorba Linda City Council.

With adoption of this level of TIFs, one could claim that new development is occurring without creating any additional cost to the existing residents and businesses. You could not, however, necessarily claim that new development is paying its fair share.

Schedule 3.3, Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison - Schedule 3.3, while not an impact fee calculation, serves as the test for long term equity (or fairness) by identifying the

Chapter 1 Background and Introduction
Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 8 cost (at current nominal replacement dollar value) of the City significant existing infrastructure, including land and physical transportation-based capital improvements. This significant figure is then divided by the existing peak-hour trip-end demands from the existing community. The distribution of this replacement value equity total distributed over the existing developed community calculates the average amount that has been invested over the many years by the current community of residents and businesses and is a good indication, or comparison, with what could be imposed upon new development. This financial commitment will be expressed in terms of the cost to acquire the ROW assets and construct the public transportation improvements at current replacement costs. Significant differences between this schedule and the Schedule 3.2, General Plan Minimal Needs-based TIF rate schedule would certainly be worth additional analysis and explanation.

If the average equity (for a detached dwelling for example) on this Existing Commitment Financial Commitment Comparison Table is greater than the average cost on the previous Minimum Needsbased Table, then that infrastructure system is front-ended with more of the system, say 80% of it has been constructed while only at 50% of General Plan build-out has occurred and it likely has excess capacity at that point in time. The excess capacity is the result of earlier residents and businesses of the community having put more of the transportation system into place than will be necessary by the remaining un-built portions of the community. In Yorba Linda’s case, the existing community has advanced money to build capacity into the infrastructure system to meet the needs of residents and businesses not yet there. This table is intended to be the required test for the required proportionality.

Distribution of Any Unobligated Existing Traffic Impact Fee Fund Balance. There is an existing Traffic Impact Fund Balance but it has been appropriated to projects within the 2025-26 budget thus there is no unobligated amount.

Use of Textual Acronyms. The following acronyms may be used through-out the Report. They are:
● Conditions of Approval may be referred to as COAs.
● Development Impact Fees will often be referred to as DIFs but only when discussing Government Code §66000 in general.
● Floor Area Ratios may be referred to as FARs.
● Land-use Database may be referred to as the LUDB.
● Level-of-Service will be referred to as the LOS.
● Right-of-way may be referred to a ROW.
● The City’s specific Transportation Impact Fees will be referred to as TIFs. ● Transportation System will refer to the City’s inventory of major collector and arterial streets, traffic signals, bridges, intelligent transportation system improvements and planning documents.

As a reminder, Section §66000 of the Government Code (often referred to as the Mitigation Fee Act) refers to the payment of an impact mitigation fee as condition of a development approval as Development Impact Fees (or DIFs) while the City refers to its State enabled transportationoriented development impact fee as the Transportation Impact Fee (or TIF). This is merely a difference in nomenclature as the City’s TIF is under the auspices of Section §66000. To avoid confusion within this Report, the use of the term Development Impact Fees or DIFs has been

Chapter 1 Background and Introduction
Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 9 limited to any discussion relating to the generic discussion of impact fees and the law as stated in Government Code §66000, et. seq. The term Transportation Impact Fees or TIFs, will be used in reference to the City’s current TIF schedule.

END OF CHAPTER ONE TEXT

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 10 Chapter 2
Demographics and Findings
This Chapter represents the beginning and end of the TIF calculation process. It begins with an inventory of fully developed, undeveloped and under-developed units and acreage within the City and concludes with a summary of the recommended TIF schedule with detailed infrastructure explanations in the following chapters of this Report.

LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
This Report’s calculations are based upon an inventory of fully developed, undeveloped and underdeveloped land within the City limits of Yorba Linda and is based upon the City’s most recent General Plan update as well as City staff adjustments based upon vacant land opportunities. The Report refers to as the Land Use Database or the LUDB. The Undeveloped and the Underdeveloped land use inventory, identified as Potential Development, combine to form the base for the distribution of the estimated costs of the service-expanding transportation system capital projects necessary to accommodate that same anticipated development. Without the expansion projects, the City would have difficulty absorbing/accommodating new development without some form of impact on the City’s transportation-based LOS. The developed land inventory creates the denominator basis for distributing the replacement cost of the existing infrastructure over the LUDB representing the existing community. This action provides the basis for comparison with the proposed TIF schedules and for the de facto identification of the many existing LOS currently provided by the City’s major transportation-based infrastructure which is conservatively valued at about $2.25 billion (See Schedule 3.3).

Table 2-1, is the inventory of all private land-uses contained within the current City limits in what is referred to as the General City area and new development in the City’s Sphere of influence that will be dependent upon the City of Yorba Linda’s combined transportation system. The LUDB has been based on the General Plan's land use inventory along with a planning staff analysis of privately held residential parcels. Table 2-1 is a summary of the LUDB Appendix B, Total - Land-use Database, Sum of A, B, C, & D Below. This block of information identifies the total amount of developed and undeveloped land in terms of acres and development units for the City’s transportation demands. This is the total of: A. Land-use Database within the General Core City Limits, B. SAVI Ranch, C. Esperanza Development via County Planning and D. Cielo Vista Development via County Planning. A, B, C, & D are detailed below the summary on Appendix B which includes potential redevelopment of approximately

6.56 acres in the Savi Ranch area.

Chapter 2 City of Yorba Linda Demographics and Findings Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 11 Appendix B and its summary in Table 2-1 identify new transportation demands from two potential developments that appear to be exempt from the imposition of General Area TIFs but will be fully dependent upon the City’s transportation system for access/egress to their developments. Both of these projects have some specific transportation projects they will have to contribute to. The two projects, governed Pre-Annexation Agreements, include a maximum of 340 detached dwellings in the Esperanza Development and a maximum 80 detached dwellings within the Cielo Vista Development, both of which developments were submitted to and approved by the County.

The roughly combined 420 detached dwellings from the two County approved developments need to be included in the Land-use Database as they will add to the City’s new traffic demands because they have no alternative routes other than in or out of the Yorba Linda Transportation System. To ignore their traffic demands would require those developments within the City boundaries to unfairly subsidize that non-City demand. The City has annexed the 80 detached dwelling-unit Cielo Vista Development but has no current plans to annex the Esperanza Development of 340 detached dwellings.

Table 2-1
City of Yorba Linda
Land Use Inventory
Total - Land-use Existing Development Potential Development Total G. P. Build-out Acres # of
Units Acres # of Units Acres # of Units
Detached Dwelling Units 5,700.17 19,049 164.73 631 5,864.90 19,680 Attached Dwelling Units 406.91 5,534 45.01 1,536 451.92 7,070 Mobile Homes Dwelling Units 35.24 212 0.10 1 35.34 213
Senior Only Apartment Units 30.00 600 5.06 40 35.06 640 Commercial Lodging Units 12.03 229 -4.00 -122 8.03 107
Commercial Uses (SF) 124.98 1,924,369 11.89 38,244 136.87 1,962,613 Office Uses (SF) 72.35 1,095,674 0.94 16,876 73.29 1,112,550 Ind./Manufacturing Uses (SF) 42.53 2,529,271 25.41 1,807,891 67.94 4,337,162 Private Institutional Uses
(SF) 580.57 3,793,444 5.00 43,560 585.57 3,837,004
Total - Land-use Database 7,004.78 254.14 7,258.92
Residential Dwelling Units 6,172.32 25,395 214.90 2,208 6,387.22 27,603 Commercial Lodging Units 12.03 229 -4.00 -122 8.03 107
Business Use Square Feet 820.43 9,342,758 43.24 1,906,571 863.67 11,249,329 Total - Land-use Database 7,004.78 254.14 7,258.92
TIF Land-use Types Definitions. This Report classifies private development within the City’s more numerous Land Uses into one of four residential TIF Land-use Types or one of five different business-based TIF Land-use Types. For purposes of the Report, the term TIF Land-use Type will refer to one of the nine broad types under which the City’s specifically defined zoning code land-uses will fall into. These TIF Land-use Types are defined as the following:

Chapter 2 City of Yorba Linda Demographics and Findings Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 12 Residential Land-uses:
● Detached Dwelling Units - This TIF Land-use Type is generally defined as a detached unit and corresponds to an allowable use within the City's land-use designations of:

Residential Low (R-L), 1.0 dwelling units/acre
Residential Medium-Low, (R-ML) 1.8 dwelling units/acre
Residential Medium (R-M), 3.0 dwelling units/acre
Residential Medium-High, (R-MH) 4.0 dwelling units/acre Residential High (R-H), 4 – 30 dwelling units/acre, for those dwelling units deemed as similar to a detached dwelling.

This category would include the construction of the unusual detached condominium or townhome and a manufactured unit on an individual lot. ● Attached Dwelling Units - This larger category consists of apartments, townhomes, condominiums or any other living unit that is attached to any other living unit. It generally corresponds to an allowable land-use designation of Residential High (R-H) [4 to 30 dwelling units/acre] when the units are attached dwelling units and Residential Very High (R-VH) [40-60 dwelling units/acre]. ● Mobile Home Dwelling Residential Units - This TIF Land-use Type encompasses portions of any land use consistent with the typical 10 to 15 mobile homes per acre land-use designation in the Zoning Code. No applications for this type is anticipated, but given the number of existing mobile unit pads (212), the calculation was included for purposes of the proportional analysis.

It is important to note that the removal of one existing manufactured unit (or existing mobile home dwelling) and the replacement with a similar dwelling does not constitute a TIF imposition event, it is merely a replacement of existing demand. The construction of a mobile unit pad is the TIF imposition event, not the placement of a mobile or modular residential dwelling.
● Senior Only Apartment Dwelling Units - This category consists of apartments, townhomes, condominiums or any other living unit that is attached to any other unit and has a minimum age requirement (typically at 55+). It generally corresponds to an allowable land-use designation of Residential High (R-H) 4 – 30 dwelling unit/acre and Residential Very High (R-VH) 40-60 dwelling unit/acre.

Business/Commerce Land-uses:
● Commercial Lodging (keyed) Units - This TIF Land-use Type may be approved in Commercial General (C-G) zones. The extended Land-use Database indicates an anticipated decrease in commercial lodging uses.

Chapter 2 City of Yorba Linda Demographics and Findings Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 13 ● Commercial Uses - As utilized in this Report, commercial uses include the general type of retail services and thus includes outlets ranging from restaurants to auto repair shops to shopping centers. This category includes the Commercial General (C-G) and Commercial Neighborhood (C-N) zones.
● Office Uses - As utilized in this Report, office uses is largely limited to general office, professional and medical buildings. This category includes the Commercial Office (C-O) zone.
● Industrial/Manufacturing Uses - This TIF Land-use Type contains all businesses engaged in heavy to light manufacturing or industrial development. This category consists of the Industrial Manufacturing (I-M) zone.
● Private Institutional Uses - This TIF Land-use Type, based upon the specific use, may be approved in just about any of the City’s previously mentioned zones. It consists of private schools, private meeting places, places of worship and similar private facilities and could be located within many of the City’s land use categories.

Definitions of TIF Application Categories Status. For each of the TIF land-use categories detailed on Table 2-1, acreage is categorized as either Existing Development or Potential Development.

Definitions regarding the status of each land use are as follows:

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

Potential Development - Acres/Units - Refers to all non-public vacant acreage located within the City and some outside of the City’s limits that is highly dependent upon Yorba Linda’s transportation system for local trips. This category includes any fully vacant parcel and those that can be upsized in the future is it contains some remaining development potential on it.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The combined efforts of City and Urban Crossroads staff have identified over $78.2 million in needed and Master Planned capital improvement projects required through the City's General Plan build-out including both projects related to existing deficiencies and those needed solely to support future demands. Roughly 44.9% of the total project list can be financed with TIF receipts imposed upon new development. The proposed impact fees will generate just over $35.1 million.

The remaining 55.1% (or $43.1 million) will need to be financed via other measure like grants and or contributions for other agencies. Table 2-2 indicates the development fee-related capital project costs by area.

Chapter 2 City of Yorba Linda Demographics and Findings Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 14 Table 2-2
Total City-wide General Plan Build-out Capital Requirements (per Schedule 3.1 in the following chapter)
Infrastructure
Type
Total – All
Capital Projects
Development-related Projects (all or partial) $35,139,055 Non-Development Generated Projects $43,062,202
Future Transportation System Project Costs $78,201,257
TIFs for the City’s General Plan Area. Based on these costs and the schedules found at the end of Chapter 3 of this Report, costs attributable to future development were derived on a perdwelling unit basis for residential land-uses and on a per square foot of pad basis for business land-uses. Schedule 2.1, found at the end of this Chapter, provides a summary of the recommended TIF schedules for each type of infrastructure and land use category. The total recommended maximum TIFs for each of the nine TIF Land-use Types within General City area are summarized following in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3
Summary of Maximum Potential Transportation Impact Fees For the City’s General Plan Area
(See Schedule 3.2 at conclusion of text)
TIF Land Use Type
Maximum
Development
Impact Fees
Detached Dwelling Units $8,886/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $4,799/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $5,156/Unit
Senior Only Apartment Units $822/Unit
Commercial Lodging (keyed) Units $978/Unit
Commercial Uses $40.167/Unit
Office Uses $20.478/S.F.

Ind./Manufacturing Uses $10.751/S.F.

Private Institutional Uses $29.404/S.F.

Chapter 2 City of Yorba Linda Demographics and Findings Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 15

FORMAT OF THIS REPORT
The following chapter of this Report contains the detailed information relative to the calculation of the Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, Intelligent Transportation System and Planning Studies) TIFs recommended by RCS for the City. There is an appropriate textual nexus explanation contained in that specific chapter along with the five required findings per §66000 of the California Government Code. The transportation infrastructure chapter is listed along with four appendices, one of which contains a summary of TIF recommendations.

CHAPTER 3 - Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, Intelligent Transportation System and Planning Documents) Facilities
APPENDIX A - Summary of Maximum Adoptable Fees.

APPENDIX B - Expanded Land-use Database (LUDB)
APPENDIX C - Findings in Support of Continuation of City Policy to Impose Residential Transportation Impact Fees on a per Unit Basis APPENDIX D - Accessory Dwelling Unit Cost Calculation Explanation NOTE REGARDING TEXTUAL MATHEMATICS: It is important to note that the use of a computer provides for calculations to a large number extending over a large number of decimal points. Such data, when included in text and supporting textual tables, has often been rounded to usually no more than two or three decimals for clarity and thus may not be replicated to the necessary degree of accuracy as the spreadsheet schedules at the end of each chapter. If questions arise between the tables and schedules, the schedules at the end of each chapter will prevail as the more accurate.

The schedules at the end of the Chapter are instructive to the recommendation. The tables within the chapters are text summaries of the schedules at the end of the chapter and are illustrative.

END OF CHAPTER TWO TEXT

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 16 Chapter 3
Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS
And Planning Documents) System
The following Chapter will discuss the Transportation System capital improvements consisting of major street segments, traffic signals, bridges, intelligent transportation system (henceforth ITS) and planning documents required for the City through build-out of the existing City General Plan as identified in the Land Use Database Table in Chapter 2. Initially, RCS recommends continuation of the current calculation of a comprehensive TIF schedule covering all components of the transportation system within the City’s General Plan area. The reasons are practical in that combining these infrastructure components will provide greater flexibility in establishing priorities in what is essentially a singular transportation issue with a common nexus, a combination of peakhour trip-end(1) generation with average trip distance.

The Existing System. The City currently has and maintains an extensive system of roadways available for transportation of goods and services, as well as for other purposes. Streets that fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Yorba Linda are classified as one of the following major roadways for the purposes of this Report and are defined in the Yorba Linda General Plan Circulation Element. The following is an excerpt of that Element and generally comprises of pages CR-2 through CR-5 of the General Plan, Circulation Element.

City of Yorba Linda Functional Roadway Classification System The City of Yorba Linda’s transportation network serves two distinct and equally important functions: it provides access to adjacent land uses, and it facilitates the movement of persons and goods to and from, within and through the City. The design and operation of each street is determined by the importance placed on each of these functions. Streets that have a mobility and/or regional access function will typically have more lanes, higher speed limits and fewer driveways. Where direct access to properties is required, streets will generally have fewer lanes, lower speeds, on-street parking, and more frequent driveways to serve abutting properties. To define the intended uses of roadways, many jurisdictions, including the City of Yorba Linda, use a functional roadway classification system. The system provides a framework for the design and operation of the roadway system and helps identify preferred characteristics of each street. In the General Plan, the City of Yorba Linda’s Circulation Element employs a functional classification system consistent with classification systems used throughout Orange County. It includes the following street classifications. It states:
1 A trip is defined as a series of one or more trip-ends. A trip-end is a single stop in a trip. As an example, a drive from home to work is a trip. Each individual stop along the way along the way to drop children off at a school , buy gas, get a lunch, drop off laundry and the ultimate arrival at work or home is a trip-end. The term trip has no effect on the calculation and only means a drive.

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 17 ● Smart Street
● Major
● Primary
● Secondary
● Collector
Typical cross sections for roadways in the City are presented in Exhibit CR-1:

Typical Roadway Cross-Sections. The existing functional classifications for the arterial roadways in the City of Yorba Linda are presented on Exhibit CR-2: Existing Roadway Functional Classification.

Smart Street
Smart Streets are arterials with enhanced traffic-carrying capacity. Increases in capacity are achieved by a variety of measures, including, but not limited to:
● Preferential and acceptably maintained traffic signal timing and synchronization;
● Prohibition of on-street parking;
● Intersection grade separations of critical through and/or turn movements;
● Addition of at-grade through or turn lanes at intersections; ● Access limitation to right turns only, or no access (street and/or driveways);
● Access consolidation;
● Frontage roads;
● Pedestrian grade separations; and
● Other elements that may be documented to be useful.

The intent of these measures is to minimize conflicts with cross traffic. These measures improve traffic carrying capacity and facilitate improved traffic flow along an arterial. This designation is intended to represent a roadway of a Primary, Major, or a Principal arterial classification.

In the City of Yorba Linda, Imperial Highway is a Smart Street with six-lanes from the west City limit to Yorba Linda Boulevard, and four-lanes from Yorba Linda Boulevard to the south City limit.

Major Arterial
A Major Arterial is a six-lane divided roadway, with 84 to 106 feet of curb-to-curb width within 100 to 120 feet of ROW. The optimal ROW width for a six-lane Major arterial would be 120 feet, but where full ROW is not available; the six-lane cross section could be accommodated within less ROW (Modified Major). A minimum ROW of 100 feet is considered appropriate where it is not feasible to obtain the desired ROW width of 120 feet. Major arterials are designated with Yorba Linda

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 18 General Plan Page CR-4 Adopted Oct 2016 emphasis for automobile, goods movement, and/or transit, and may carry a component of regional through traffic not handled by the freeway system.

A Major arterial would typically consist of three through lanes in each direction, with one or two left- turn lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane at intersections. Major arterials in the City of Yorba Linda consist of:
● Yorba Linda Boulevard: from Rose Drive to Fairmont Boulevard ● Fairmont Boulevard: from Village Center Drive South to Esperanza Road
● Esperanza Road from City limit to Fairmont Boulevard
●Yorba Linda Boulevard: from State Route 91 north to the City boundary
Primary Arterial
A Primary Arterial is a four-lane divided roadway, with 64 to 84 feet of curb-to-curb width within 80 to 100 feet of ROW. The ROW width for a Primary arterial would be 100 feet, but where necessary, the four-lane cross section could be accommodated within less ROW (Modified Primary). A minimum ROW of 80 feet is considered appropriate where it is not feasible to obtain the desired ROW width of 100 feet.

Primary arterials are designated with emphasis for automobile, goods movement, transit and bicycle, and may function similarly to Major arterials, with the primary difference being vehicle capacity. Typically, Major arterials are expected to carry more vehicles than Primary arterials.

Primary arterial would typically consist of two through lanes in each direction, with a leftturn lane, and may include a dedicated right-turn lane at intersections. Primary arterials in the City of Yorba Linda consist of:
● Yorba Linda Boulevard: from Fairmont Boulevard to Esperanza Road
● Lakeview Avenue: from Yorba Linda Boulevard to south of southern City limit
● Fairmont Boulevard: from Village Center Drive N to Village Center Drive S
● Bastanchury Road from City limit to Fairmont Boulevard ● Rose Drive from north City limit to Imperial Highway
● Esperanza Road from Fairmont Boulevard to Yorba Linda Boulevard
● La Palma Boulevard from Yorba Linda Boulevard to Gypsum Canyon Road
●Savi Ranch Parkway from Yorba Linda Boulevard to Old Canal Road

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 19 Secondary Arterial
A Secondary Arterial is a four-lane undivided roadway, with 64 feet of curb-to-curb width within 80 feet of ROW. Secondary arterials are designated with emphasis for automobiles and bicycles, and often provide a collector function, distributing traffic between local streets and Major and Primary arterials. Although some Secondary arterials may also serve as through routes, most provide more direct access to surrounding land uses.

A Secondary Arterial would typically consist of two travel lanes in each direction, with a left-turn lane at intersections. Secondary arterials in the City of Yorba Linda consist of:
● Buena Vista Avenue: from western City limit to Lakeview Avenue ● Valley View Avenue: from Yorba Linda Boulevard to Valleyview Circle ● Richfield Road: from Yorba Linda Boulevard to southern City limit ● Lakeview Avenue: from Yorba Linda Boulevard to Valleyview Avenue ● Kellogg Drive: from Yorba Linda Boulevard to Imperial Highway ● Village Center Drive: from Fairmont Boulevard N to Fairmont Boulevard S
● Yorba Ranch Road: from Yorba Linda Boulevard to Esperanza Road ● Paseo de las Palomas: from Fairmont Blvd. to Yorba Linda Blvd.

Collector Arterial
A Collector is a two-lane undivided roadway, with 40 feet of curb-to-curb width within 60 feet of ROW. Collector streets would typically consist of one avenue lane in each direction and a parking lane or bike lane on each side. Collectors carry traffic from the neighborhoods to the higher classification street system. An Enhanced Collector would serve the same function as a Collector but would also have a center median.

The last category of street segments within the City are referred to as local streets. In general, construction of local streets would be the responsibility of the developer who then dedicates the completed street to the City. The City will accept these local street improvements and the responsibility to maintain them in perpetuity assuming they meet City’s requirements. For these reasons and the fact that local streets do not exhibit City-wide benefits to all transportation system users, the cost of all local streets are not included in the Transportation System financial commitment calculation or the proportionality test.

GENERAL CITY TIF SCHEDULE
Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Undeveloped Parcels. Undeveloped parcels create few trip-ends beyond an occasional visit to the site for weed abatement purposes, planning purposes or to consider a sale or development of the vacant parcel. None of these tripends are on a routine basis. However, a developed parcel will generate a statistically predictable amount of trip-ends and peak-hour trip-miles, depending upon the specific land use of the

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 20 development. Thus it can be stated that a vacant parcel, when developed into a specific use, i.e., residential or business, will generate more traffic than it did when it was vacant. Similarly, a change in the use of the property may increase or decrease the number of trip-ends, i.e., the demolition of a low trip-generating insurance office into reconstruction as a new a high trip generating fast-food restaurant.

All new development contributes to cumulative traffic impacts, which are difficult to measure and mitigate on a project-by-project basis but which have significant and widespread cumulative impacts on the City's existing road system. Factors that will increase the competition for existing major street segment lane miles existing in the City include the following:
● The construction of just over 1.9 million square feet of private business uses on under or undeveloped acres will generate 8,240 additional daily peak-hour tripmiles at General Plan build-out. This figure could vary significantly depending upon the type of commercial uses constructed and possible zoning changes or conditional use permits issued.
● An increase in demand from residential construction of approximately 1,788 additional dwelling units within the City’s limits contributing approximately 3,386 new daily peak-hour trip-miles.
● The combined 420 anticipated detached dwellings within the City’s transportation system dependent sphere of influence areas will generate about 1,361 daily peakhour trip-miles. These two developments have no alternative routes available and thus these residents are dependent upon the City’s street system. ● A reduction of about 122 commercial lodging units is anticipated by General Plan build-out that will reduce traffic demands by about 174 daily peak-hour trip-miles daily. This reduction will be offset by whatever land-use replaces the commercial lodging units. The developer that replaces the demolished commercial lodging business will receive a credit for those reduced peak-hour trip-miles due to the elimination of the existing lodging units. In short the developer transitioning from the commercial lodging units to whatever use is to come would have TIFs imposed on only the delta between the new TIF and the credit identified in this Report for the removed or demolished units. A potential credit against any new fees would be the case for any demolished building replaced with a new one. No TIF refunds can be made regardless of decreased demands from changing from one land-use to another.

When all (or most) of the available vacant land within the City’s sphere is developed, the City can expect an additional 12,812 daily peak-hour trip-miles. For perspective, the City currently experiences an estimated 159,304 daily peak-hour trip-miles from/to the existing residences and businesses for a total at General Plan build-out demand of 172,116 annual peak-hour trip-miles.

Finding #1, Delineation of the Purpose of the Fee. - In the City, most of the planned arterials and collectors exist in some form, perhaps not yet fully widened to allow for the maximum number of lane miles. Stated another way, there are few opportunities to construct any completely new

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 21 arterial/collector lane miles. Thus the collection of Transportation System TIF receipts becomes imperative as a revenue source to finish off any existing, but limited or incomplete, or not yet maximized roads. Additionally, the fees would be used to complete the system of signals that insures the smooth movement of vehicles through intersections. Efficient signalization (i.e. turn pockets and fully actuated left-turn signals) are also important to keep vehicular traffic moving at the optimum efficiency through major intersections. Included are the transportation projects needed to alter existing arterials, connectors or collectors that currently exist to create additional capacity, but due to additional peak-hour trip-ends are becoming less effective at moving goods, services and residents in a timely manner.

The importance of traffic signals is two-fold. First, the City can build only so many major collector/arterial streets and there are limits as to how many extra lanes they will have. Second, north-south collectors will, by definition, intersect with east-west collectors assuring that someone will have to stop, either at a stop sign or a traffic signal. The traffic carrying capacity of each collector can only be maximized by assuring the orderly flow of traffic by signalizing those intersecting arterials and collectors. There are several traffic signal improvement projects and ITS signal interconnect projects included in the City’s TIF calculation that will maximize traffic flows through intersections.

The collection of Transportation System Impact Fees is not intended to eliminate the existing practice of the developer constructing the full width roadway and being reimbursed for the portion of costs greater than would otherwise be required of the developer in the calculated simple impact fee amount. This impact fee calculation and resulting fee collection would simply improve the City’s capability for such reimbursements.

Finding #2, Determination of the Use of the Fee. The collection of TIF schedule receipts would be used to construct the projects (or portions of projects) identified in Schedule 3.1 at the conclusion of this Chapter's text. The collected fees will be used to create traffic signals, major street segment additions, and roadway reconfigurations with which to accommodate the additional daily peak-hour trip-miles expected from further development near (or through) the City.

ST-001, Arroyo Cajon Drive – Kellogg Drive to Foxfield Lane. Construct sidewalks and wheelchair access/egress ramps along Arroyo Cajon Drive. There is no possibility of adding lanes along this street segment however the existing lane carrying capacity can be maximized with these minor improvements.

ST-002, Avocado Avenue N/S – Avocado E/W to Yorba Linda Boulevard. Construct sidewalks and wheelchair ramps and access/egress median islands along Avocado Avenue. There is no possibility of adding lanes along this street segment, however the existing lane carrying capacity can be maximized with these minor improvements.

ST-003, Bastanchury Road – Fairmont Boulevard to Village Center Drive. Construct improvements to widen the street segment to its ultimate width. Reconstruct the median to accommodate restriping from two to four lanes. Project includes some right-of-way costs.

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 22 ST-004, Buena Vista Avenue – Imperial Highway to Grandview Avenue. Widen the traffic lanes within this segment. Proposed sidewalk improvements will allow for pedestrians to be located outside of travel way thereby improving vehicular passage for LOS improvement. The project will require approximately 5,725 square foot of ROW, assuming a 60' ROW.

ST-005, Buena Vista Avenue – Richfield Road to Imperial Highway. Construct full improvements necessary from two to four lanes and installation of sidewalk. The project estimate includes the acquisition of approximately 42,240 square foot of ROW needed at an 80' ROW.

ST-006, Casa Loma Avenue – Richfield Road to La Entrada Dr. Improvements for this street segment includes minor pavement additions and sidewalk gap closures that will allow for pedestrians to be located outside of travel way thereby improving vehicular passage for LOS improvement.

ST-007, El Cajon Avenue – Prospect Avenue to Valley View Avenue. Project improvements consist of minor pavement additions and sidewalk gap closures that will allow for pedestrians to be located outside of travel way thereby improving vehicular passage for LOS improvement.

ST-008, Esperanza Road – West City Limits to Fairmont Boulevard. Construct improvements for these four to six lane segments. Sidewalk improvements will be limited to the north side of the street segment.

ST-009, Eureka Avenue – Bastanchury Road to Yorba Linda Boulevard Construct east-side sidewalk and pavement improvements from Bastanchury to Mark Lane and west-side sidewalk and pavement improvements between La Entrada and Oak Leaf. Proposed sidewalk improvements will allow for pedestrians to be located outside of travel way thereby improving vehicular passage for LOS improvement. ROW acquisition is not included nor required.

Improvements vary along this area.

ST-010, Highland Avenue – Buena Visa Avenue to Mariposa Avenue. Improvements consist of pavement widening on west side and sidewalks on both the east and west side. Proposed sidewalk improvements will allow for pedestrians to be located outside of travel way thereby improving vehicular passage for LOS improvement. Costs include relocation of the power poles along east side. ROW acquisition is not included nor required.

ST-011, La Palma Avenue – Lomas De Yorba to Corbit Place. Construct sidewalk along north side of La Palma. Proposed sidewalk improvements will allow for pedestrians to be located outside of travel way thereby improving vehicular passage for LOS improvement. No ROW is required.

ST-012, Lakeview Avenue – Lemon Drive to Oriente Drive. Project includes widening of this street segment to its ultimate width per the Circulation Element. It includes removal or relocation of the existing power poles as well as construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks, and driveways and roadway striping.

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 23 ST-013, Ohio Street – J & J Lane to Yorba Linda Boulevard. Project is limited to the roadway widening per transportation element, striping, sidewalk, ADA ramps, and grading. Proposed sidewalk improvements will allow for pedestrians to be located outside of travel way thereby improving vehicular passage for LOS improvement.

ST-014, Ohio Street – Yorba Linda Boulevard to Mountain View Avenue. The project consists of pavement widening, sidewalk improvements and relocation of the power poles on east-side.

Proposed sidewalk improvements will allow for pedestrians to be located outside of travel way thereby improving vehicular passage for LOS improvement. There are ROW acquisition needs of 13,280 square feet.

ST-015, Oriente Drive – Lakeview Avenue to Palm Avenue. Lane widening and sidewalk improvements that will also require ROW acquisition. Proposed sidewalk improvements will allow for pedestrians to be located outside of travel way thereby improving vehicular passage for LOS improvement.

ST-016, Palm Avenue – Via Del Cabillo to Yorba Linda Avenue. The project consists of pavement widening and sidewalk improvements with the relocation of power poles on east side. Proposed sidewalk improvements will allow for pedestrians to be located outside of travel way thereby improving vehicular passage for LOS improvement.

ST-017, Plumosa Drive – Bastanchury Road to Cari Lane. The project is limited to construction of sidewalk and wheelchair access/egress ramps on this street segment. Proposed sidewalk improvements will allow for pedestrians to be located outside of travel way thereby improving vehicular passage for LOS improvement.

ST-018, Prospect Avenue – Imperial Highway to Hillcrest Drive. The project consists mainly of sidewalk and wheelchair ramps along Prospect Avenue and elimination of the various sidewalk gaps along this street segment. Proposed sidewalk improvements will allow for pedestrians to be located outside of travel way thereby improving vehicular passage for LOS improvement.

ST-019, Richfield Road – 250 S/O Page Court to Buena Vista Avenue. Project includes roadway widening per Circulation Element, striping, sidewalk, ADA ramps, and grading.

ST-020, Rose Drive – Blake Road to Wabash Avenue. Improvements for two to four lanes from Wabash to Blake Road Sidewalk improvements 200' south of Promenade to 100' south of Wabash on west side of the street. Relocate the power poles along east-side. There is the need for ROW in the amount of 13,350 square feet (northerly segment).

ST-021, Savi Ranch Parkway – Yorba Linda Boulevard to Mirage Street. The project adds a left turn pocket at the Savi Ranch Parkway/Yorba Linda intersection and implements modifications that improve circulation on Savi Ranch Parkway between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Mirage Street.

ST-022, Valley View Avenue – Imperial Highway to Yorba Linda Boulevard. The project is limited to restriping from two lanes to four lanes.

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 24 ST-023, Yorba Linda Boulevard – Lakeview Avenue to Imperial Highway. The project consists of major Intersection improvements, left-turn pocket improvements and a right turn pocket at eastbound Imperial to southbound Lakeview Avenue. Project costs include for the acquisition of roughly $1.6 million in required ROW.

ST-024, Yorba Linda Boulevard – Santa Ana Canyon to La Palma Avenue. The project includes the expansion of the Yorba Linda Bridge over the Santa Ana River to allow for additional lane capacity and pedestrian improvements. Other improvements include capacity increases for turn pockets on Yorba Linda Boulevard. The project also include improvements in the Anaheim city limits along with their funding participation.

ST-025, Traffic Signal – Fairmont at Avenida Del Rey. Construct operational traffic signal improvements to the T intersection of Fairmont Avenue at Avenida Del Rey. The project consists of the construction of a three-way traffic signal and, as necessary, minor intersection modifications. This project has been identified as necessary to maintain the existing LOS at General Plan build-out.

ST-026, Traffic Signal – Imperial Highway at Yorba Linda Boulevard. Construct operational traffic signal modifications/improvements to the intersection of Imperial Highway at Yorba Linda Boulevard including the construction of an additional left turn lane on Yorba Linda Boulevard. This project has been identified as necessary to maintain the existing LOS at General Plan build-out.

ST-027, Traffic Signal – Lakeview Avenue at Buena Vista Drive. All proposed street improvements and right-of-way (ROW) acquisitions are intended to address existing visibility deficiencies specifically those caused by the alignment of Lakeview Avenue and the significant grade differential on Buena Vista Avenue and to support the installation of a traffic control measure, such as a traffic signal or a roundabout. This project has been identified as necessary to maintain the existing LOS at General Plan build-out.

ST-028, Traffic Signal – Lakeview Avenue at Oriente Drive. Construct operational traffic signal improvements to the intersection of Lakeview Avenue at Oriente Drive. The project consists of the construction of a four-way, fully actuated traffic signal, with left turn pockets and, as necessary, minor intersection modifications. This project has been identified as necessary to maintain the existing LOS at General Plan build-out.

ST-029, Traffic Signal – Lakeview Avenue at Yorba Linda Boulevard. Construct operational traffic signal modifications to the intersection of Lakeview Avenue at Yorba Linda Boulevard and construct an additional left hand turn lane on Yorba Linda Boulevard. This project has been identified as necessary to maintain the existing LOS at General Plan build-out.

ST-030, Traffic Signal – Prospect Avenue at Imperial Highway. Construct operational traffic signal modifications to the intersection of Prospect Avenue at Imperial Highway. The project includes construction of a protected left turn phase for Prospect Avenue. This project has been identified as necessary to maintain the existing LOS at General Plan build-out.

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 25 ST-031, Traffic Signal – Van Buren Street at Buena Vista Avenue. Construct operational traffic signal improvements to the intersection of Van Buren Street at Buena Vista Avenue. The project consists of the construction of a four-way, fully actuated traffic signal, with left turn pockets and, as necessary, minor intersection modifications. This project has been identified as necessary to maintain the existing LOS at General Plan build-out.

ST-032, ITS Bastanchury Road Interconnect. This project along Bastanchury Road consists of electronic interconnect or wireless communication improvements that will allow for real time alteration of signal timing plans in order reduce congestion, handle varying traffic conditions and improve road safety. It will also allow for reliable and redundant communication to traffic signals.

ST-033, Fairmont Boulevard Interconnect. This project along Fairmount Boulevard consists of electronic interconnect or wireless communication improvements that will allow for real time alteration of signal timing plans in order reduce congestion, handle varying traffic conditions and improve road safety. It will also allow for reliable and redundant communication to traffic signals.

ST-034, Kellogg Drive Interconnect. This project along Kellogg Drive consists of electronic interconnect or wireless communication improvements that will allow for real time alteration of signal timing plans in order reduce congestion, handle varying traffic conditions and improve road safety. It will also allow for reliable and redundant communication to traffic signals.

ST-035, La Palma Avenue Interconnect. This project along La Palma Avenue consists of electronic interconnect or wireless communication improvements that will allow for real time alteration of signal timing plans in order reduce congestion, handle varying traffic conditions and improve road safety. It will also allow for reliable and redundant communication to traffic signals.

ST-036, Lakeview Avenue Interconnect. This project along Lakeview Avenue consists of electronic interconnect or wireless communication improvements that will allow for real time alteration of signal timing plans in order reduce congestion, handle varying traffic conditions and improve road safety. It will also allow for reliable and redundant communication to traffic signals.

ST-037, ITS Traffic Management Center Expansion. Construct improvements to the Intelligent Transportation System Control and Operations Center that will increase the City’s on-site signal timing plans and traffic management plans can be quickly and efficiently implemented in order to reduce congestion, handle varying traffic conditions and improve safety.

ST-038, Orangethorpe/Esperanza RTSSP. The projects consists of traffic signal timing adjustments consistent with the requirements of the Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) for the Orangethorpe/Esperanza Street segments though Yorba Linda. These roads have significant importance to numerous contiguous public agencies.

ST-039, Tustin/Rose RTSSP. The project consists of traffic signal timing adjustments consistent with the requirements of the Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) for the Tustin/Rose Street segments though Yorba Linda. These roads have significant importance to numerous contiguous public agencies.

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 26 ST-040, Yorba Linda/Weir Canyon RTSSP. The project consists of traffic signal timing adjustments consistent with the requirements of the Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) for the Yorba Linda/Weir Canyon Street segments though Yorba Linda. These segments have significant importance to contiguous public agencies and thus coordination/consistency of the ITS improvements required along this segment must be consistent.

ST-041, ATP Study and Trail Master Plan. Update the City’s Active Transportation Plan and the Tails Master Plan.

ST-042, ITS Master Plan Update. Update the Intelligent Transportation System Master Plan of specific improvements with recommendations for optimum timing of segment ITS improvements.

ST-043, TIF Updates. Update the City’s TIF Calculation and Nexus reports on a more frequent basis.

ST-044, LRSP Update. Update the City’s Local Road Safety Plan.

Finding #3 – Determination of the Relationship between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Project. Schedule 5.1 identifies the additional traffic to be generated by new development, by type of development. The technical volume, Trip Generation (Manual) 11th Edition, produced by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, has been used to identify the nexus, or relationship between the type of development and the projected number of trips that development will generate.

Transportation System Cost Distribution by Average Land-use Trip Frequency/Distance New Trip Adjustment for Pass-by or Diverted Trips. Schedule 3.2 contains a sub-schedule that identifies adjustments to new total trip-ends. As an example, an acre of commercial uses would be expected, on average, to generate about 136.9 peak-hour trip-ends daily. However, approximately 15% of those trip-ends, or about 20.5 peak-hour trip-ends per day, are pass-by trip-ends. The trip-end is not truly an end but is actually one in a series of ends, i.e. at various commercial establishments, with a different location such as a residence as the final trip-end or destination of the series of trip-ends. In order to be considered a pass-by trip, the location of the stop must be contiguous to the generator route (2)
, i.e. the route that would have been used even
if the temporary stop had not been made. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) indicates that:

Thus when forecasted trips based upon the trip generation rates are distributed to the adjacent streets, some reduction is made to account for those trips already there that will be attracted to the proposed development.(3)
2 An example of a diverted trip-end would be a single trip-end where along the way from work, a motorists evening drive deviates from the normal route taken home at perhaps a preferred grocery store, mail drop, or to pick up a child from a piano lesson before continuing home. Each of these three stops would be considered diverted trip-ends. 3 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1099 14th Street, Suite 300 West, Washington D.C. 20005-3438. Definition of terms.

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 27 A diverted trip is similar to a pass-by trip-end in that it is an extra stop between, as an example, a motorists’ work site and their residence. The diverted trip differs slightly from the pass-by trip in that it requires a minor deviation from the normal generator route and the temporary stop. In short, a diverted trip creates a separate side trip using additional (and different) lane miles from that of the normal route from the motorist’s place of employment and his or her residence. (6) Using
our example of one acre of general retail/service/office uses, roughly 1,499 of the expected trips would involve a diversion to that basic planned trip. We could expect these trips to increase the traffic volume off of the generator route, but only for brief distances. The ITE states that diverted trips: are produced from traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator (route) and require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway with access to the site. These roadways could include streets or freeways adjacent to the generator but without access to the generator. (4)
These diverted trips will be adjusted (reduced at 50%) from the full trip count for each of the landuses identified in Chapter 2.

Again, the sub-schedule at the bottom of Schedule 3.2 indicates the total trip-ends and the reduction due to the number pass-by trips (at 100%) and diverted trips (at 100%). The trip passby and diversion percentages were generated and are supported by a study conducted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in conjunction with various U.S. and California government agencies (5)
.

Additionally, the same SANDAG data schedule referenced above provides information for a trip distance factor component to the nexus. Based upon that data, a trip to an industrial work-site has the greatest distance at 9.0 miles. A trip to an office average 8.8 miles, residential trips average 7.9 miles, a trip from a hotel or motel (once in residence) average 7.6 miles, and an average trip to a retail/service site is the shortest at 4.3 miles. This indicates that drivers generally appear willing to travel further distances to work and for treatment at medical offices than they are to shop. Both frequency (trip-ends) and distance (average/typical miles per trip) have been combined into the nexus by multiplying the average trip frequency by average trip distance. Tripmile rates have been calculated for the nine TIF land-use categories. They are demonstrated at the bottom of Schedule 3.2 at the end of the Chapter.
4 Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1099 14th Street NW, Suite 300 west, Washington D.C. 2005-3438, Definition of Terms. 5 Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101. Brief Guide to Traffic Generators Rates. Compiled in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. U.S. Department of Transportation, The California Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002.

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 28 Finding #4, Determination of the Relationship Between the Need for the Facility and the Type of Project - Private development will generate additional peak trip-miles based upon the demand of that land use and the number of units in either dwelling units or business square feet.

All of the projects identified on Schedule 3.1 (and described within this Chapter) are intended to mitigate the additional transportation needs/demands of that new development. The fee collected will be based on the projected number of trip-ends the proposed development will generate in relationship to the total 151,510 projected peak-hour trip-miles at build-out. Any amount imposed as a Transportation System TIF will be placed in a separate fund (collecting interest) and is to be used only on the projects identified on Schedule 3.1 as development-related. The collected TIF receipts can only be used per Schedule 3.1.

Credits Against a Developers TIFs for Construction of Improvements on Schedule 3.1 as a Condition of Approval. From time to time the City may require an applicant for a private project to construct a street or signal improvement (or portion thereof) that is on the list of required improvements at the end of this Chapter (Schedule 3.1). This method is often undertaken to expedite the project at the request of the applicant/developer. The developer should receive a credit for any monies expended on any required improvement listed on Schedule 3.1 (as development-generated) against their Transportation System TIF calculation.

Finding #5, Determination of the Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Specific Development Project - The calculation of the Transportation System TIFs is based upon the recognition that differing types of developments generate differing amounts of peak-hour trip-miles. The fee is based upon the projected number of trip-miles generated by the proposed private development project. TIF receipts will be accumulated until they reach the amount that could construct a meaningful project to alleviate or mitigate the demands of those new developments. Table 3-1 (summarized from Schedule 3.2) on the following page identifies the Minimum Needs-based Transportation System TIF schedule for the City of Yorba Linda’s General Plan area.

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 29 Table 3-1
City of Yorba Linda’s General Plan Area
Minimum Needs-based Transportation System
Development Impact Costs
By TIF Land-use Type
TIF Land-use Type
Allocation
of Development
Costs
Development
Impact Cost Per
Unit
or Square Foot
Detached Dwelling Units $5,606,065 $8,886/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $7,372,359 $4,799/Unit
Mobil Home Dwelling Units $5,156 $5,156/Unit
Senior Only Apartment Units $32,912 $822/Unit
Commercial Lodging (Keyed) Units -$477,229 $978/Unit
Commercial Uses (Square Foot) $1,535,908 $40.167/S.F.

Office Uses (Square Foot ) $345,579 $20.478/S.F.

Ind./Manufacturing Uses (Square Foot $19,437,466 $10.751/S.F.

Private Institutional Uses (Square Foot ) $1,280,838 $29.404/S.F.

This schedule of proposed TIFs would generate the Minimum Needs amount of revenue necessary to construct the needed street, signal, and roadway reconfiguration projects. These figures then need to be compared to the financial commitment demonstrated by the existing community.

AB-602, Chaptered within the General Mitigation Fee Act requires the City to adopt residential dwelling TIFs on a per-square foot basis, unless certain findings are made. Appendix C outlines the methodology used to determine the residential dwelling unit (detached dwelling unit, attached dwelling unit, and mobile home units) average square footage. They are as follows:

Table 3-2
Summary of Average Residential Dwelling Square Feet
Land
Use
Designation
Average
Dwelling
Size
Detached Dwelling Units 2,800 S.F.

Attached Dwelling Units 1,000 S.F.

Mobile Home Units 1,300 S.F.

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 30 When the residential per-dwelling unit TIFs from Tale 3-1 (from Schedule 3.2) are divided by the average residential dwelling sizes in Table 3-2 previous, the following per-square foot residential TIF costs are derived. They are as follows:

Table 3-3
Average Residential Dwelling TIF Cost per Square Foot
Land
Use
Designation
TIF
per
Unit
Average
Dwelling
Size
TIF per
Square
Foot
Detached Dwelling Units $8,886 2,800 S.F. $3.17
Attached Dwelling Units $4,799 1,000 S.F. $4.80
Mobile Home Units $5,156 1,300 S.F. $3.97
Alternative Business Cost Methodology. A more precise calculation of costs for specific types of land-uses (i.e., banks, hospitals, convalescent residences, etc.) can be determined by multiplying the average cost per daily peak-hour trip-end of $2,742.69 by the applicable peak-hour daily tripmile rate. An example of this calculation can be found at the bottom of Schedule 3.2 and applied to Table 3-2. This table lists trip rates and costs for various residential, industrial and commercial developments. A fee system based on a lengthy schedule of trip rates theoretically provides more accuracy and therefore financial commitment in determining specific uses' impact on the City's transportation system, but at the same time may increase the City's costs to administer the fee.

A more extensive listing of traffic generators by land use is available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, New York, NY.

Table 3-2 following, (and summarized from Schedule 3.3) identifies the assets of the City’s existing transportation system (at current replacement costs). The total transportation system replacement cost of $2,256,797,238 consists of the existing 67.07 miles of major transportation plan arterial and collector miles (or 213 lane miles) with $155,877,150 invested in major roadways, ROW assets totaling $1,799,989,488, sixty-two traffic signals, interconnections and intersection improvements at $37,200,000 and major bridge structures investment at $263,730,600. When these existing assets are distributed over the existing community, using the same nexus factor (e.g. peak-hour trip-miles) used for distribution of future costs, the existing community has contributed the following, on average, by land use:

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 31 Table 3-4
Existing Transportation System Community
Financial Commitment
Comparison Data
TIF Land-use Category
Allocation
of Development
Costs
Development Impact
Cost Per Unit
or Square Foot
Detached Dwelling Units $874,348,847 $49,925/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $137,203,593 $24,793/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $5,652,457 $4,392/Unit
Senior Only Apartment Units $2,634,989 $20,225/Unit
Commercial Lodging (Keyed) Units $4,632,481 $20,225/Unit Commercial Uses (Square Foot) $399,115,833 $207.406/S.F.

Office Uses (Square Foot) $116,109,515 $105.971/S.F.

Ind./Manufacturing Uses (Square Foot) $140,461,913 $55,535/S.F.

Private Institutional Uses (Square Foot) $576.637,591 $152.009/S.F.

It should be noted that the existing community has contributed, on average, significantly more than would be required of future development to meet the minimum needs for build-out and all users. This is not to imply that each dwelling unit or business square foot has equally contributed this amount, only that on a whole the existing community has done so. While there is likely some excess capacity in the existing transportation system, it is usually the result of the existing community absorbing the initial street construction costs including the costly ROW acquisition, the later part of the community often finances only the smaller segment length widening’s and the final traffic signals which maximize the capacity of each street segment.

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 32 Recommended Transportation System TIF Schedule. The adoption of Schedule 3.2 at the end of the chapter (and as summarized in Table 3-1), as the Transportation System Schedule would generate enough capital to construct the facilities needed by the new development. In addition, the City should adopt the application of the per peak-hour trip-mile fee from the bottom of Schedule 3.2 and multiplied by the specific use in Table 3-2 or the more extensive listing of traffic generation by land use available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, New York, N.Y.

Construction Responsibility vs. TIF Payment. This TIF calculation assumes that each developer, contiguous to a planned Major Street, would:
● Dedicate needed ROW and would be responsible for last lane of asphalt concrete or PCC;
● Construct the parkway landscaping; and,
● Construct the curb, gutter, sidewalk, striping and street lights.

However, construction of the extra lanes would be financed by the Transportation System TIF, contributed to by all development within the City limits, thereby leveling the playing field between privately held parcels contiguous to a four lane collector as opposed to those privately held parcels contiguous to a two lane minor arterial. A given developer may undertake the actual construction of the extra lanes at the same time that they construct the first lane, but they would receive a reimbursement for construction of those extra lanes. However, it is important to note that if the developer constructs all or a portion of a road, signal or other transportation system improvement, and that project is not listed on Schedule 5.1, that project is assumed to be a condition of approval and not subject to a reimbursement or credit from the City from this TIF Fund. In short, the City cannot give a credit for a project that is not partially financed through this calculation.

The City’s TIF adoption ordinance should contain the necessary language for identifying the process for calculating the reimbursement amount for the construction of extra lanes.

RECAP OF RECOMMENDED TIFS
● General City Residential-based TIFs – The City could adopt Table 3-3, or a portion thereof.
● General City Business-based TIFs – The City could adopt Schedule 3.2, or a portion thereof, for most land-uses and the $2,742.69 per trip-end rate calculated on Schedule 3.2 to be used in conjunction with the most current edition of ITE manual (and the peak-hour trip frequency/length figures (via SANDAG) at the bottom of Schedule 3.2) as well as Table 3-2 for unusual land-uses.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 33 Schedule 3.1
City of Yorba Linda
2025-26 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Allocation of Project Cost Estimates
Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Planning Documents) Facilities Estimated Percent Apportioned Percent Apportioned
Line # Cost Need Dollar Cost Need Dollar Cost
Street/Bridge Capacity Improvements
ST-001 Arroyo Cajon Dr. - Kellogg Dr. to Foxfield Ln. $319,900 0.00% $0 100.00% $319,900 ST-002 Avocado Ave. N/S - Avocado Ave. E/W to Yorba Linda Blvd. $1,505,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $1,505,000 ST-003 Bastanchury Rd. - Fairmont Blvd. to Village Center Dr. $2,200,000 75.00% $1,650,000 25.00% $550,000 ST-004 Buena Vista Ave. - Imperial Hwy. to Grandview Ave. $1,017,800 75.00% $763,350 25.00% $254,450 ST-005 Buena Vista Ave. - Richfield Rd. to Imperial Hwy. $5,404,000 75.00% $4,053,000 25.00% $1,351,000 ST-006 Casa Loma Ave. - Richfield to La Entrada Dr. $56,200 0.00% $0 100.00% $56,200 ST-007 El Cajon Ave. - Prospect Ave. to Valley View Ave. $150,300 0.00% $0 100.00% $150,300 ST-008 Esperanza Rd. - West City Limits to Fairmont Blvd. $372,400 75.00% $279,300 25.00% $93,100 ST-009 Eureka Ave. - Bastanchury Rd. to Yorba Linda Blvd. $278,100 0.00% $0 100.00% $278,100 ST-010 Highland Ave. - Buena Vista Ave. to Mariposa Ave. $1,280,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $1,280,000 ST-011 La Palma Ave. - Lomas De Yorba E to Corbit Pl. $93,600 0.00% $0 100.00% $93,600 ST-012 Lakeview Ave. - Lemon Dr. to Oriente Dr. $1,326,055 75.00% $994,541 25.00% $331,514 ST-013 Ohio St. - J & J Ln. to Yorba Linda Blvd. $1,738,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $1,738,000 ST-014 Ohio St. - Yorba Linda Blvd. to Mountain View Ave. $2,076,400 0.00% $0 100.00% $2,076,400 ST-015 Oriente Dr. - Lakeview Ave. to Palm Ave. $4,505,920 0.00% $0 100.00% $4,505,920 ST-016 Palm Ave. Via Del Caballo to Yorba Linda Blvd. $1,097,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $1,097,000 ST-017 Plumosa Dr. - Bastanchury Rd. to Cari Ln. $74,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $74,000 ST-018 Prospect Ave. - Imperial Hwy to Hillcrest Cir. $243,200 0.00% $0 100.00% $243,200 ST-019 Richfield Rd. - 250' S/O Page Ct. to Buena Vista Ave. $1,488,111 75.00% $1,116,083 25.00% $372,028 ST-020 Rose Dr. - Blake Rd. to Wabash Ave. $1,600,600 75.00% $1,200,450 25.00% $400,150 ST-021 Savi Ranch Pkwy - Yorba Linda Blvd. to Mirage St. $4,280,000 75.00% $3,210,000 25.00% $1,070,000 ST-022 Valley View Ave. - Imperial Hwy to Yorba Linda Blvd. $41,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $41,000 ST-023 Yorba Linda Blvd. - Lakeview Ave. to Imperial Hwy $6,957,171 75.00% $5,217,878 25.00% $1,739,293 ST-024 Yorba Linda Blvd. - Santa Ana Canyon Rd. to La Palma Ave. $26,783,000 75.00% $20,087,250 25.00% $6,695,750 Traffic Signal/Intersection Improvements
ST-025 TS - Fairmont Blvd. at Avenida Del Rey $400,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $400,000 ST-026 TS - Imperial Hwy at Yorba Linda Blvd. $500,000 75.00% $375,000 25.00% $125,000 ST-027 TS - Lakeview Ave. at Buena Vista Ave. $6,000,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $6,000,000 ST-028 TS - Lakeview Ave. at Oriente Dr. $400,000 75.00% $300,000 25.00% $100,000 ST-029 TS - Lakeview Ave. at Yorba Linda Blvd. $600,000 75.00% $450,000 25.00% $150,000 ST-030 TS - Prospect Ave. at Imperial Hwy $50,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $50,000 ST-031 TS - Van Buren St. at Buena Vista Ave. $500,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $500,000 Intelligent Transportation System Improvements (ITS)
ST-032 ITS Bastanchury Rd. Interconnect $140,000 75.00% $105,000 25.00% $35,000 ST-033 ITS Fairmont Blvd. Interconnect $977,000 75.00% $732,750 25.00% $244,250 ST-034 ITS Kellogg Dr. Interconnect $158,000 75.00% $118,500 25.00% $39,500 ST-035 ITS La Palma Interconnect $634,000 75.00% $475,500 25.00% $158,500 ST-036 ITS Lakeview Ave. Interconnect $848,000 75.00% $636,000 25.00% $212,000 ST-037 ITS Traffic Management Center Expansion $600,000 75.00% $450,000 25.00% $150,000 ST-038 Orangethorpe/Esperanza RTSSP $70,000 80.00% $56,000 20.00% $14,000 ST-039 Tustin/Rose RTSSP $129,000 80.00% $103,200 20.00% $25,800 ST-040 Yorba Linda Blvd./Weir Canyon RTSSP $860,500 80.00% $688,400 20.00% $172,100 Master Plans and Other Circulation-based Documents
ST-041 ATP Study and Trail Master Plan $47,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $47,000 ST-042 ITS Master Plan $200,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $200,000 ST-043 TIF Updates $100,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $100,000
ST-044 LRSP Update $100,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $100,000
Total Infrastructure Master Plan Capital Needs $78,201,257 55.07% $43,062,202 44.93% $35,139,055 Construction Needs Infrastructure Needed
Supported by Other to Accommodate
Resources or C of A Increased Development

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 34

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 35

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 36 Appendix A
Summary of Recommendations

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 37 Appendix A Summary of Recommendations

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 3 - Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities ● General City Residential -based TIFs – The City could adopt Table 3-3, or a financial portion thereof.
● General City Business-based TIFs – The City could adopt Schedule 3.2, or a financial portion thereof, for most land-uses and the $2,742.69 per trip-end rate calculated on Schedule 3.2 to be used in conjunction with the most current edition of ITE manual (and the peak-hour trip frequency/length figures (via SANDAG) at the bottom of Schedule 3.2) as well as Table 3-2 for unusual land-uses.

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 38 Appendix B
Expanded Land-use Database

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 39 Appendix B
City of Yorba Linda
Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges) Facilities Development Impact Fee Expanded Land-use Database
2024-25 Development Impact Cost Calculation (DRAFT TEXT FEES) Total - Land-use Database
Sum of A, B, C, & D Below Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Detached Dwelling Units 5,700.17 19,049 164.73 631 5,864.90 19,680 Attached Dwelling Units 406.91 5,534 45.01 1,536 451.92 7,070 Mobile Homes Dwelling Units 35.24 212 0.10 1 35.34 213
Senior Only Apartment Units 30.00 600 5.06 40 35.06 640 Commercial Lodging Units 12.03 229 -4.00 -122 8.03 107
Commercial Uses (SF) 124.98 1,924,369 11.89 38,244 136.87 1,962,613 Office Uses (SF) 72.35 1,095,674 0.94 16,876 73.29 1,112,550 Ind./Manufacturing Uses (SF) 42.53 2,529,271 25.41 1,807,891 67.94 4,337,162 Private Institutional Uses (SF) 580.57 3,793,444 5.00 43,560 585.57 3,837,004 Total - Land-use Database 7,004.78 0 254.14 0 7,258.92 0 Residential Dwelling Units 6,172.32 25,395 214.90 2,208 6,387.22 27,603 Commercial Lodging Units 12.03 229 -4.00 -122 8.03 107
Business Use Square Feet 820.43 9,342,758 43.24 1,906,571 863.67 11,249,329 Total - Land-use Database 7,004.78 254.14 7,258.92
A. Land-use Database within
the General Core City Limits Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Detached Dwelling Units 5,700.17 19,049 39.73 211 5,739.90 19,260 Attached Dwelling Units 400.52 5,410 45.01 1,536 445.53 6,946 Mobile Homes Dwelling Units 35.24 212 0.10 1 35.34 213
Senior Only Apartment Units 30.00 600 5.06 40 35.06 640 Commercial Lodging Units 4.03 1 - - 4.03 1
Commercial Uses (SF) 47.84 1,414,369 14.45 72,244 62.29 1,486,613 Office Uses (SF) 25.90 485,674 0.94 16,876 26.84 502,550 Ind./Manufacturing Uses (SF) 21.49 1,529,271 25.41 1,807,891 46.90 3,337,162 Private Institutional Uses (SF) 580.57 3,793,444 5.00 43,560 585.57 3,837,004 Sub-total (General City) 6,845.76 - 135.70 - 6,981.46 - Existing Development Potential Development Total G. P. Build-out Existing Development Potential Development Total G. P. Build-out

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 40 B. SAVI Ranch Area
Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Acres # of Units
Detached Dwelling Units - - - - - -
Attached Dwelling Units 6.39 124 - - 6.39 124
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units - - - - - -
Senior Only Apartment Units - - - - - -
Commercial Lodging Units 8.00 228 (4.00) (122) 4.00 106 Commercial Uses (SF) 77.14 510,000 (2.56) (34,000) 74.58 476,000 Office Uses (SF) 46.45 610,000 - - 46.45 610,000
Ind./Manufacturing Uses (SF) 21.04 1,000,000 - - 21.04 1,000,000 Private Institutional Uses (SF) - - - - - -
SAVI Ranch Development 159.02 - (6.56) - 152.46 -
C. Esperanza Development
Via County Planning Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Detached Dwelling Units - - 85.00 340 85.00 340
Attached Dwelling Units - - - - - -
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units - - - - - -
Senior Only Apartment Units - - - - - -
Commercial Lodging Units - - - - - -
Commercial Uses (SF) - - - - - -
Office Uses (SF) - - - - - -
Ind./Manufacturing Uses (SF) - - - - - -
Private Institutional Uses (SF) - - - - - -
Esperanza Development - - 85.00 - 85.00 -
D. Cielo Vista Development
Via County Planning Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Detached Dwelling Units - - 40.00 80 40.00 80
Attached Dwelling Units - - - - - -
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units - - - - - -
Senior Only Apartment Units - - - - - -
Commercial Lodging Units - - - - - -
Commercial Uses (SF) - - - - - -
Office Uses (SF) - - - - - -
Ind./Manufacturing Uses (SF) - - - - - -
Private Institutional Uses (SF) - - - - - -
Cielo Vista Development - - 40.00 - 40.00 -
Existing Development Potential Development Total G. P. Build-out Existing Development Potential Development Total G. P. Build-out Existing Development Potential Development Total G. P. Build-out

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 41 Appendix C
Calculation of Average Residential Dwelling Sizes

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 42 Appendix C Calculation of Average Residential Dwelling Sizes Findings in Support of Continuation of City Policy to Impose Residential Transportation Impact Fees on a per Residential Unit Basis AB-602 (Gov't Code. sections 66016.5(a)(5)(A) and (B)) states that if the City adopts a calculation and nexus study after July 1, 2022, it must either "calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development" or make the following findings:
(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on housing development projects.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

However, there is no requirement for the City to have a financial element in the City's General Plan document. Thus, a properly calculated Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report functions as the de-facto financial plan in support of the City's General Zoning Plan. It identifies the anticipated service demands by infrastructure based upon the empirically based per residential unit-based averages and lays out a fair and reasonable method with which to finance the required capital projects and acquisitions necessary to accommodate those anticipated new service demands.

The City of Yorba Linda has expressed that it may wish to continue to impose residential Transportation Impact Fees (TIFs) based upon the same manner that additional development service demands are calculated, that is, by type of average residential unit. The City may not impose TIFs based on residential development projects proportionate to the square footage of proposed units for completing the City's General Plan. The current set of fees fosters greater accuracy in planning and provides the City with the required level of certainty in needed impact fee collection to assure that the infrastructure needs, also determined by average residential unit demands, will be adequate and sufficient to finance the infrastructure required by that same development.

The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §66000, et.seq.), which was first established in 1987, specifies that every public agency that adopts development impact fees must provide the essential calculation and nexus report with fees calculated upon data that is as empirical accurate as possible. AB-602's Proportionate to Square Footage is based upon a presumption (7) that a smaller detached dwelling creates less local government service demands than a larger detached dwelling. AB-602 does not offer any peer reviewed, third-party empirical data that substantiates that a small square footage detached dwelling unit creates less municipal service impacts than a larger square foot detached dwelling.

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 43 Appendix C Calculation of Average Residential Dwelling Sizes As such, the City has determined that the best practices for both managing development and obtaining the adequate impact fee financing for the development-generated infrastructure is as identified in the many infrastructure chapters in this Report.

The City's zoning code allows for identification of the use of privately held land and in some cases, primarily business uses, provides for a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) that limits the amount of square feet that can be constructed on an acre of business space. No such limitation is placed upon the construction square foot of a detached dwelling unit (AKA "single family residence").

The detached dwellings can be a size that the developer determines to be a marketable product.

At approximately 15.9 detached dwelling units per acre, this equates to an additional net 631 detached dwellings to be constructed by General Plan build-out within the City’s limits. The City does not, however, have any information as to how many square feet any of these 631 detached dwelling units will be, that is, within applicable zoning, determined by the developers of the various parcels. There will be an additional 420 detached dwelling units developed contiguously to the City that will be dependent upon the City’s traffic system (Cielo Vista and Esperanza developments).

This Report employs the most defensible empirical sources, appropriate to the demands of that particular infrastructure to determine the average demands of an average detached dwelling.

These sources determine demand by an average detached dwelling but does produce this demand data for various sized detached dwellings. Such data is simply not available.

The amount of and complexity of any City's infrastructure defines the LOS of that infrastructure, not just currently but in perpetuity. This makes the one-time TIF financing of any City's infrastructure that much more important. It takes balance to accommodate development with the police responses within the desired standard. It will take a combination of additional law enforcement station space, response and support vehicles and specialty equipment to support the required officers (non-impact supported). The importance of having a properly calculated and documented TIF schedule in order to accommodate development-related demands cannot be over-stated.

The collection of an impact fee to raise capital revenue for development-based demands is onetime but represents the municipal service needs of that dwelling unit as long as that structure exists. Thus the argument that any new detached dwelling will generate less municipal service demand based on its smaller square footage is separated from the reality that any particular residential dwelling may have different occupants over 50 years (e.g. a home for a family of four to a single resident).

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 44 Appendix C Calculation of Average Residential Dwelling Sizes Government Code §66000 charges local governments to determine the most fair method of distributing the costs of infrastructure required to support services to new development. The following paragraphs identify the logic behind using a per unit impact fee schedule over per square foot impact fee schedule by infrastructure. To summarize, each uses best practices information from empirical data, all of which is based upon per unit demand data. To divert to a per square foot fee schedule, any agency would have to divide the more accurate per unit fee schedule by an average square foot figure for detached dwellings, attached dwellings and mobile home dwellings. Since there is no known source for average residential dwellings size particular to the City of Yorba Linda, the resulting figure would be no more than an estimate. As a result, the per square foot impact fee schedule would yield a less accurate result than the City’s existing per unit methodology.

If the City were to employ a per residential square foot impact fee schedule one of three result could occur. Initially, the City could collect the exact of impact fee revenue required over the course of permitting over 631 residential units, a very unlikely result. What is more likely is that the City will either under-collect or over-collect the impact fees. If the City were to overstate the average size of a detached dwelling at say 3,250 square foot per detached dwelling and the actual average of the permitted detached homes is 2,500 square feet, the City would seriously under-collect the impact fees and would not be able to finance the required transportation infrastructure. In short the City would only be able to finance 77% of the required infrastructure (2,500 SF ÷ 3,250). In the alternative, if the City were to understate the average size of a detached dwelling at say 2,500 square foot per detached dwelling and the actual average of the permitted detached homes is 3,250 square feet, the City would be in a position of over-collecting the impact fees and would be forced to return any excess to the current owners of those parcels that over-paid. The City does cannot afford to undercollect nor does it desire to over-collect either. The responsible method is to employ the per unit impact fee schedule to avoid either of those results.

Transportation Needs - According to the volume of empirical data collected by the highly respected Institute of Traffic Engineering (ITE), an average detached dwelling generates approximately 0.895 trip-ends per day; however the ITE does not offer any distinction between small and large homes, because such data does not exist in their database. There is no demonstrated link or nexus between the square foot sizes of a detached dwelling with its trafficgeneration demand rate. GIS data does not include the size of each residential dwelling in the City. To convert the accurate per unit impact fee schedule into a per square foot impact fee schedule would render it as less than the maximum accuracy it could have. There is a dearth of evidence that a “smaller” home generates any less traffic demand than a “larger” detached dwelling regardless as to how intuitive that may appear to some. The City’s GIS data does not include the size of each residential dwelling in the City, such information is not available. Per dwelling unit fees, on the other hand, accomplishes that desired accuracy.

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 45 Appendix C Calculation of Average Residential Dwelling Sizes Importance of a Static or Average per Unit based Development Impact Fee Schedule.

The City must be able to depend on the collection of sufficient impact fee revenues with which to finance development-generated projects necessary to accommodate new development with adequate and sufficient service levels without decreasing the existing levels of service. This assurance will be greatly diminished should the City choose an arbitrarily determined per residential square foot impact fee schedule. As an example, the City has identified that a number of street segment and traffic signal improvements required for maintenance of the City’s Transportation/Traffic LOS (Level of Service) an area with 631 dwelling units. However, if a greater proportion of those 631 residential dwellings are far smaller than the City had anticipated, the City will not have adequate TIF revenue to construct those required units. With a per unit determined fee representing an average demand per unit, the City can have significantly greater confidence in receiving the TIF revenue necessary to construct those required Transportation system improvements.

The City's development practices neither favor nor penalize any one land-use over another. Nor are the City's policies unfair within any one land use based upon available empirical data. For residential units based upon best practices empirically-based averages, all are assessed the same fee; no developer is charged disproportionately as could be the case with an arbitrarily based “average” detached dwelling size estimate. The type of dwelling unit drives the fee, not the square footage. For detached, attached and mobile home residential units, all are assessed the same fee (within those three residential types); none are charged disproportionately. A five unit detached dwelling development would have one tenth the impact fees imposed as would a fifty units detached dwelling unit proposal.

Since the City does not impose per square foot-based impact fees, it also does not apply such fees on any room addition to a residential dwelling.

DIFs for non-residential uses (i.e. the variety of businesses) have always been calculated and imposed on a per square foot basis as empirical data is available for those uses. Additionally, each of those business uses (see Table 2-1) has differing maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR).

The City is mindful that the state is encouraging construction of smaller detached dwellings and is assuming that these types of residential dwellings create lesser demand merely because they are smaller. However, given the lack of any empirical data supporting such a presumption, the City feels obligated to adopt residential impact fees that are fair to all developers of residential dwellings, regardless of size. In the end, the City has determined to err on the side of fair treatment of all residential development.

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 46 Appendix C Calculation of Average Residential Dwelling Sizes Yorba Linda Transportation Impact Fees on a per Average Dwelling Unit Basis.

Should the City prefer to adopt their residential dwellings TIFs by square foot in accordance within the strict definition of residential TIFs within AB-602 the following will assist the City in that effort.

Average Unit Size Derivation of the Three Types of Residential Dwelling Units Adopted Residential Average Unit Sizes (Summary). The following figures represent the average residential dwelling square foot sizes based upon a sampling of dwellings units currently or actual floor plans available in the City.

Appendix C - Table 1
Summary of Average Residential Dwelling Square Foot
Land
Use
Designation
Average
Dwelling
Size
Detached Dwelling Units 2,800 S.F.

Attached Dwelling Units 1,000 S.F.

Mobile Home Units 1,300 S.F.

Purpose of this Calculation: Establish defensible, evidence-based average residential unit sizes for Yorba Linda to support downstream capacity and fee calculations. The figures rely on current local data, exclude clear outliers, and reflect the central tendency of typical units.

Method (Evidence-First, Outlier-Trimmed)
1) Collect recent, local square-footage evidence by category. 2) Screen for correct category (detached vs. attached; apartment floor plans vs. houses; mobile/manufactured only for that category).
3) Exclude outliers that would skew the mean (e.g., ultra-large custom S.F.Rs; micro-units not typical locally).
4) Document the observed range and then adopt a representative average anchored to the central tendency.
5) Maintain a clear trail of sources and sample counts.

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 47 Appendix C Calculation of Average Residential Dwelling Sizes A. Detached Dwelling Residential (AKA S.F.R) Evidence Set (Detached Dwelling Listings — Yorba Linda)
Sample size: 10 current/recent detached listings with posted living area square footage. ● 21590 Via Pepita — 2,183 S.F.
● 18751 Turfway Park — 4,598 S.F.
● 3880 Hogan Dr — 4,496 S.F.
● 3836 Jutland Ln — 4,535 S.F.
● 19762 Ridgewood Pl — 1,710 S.F.
● 23080 Foxtail Dr — 1,803 S.F.
● 5130 Webb Pl — 1,841 S.F.
● 20000 Villa Torino — 1,824 S.F.
● 5527 Patricia Way — 1,931 S.F.
● Additional city inventory corroborated by Yorba Linda city listing pages.

Observed Range (Detached Dwellings) Approximately 1,700 to 4,600 S.F., with a cluster around 1,800–3,700 S.F.

Adopted Average & Justification (Detached Dwellings) Adopted Average: 2,800 S.F. Centers on the modal band of typical detached homes; avoids upward skew from infrequent ultra-large custom homes.

B. Attached Dwelling Residential (AKA MF), Evidence Set (Published Floor Plans — Yorba Linda) Sample size: multiple plans across two in-city communities that publish square footage.

Representative published ranges include 1–2 BR units spanning approximately 795–1,128 S.F. and 1–3 BR units spanning approximately 664–1,040 S.F.
● The Bryant at Yorba Linda — floor plans ~795 to 1,128 S.F. (1–2 BR). ● Oakcrest Heights — floor plans ~664 to 1,040 S.F. (1–3 BR, affordable). ● Arbor Villas — community context only (S.F. not published; excluded from S.F. calculations).

Observed Range (Detached dwellings) Approximately 664 to 1,128 S.F., with most 1–2 BR plans clustering around 800–1,100 S.F.

Adopted Average & Justification (MF) Adopted Average: 1,000 S.F. sites near the center of published plan distributions and reflects typical 1–2-bedroom inventory.

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 48 Appendix C Calculation of Average Residential Dwelling Sizes C. Mobile Home Dwelling Units. Evidence Set (Mobile/Manufactured Listings — Yorba Linda) Sample size: 10+ active/sold listings with posted square footages. Representative examples:
● 16942 Lake Ridge Way — 1,152 S.F.
● 16958 Lake Ridge Way — 1,200 S.F.
● 3708 Lake Crest Dr — 1,536 S.F.
● 3678 Lake Crest Dr #41 — 1,344 S.F.
● 3731 Lake Side Dr — 1,358 S.F.
● 3761 Lake Glen Dr #146 — 1,392 S.F.
● 16927 Lake Ridge Way — 1,440 S.F.
● 16950 Lake Park Way #7 — 1,472 S.F.
● 16942 Lake Park Way — 1,464 S.F.
● 16991 Lake Terrace Way #266A — 1,368 S.F. (sold record).

Observed Range (Mobile Homes)
Approximately 1,152 to 1,536+ S.F., tightly clustered around 1,300–1,500 S.F.

Adopted Average & Justification (Mobile Homes) Adopted Average: 1,300 S.F. Represents the central tendency of double-wide (2 X 800 S.F.) formats in Yorba Linda mobile home parks.

Notes on Defensibility
● Transparency: Each category lists actual examples, shows the observed range, and states a representative average with clear rationale. ● Recency: Sources are current public listings and floor-plan pages. ● Reproducibility: Reviewers can navigate the source pages to verify square footages and repeat the sampling.
● Stability: Averages are inputs to capacity/fee calculations and remain stable across routine market changes.

Source Index (Key References)
● Redfin — Yorba Linda city and ZIP listing pages (detached S.F.R and mobile/manufactured examples).
● The Bryant at Yorba Linda — published floor plans (1–2 BR). ● Oakcrest Heights — published floor plans (1–3 BR).
● Arbor Villas — community context (S.F. not published; excluded from S.F. calculations).

Summary - The following table identifies the TIF cost per residential dwelling unit (from Schedule

3.2) and divides it by the average square foot of the type of residential dwelling unit for an average TIF cost per square foot.

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 49 Appendix C - Table 2
Average Residential Dwelling TIF Cost per Square Foot
Land
Use
Designation
TIF
per
Unit
Average
Dwelling
Size
TIF per
Square
Foot
Detached Dwelling Units $8,886 2,800 S.F. $3.17
Attached Dwelling Units $4,799 1,000 S.F. $4.80
Mobile Home Units $5,156 1,300 S.F. $3.97

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 50 Appendix D
Accessory Dwelling Units
Cost Calculation Explanation

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 51 Appendix D Accessory Dwelling Units Cost Calculation Explanation Application of Traffic Transportation Impact Fees on Accessory Dwelling Units The approach that is recommended for the calculation of TIFs for application to the construction of ADUs is to make it a function of the demand of one detached dwelling unit as is consistent with current State statutes. One can assume that the State identified them as function of a detached dwelling TIF as they more closely resemble detached dwellings, albeit smaller in size, as they are largely located within detached dwelling neighborhoods and will likely function as such.

The application of an ADU TIF as a function of a Detached Dwelling is consistent with the recently Chaptered Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 2 (attached as Attachments A to E). Section 65852.2, (f) (1).
(3) (A) A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

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

Existing Mitigation Fee Act Findings. The five required Government Code §66000 findings within each chapter would apply to the imposition/collection of ADU TIFs. The fees collected would be used to finance the same projects limited for use in that TIF-defined area in each corresponding infrastructure chapter in the 2025-26 Yorba Linda TIF Calculation and Nexus Report.

Square Foot of Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit 750
Square Foot of Primary (i.e. “front”) Dwelling Unit 3,000 Ratio of ADU S.F. to Primary Unit S.F. 25.0%
Detached Dwelling Unit Traffic Impact Fee $8,886
ADU Traffic Impact Fee (rounded) $2,221
End of Report

Existing
Development
Impact Fee
Proposed
Development
Impact Fees
Yorba Linda's Maximum Development
Impact Fee
Average
Development Impact
Fee Unit
Detached Dwelling Units* $ 600.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 8,886.00 $ 2,194.12 per unit Attached Dwelling Units $ 600.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,799.00 $ 1,460.59 per unit Office Uses (SF) $ 0.48 $ 10.00 $ 20.48 $ 3.05 per GSF
Commercial Uses (SF) $ 1.98 $ 5.00 $ 40.17 $ 5.01 per GSF Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (SF) $ 0.15 $ 10.75 $ 10.75 $ 1.41 per GSF Senior Only Apartment Units $ - $ 822.00 $ 822.00 $ 415.57 per unit Mobile Homes Dwelling Units $ - $ 5,156.00 $ 5,156.00 $ 1,426.83 per unit Commercial Lodging Units $ - $ 978.00 $ 978.00 $ 1,583.58 per unit Private Institutional Uses (SF) $ - $ 10.00 $ 29.40 $ 3.81 per GSF Detached Dwelling Units Unit Methodology Yorba Linda Maximum Development Impact Fee per Nexus Study Proposed Development Impact Fees $ 2,029.00 per unit Direct
$ 1,974.00 per unit Direct
$ 595.00 per unit Direct
$ 299.00 per unit Direct
$ 1,600.00 per unit Direct
$ 2,943.88 per unit Direct
$ 3,076.00 per unit Direct
$ 325.50 per unit Direct
$ 1,801.22 per unit Direct
$ 2,833.00 per unit Direct
$ 2,467.60 per unit Direct
$ 1,192.33 per unit Direct
$ 7,387.00 per unit Direct
$ 2,194.12 per unit Total $ 8,886.00 $ 3,000.00
Attached Dwelling Units Yorba Linda Maximum Development Impact Fee per Nexus Study Proposed Development Impact Fees $ 1,297.00 per unit Direct
$ 1,328.00 per unit Average
$ 433.50 per unit Average
$ 233.00 per unit Direct
$ 990.00 per unit Direct
$ 1,935.65 per unit Direct
$ 2,405.00 per unit Direct
$ 195.30 per unit Direct
$ 1,117.00 per unit Direct
$ 874.34 per unit Average
$ 1,270.04 per unit Direct
$ 820.80 per unit Direct
$ 6,088.00 per unit Direct
$ 1,460.59 per unit Total $ 4,799.00 $ 2,000.00
Office Uses (SF) Yorba Linda Maximum Development Impact Fee per Nexus Study Proposed Development Impact Fees $ 3.67 per GSF Direct
$ 1.25 per GSF Direct
$ 1.05 per GSF Average
$ 0.68 per GSF Direct
$ 2.61 per GSF Direct
$ 2.68 per GSF Direct
$ 7.53 per GSF Direct
$ 3.64 per GSF Direct
$ 0.98 per GSF Direct
$ 2.69 per GSF Direct
$ 4.51 per GSF Direct
$ 3.64 per GSF Direct
$ 1.42 per GSF Direct
$ 6.40 per GSF Direct
$ 3.05 per GSF Total $ 20.478 $ 10.00
Commercial Uses (SF) Yorba Linda Maximum Development Impact Fee per Nexus Study Proposed Development Impact Fees $ 5.50 per GSF Direct
$ 1.25 per GSF Average
$ 1.63 per GSF Average
$ 0.88 per GSF Direct
$ 3.66 per GSF Direct
$ 5.52 per GSF Direct
$ 7.47 per GSF Direct
$ 11.19 per GSF Direct
$ 1.74 per GSF Direct
$ 1.88 per GSF Direct
$ 8.02 per GSF Average
$ 9.11 per GSF Direct
$ 3.80 per GSF Direct
$ 8.51 per GSF Direct
$ 5.01 per GSF Total $ 40.167 $ 5.00
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (SF) Yorba Linda Maximum Development Impact Fee per Nexus Study Proposed Development Impact Fees $ 1.42 per GSF Direct
$ 1.25 per GSF Direct
$ 0.65 per GSF Direct
$ 0.36 per GSF Direct
$ 0.57 per GSF Direct
$ 2.33 per GSF Direct
$ 1.94 per GSF Direct
$ 1.40 per GSF Direct
$ 0.35 per GSF Direct
$ 1.05 per GSF Direct
$ 2.37 per GSF Direct
$ 0.77 per GSF Direct
$ 3.88 per GSF Direct
$ 1.41 per GSF Total $ 10.751 $ 10.75
Senior Only Apartment Units Yorba Linda Maximum Development Impact Fee per Nexus Study Proposed Development Impact Fees $ 44.00 per unit Direct
$ 1,119.00 per unit Direct
$ 83.70 per unit Direct
$ 415.57 per unit Total $ 822.00 $ 822.00
Mobile Homes Dwelling Units Yorba Linda Maximum Development Impact Fee per Nexus Study Proposed Development Impact Fees $ 1,540.01 per unit Direct
$ 1,678.00 per unit Direct
$ 1,062.49 per unit Direct
$ 1,426.83 per unit Total $ 5,156.00 $ 5,156.00
Commercial Lodging Units Yorba Linda Maximum Development Impact Fee per Nexus Study Proposed Development Impact Fees $ 1,474.00 per unit Direct
$ 409.00 per unit Direct
$ 919.00 per unit Direct
$ 2,936.00 per unit Direct
$ 241.80 per unit Direct
$ 2,929.00 per unit Direct
$ 866.95 per unit Direct
$ 1,166.44 per unit Direct
$ 3,310.00 per unit Direct
$ 1,583.58 per unit Total $ 978.00 $ 978.00
Private Institutional Uses (SF) Yorba Linda Maximum Development Impact Fee per Nexus Study Proposed Development Impact Fees $ 7.38 per GSF Average
$ 5.49 per GSF Average
$ 0.34 per GSF Average
$ 3.90 per GSF Average
$ 1.94 per GSF Average
$ 3.83 per GSF Average
AVERAGE FEE $ 3.81 per GSF Total $ 29.404 $ 10.00
City of Newport Beach (06/11/2025)
City of San Juan Capistrano
City of Fullerton (1993)
City of Fresno
City of San Diego
City of Huntington Beach (2012)

AVERAGE FEE
City of Anaheim
City of Cypress (1994)
City of Huntington Beach (2012)
City of Newport Beach (06/11/2025)
City of Placentia (2023)
City of Orange (2021)
City of San Juan Capistrano

AVERAGE FEE
City of Garden Grove (2/13/2017)
City of Newport Beach (06/11/2025)
City of Fullerton (1993)
City of Irvine (IBC) (06/2025)
City of Seal Beach (in process of updating)
City of Placentia (2023)
City of Cypress (1994)
City of Newport Beach (06/11/2025)
City of Fullerton (1993)

AVERAGE FEE
City of Santa Ana (1993)
City of Orange (2021)
City of San Juan Capistrano

AVERAGE FEE
City of Anaheim
City of Brea (11/2011)
City of Cypress (1994)
City of Fountain Valley (2000)
City of Garden Grove (2/13/2017)
City of Huntington Beach (2012)
City of Irvine (IBC) (06/2025)
City of Newport Beach (06/11/2025)
City of Fullerton (1993)
City of Cypress (1994)
City of Fountain Valley (2000)
City of Garden Grove (2/13/2017)
City of Huntington Beach (2012)
City of Irvine (IBC) (06/2025)
City of Orange (2021)
City of San Juan Capistrano

AVERAGE FEE
City of Newport Beach (06/11/2025)
City of Fullerton (1993)
City of Placentia (2023)
City of Seal Beach (in process of updating)
City of Santa Ana (1993)
City of Newport Beach (06/11/2025)
City of Fullerton (1993)

AVERAGE FEE
City of Anaheim
City of Brea (11/2011)
City of Placentia (2023)
City of Seal Beach (in process of updating)
City of Santa Ana (1993)
City of Orange (2021)
City of San Juan Capistrano
City of Cypress (1994)
City of Fountain Valley (2000)
City of Santa Ana (1993)
City of Orange (2021)
City of San Juan Capistrano

AVERAGE FEE
City of Garden Grove (2/13/2017)
City of Huntington Beach (2012)
City of Irvine (IBC) (06/2025)
City of Placentia (2023)
City of Seal Beach (in process of updating)
City of Anaheim
City of Brea (11/2011)
City of Fountain Valley (2000)
City of Garden Grove (2/13/2017)
City of Huntington Beach (2012)
City of Newport Beach (06/11/2025)
City of Fullerton (1993)
City of Anaheim
City (Last Updated)
City of Brea (11/2011)
City of Cypress (1994)
Yorba Linda Specific
*While not explicitly listed as a separate category in the 1993 ordinance, attached dwelling units have been assessed at $600 per unit in practice and are listed here for comparison purposes.

City of Brea (11/2011)
City of Cypress (1994)
City of Fountain Valley (2000)
City of Garden Grove (2/13/2017)
City of Huntington Beach (2012)
City of Newport Beach (06/11/2025)
City of Anaheim
City of Santa Ana (1993)
City of Orange (2021)
City of San Juan Capistrano

AVERAGE FEE
City of Fullerton (1993)
City of Placentia (2023)
City of Seal Beach (in process of updating)
Traffic Impact Fees Comparison

JUNE 16, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 23: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5994 APPROVING THE 2025-26 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY AND RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5995 APPROVING THE TRANSPORTATION

IMPACT FEE UPDATE
REVISIONS TO ATTACHMENT 3 IN RED-LINE

Chapter 3 Transportation (Streets, Signals, Bridges, ITS and Documents) Facilities Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 30 When the residential per-dwelling unit TIFs from Tale 3-1 (from Schedule 3.2) are divided by the average residential dwelling sizes in Table 3-2 previous, the following per-square foot residential TIF costs are derived. They are as follows:

Table 3-3
Average Residential Dwelling TIF Cost per Square Foot
Land
Use
Designation
TIF
per
Unit
Average
Dwelling
Size
TIF per
Square
Foot
Detached Dwelling Units $8,886 2,800 S.F. $3.17
Attached Dwelling Units $4,799 1,000 S.F. $4.80
Mobile Home Units $5,156 1,300 S.F. $3.97
Alternative Business Cost Methodology. A more precise calculation of costs for specific types of land-uses (i.e., banks, hospitals, convalescent residences, etc.) can be determined by multiplying the average cost per daily peak-hour trip-end of $2,742.69 by the applicable peak-hour daily tripmile rate. An example of this calculation can be found at the bottom of Schedule 3.2 and applied to Table 3-2. This table lists trip rates and costs for various residential, industrial and commercial developments. A fee system based on a lengthy schedule of trip rates theoretically provides more accuracy and therefore financial commitment in determining specific uses' impact on the City's transportation system, but at the same time may increase the City's costs to administer the fee.

A more extensive listing of traffic generators by land use is available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, New York, NY.

Table 3-2 following, (and summarized from Schedule 3.3) identifies the assets of the City’s existing transportation system (at current replacement costs). The total transportation system replacement cost of $2,256,797,238 consists of the existing 67.07 miles of major transportation plan arterial and collector miles (or 213 lane miles) with $155,877,150 invested in major roadways, ROW assets totaling $1,799,989,488, sixty-two traffic signals, interconnections and intersection improvements at $37,200,000 and major bridge structures investment at $263,730,600. When these existing assets are distributed over the existing community, using the same nexus factor (e.g. peak-hour trip-miles) used for distribution of future costs, the existing community has contributed the following, on average, by land use:

Table 3-4

Yorba Linda 2025-26 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 33 Correction “Schedule 3.1” for ST-006, Casa Loma
Avenue -La Entrada Dr. to Imperial Highway. The
previous report was labeled incorrectly as “ST-006, Casa Loma Avenue -Richfield Rd. to Imperial Highway.”

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DATE: JUNE 16, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARCIA BROWN, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: ADOPT PROCEDURES FOR RECESSING AND RECONVENING A CITY

COUNCIL MEETING IN THE EVENT OF DISRUPTION AS REQUIRED BY SENATE BILL 707

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Disruption of Remote Participation Policy to comply with amendments to the Brown Act required by Senate Bill 707.

SUMMARY
SB 707 established new public access requirements for city council meetings beginning July 1, 2026. Among other provisions SB 707 requires cities to provide two-way remote participation options and to adopt a policy addressing disruptions to telephonic or Internet service during public meetings and the efforts that the City will make to attempt to restore service.

DISCUSSION
The recommended policy (attached) satisfies SB 707’s requirements. The Policy mirrors the meeting disruption guidelines outlined in SB 707, which require the City Council to take a recess and attempt to restore service for at least one hour. If service cannot be restored within one hour, the City Council body must conduct a roll-call vote confirming that good faith efforts were made and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the need for remote access.

Importantly, Yorba Linda provides several ways for the public to participate/observe City Council meetings, including:

1. The City’s website

2. Cable Channel 3

3. Channel 99 AT&T U-Verse

4. In-person

ADOPT PROCEDURES FOR RECESSING AND RECONVENING A CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN THE EVENT OF DISRUPTION AS REQUIRED BY SENATE BILL 707 P a g e | 2
The Policy outlines accommodations if disruptions occur and, if approved, would take effect immediately.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Recommended Disruption of Remote Participation Policy

POLICY: DISRUPTION OF REMOTE PARTICIPATION DURING A COUNCIL

MEETING
Number: ______ Issue Number: _____
Page: ______ Date Adopted: _____
I. PURPOSE
To ensure compliance with Senate Bill 707 (SB 707) by establishing procedures for addressing disruption to remote participation during Council meetings.

II. BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 707 amended the Ralph M. Brown Act and established new public access requirements for City Council meetings beginning July 1, 2026. Among other provisions, SB 707 requires the City to adopt a formal policy addressing disruptions to telephonic or internet service during public meetings.

III. POLICY
To comply with recent legislative amendments enacted by Senate Bill 707, this policy establishes the procedure to be followed in the event of a disruption in twoway remote participation (including, but not limited to, Zoom) during a Council meeting.

IV. PROCEDURE
In the event of such disruption, if the interruption prevents members of the public from remotely attending or observing the meeting, the City Council shall recess for no less than one hour, during which time staff shall make good faith efforts to restore service. The City Council may conduct closed session during this time period. Following such efforts, the City Council shall adopt, by roll-call vote, a formal finding affirming that reasonable efforts were made to resolve the disruption and that resuming the meeting serves the public interest more than further delaying the meeting to seek a resolution. Alternatively, the City Council may adjourn the meeting to a time and date in accordance with applicable law.

ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
DATE: JUNE 16, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER GRANT, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE 2026-29 STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the 2026-29 Strategic Plan Goals.

DISCUSSION
The Strategic Plan articulates the City Council’s vision, mission, core strategies, and multiyear goals, serving as the primary framework for budget development, organizational work planning, and performance accountability. It is one of the City Council’s most effective tools for enhancing services and maintaining Yorba Linda’s exceptional quality of life.

On May 13, the City Council conducted a Strategic Planning session to review progress, discuss the City’s strengths and accomplishments over the past six months, and establish six goals for the 2026–29 Strategic Plan. Consistent with the 2020–25 Strategic Plan, the proposed goals focus on service delivery, financial sustainability, public safety, economic vitality, infrastructure investment, and community engagement.

These goals reflect the outcome of a facilitated dialogue between the City Council and the City’s executive leadership team. They are aligned with current operational needs and community priorities and will guide the development of specific objectives and performance measures to ensure effective implementation and transparent reporting.

Recommended Strategic Plan Goals (not in priority order) Goal: Preserve, protect, and advance Yorba Linda’s quality of life through exceptional service, high quality programs, and innovation.

Goal: Ensure a safe community through continued public safety and emergency preparedness efforts.

Goal: Sustain and enhance the City’s long-term financial position.

ADOPT 2026-29 STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
P a g e | 2
Goal: Ensure long-term prosperity by expanding economic activity and supporting local businesses.

Goal: Promote civic engagement and participation in local decision-making.

Goal: Invest in parks, trails, facilities, and infrastructure.

Strategic Plan Process, Reporting and Accountability
Communities are best served when they take a disciplined approach to strategic planning - planning their work and working their plan. Ongoing reporting and refinement ensure the Strategic Plan remains active and relevant, advancing its goals, promoting meaningful community engagement, and preserving its role as a living, guiding document. To accomplish this, the City has developed a Strategic Plan lifecycle:

Who What When
City Council and executive
leadership team Review and refine goals Annually
Executive leadership team Develop objectives to advance goals Every six months City Manager Report progress to the City Council
at a public meeting Every two months
City Council and executive
leadership team
Revisit goals and adopt new
Strategic Plan 2029
If the City Council approves the Strategic Plan goals, the executive leadership team will develop objectives to advance them. These objectives represent discretionary work - programs, policies, initiatives, and projects - that departments undertake in addition to the recurring services they provide to the community.

Given existing staffing levels and service demands, Strategic Plan objectives generally cannot exceed more than ten percent of a department’s overall workload unless the City Council allocates additional staffing or financial resources. While the City maintains a sound fiscal position, resources remain limited; consequently, the number of objectives and the pace of their completion must align with available resources and a department’s capacity.

As a practical guideline, departments can successfully carry two to five objectives during any six‑ month planning cycle, alongside their ongoing responsibilities.

The first Strategic Plan update, including departmental objectives, will be presented at the August 18 City Council meeting.

ADOPT 2026-29 STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
P a g e | 3

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Recommended Strategic Plan Goals

2. Mission Statement, Vision Statement, Guiding Values, and Theme

STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Ensure a safe
community through
continued public safety
and emergency
preparedness efforts.

Preserve, protect, and
advance Yorba Linda’s
quality of life through
exceptional service
delivery, high quality
programs, and innovation.

Sustain and enhance
the City’s long-term
financial position.

QUALITY

OF LIFE
PUBLIC
SAFETY

FINANCIAL

SUSTAINABILITY
Promote civic
engagement and
participation in local
decision-making.

Ensure long-term
prosperity by expanding
economic activity and
supporting local
businesses.

Invest in parks, trails,
facilities, and
infrastructure.

INFRASTRUCTURE

INVESTMENT

ECONOMIC

VITALITY

COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT
1 DRAFT
DRAFT

STRATEGIC PLAN
2 MISSION STATEMENT
The City of Yorba Linda enhances
quality of life by providing exceptional
services and amenities in a transparent
and financially responsible manner that
responds to and exceeds community
expectations.

GUIDING VALUES
Excellence
Exceeding the standard and striving to maximize performance.

Honesty and Integrity
Displaying honesty, ethics, and good character while always demonstrating sound judgment.

Stewardship
Managing resources and assets of the City in a responsible, accountable, and transparent manner.

Dependability and Dedication
Being reliable and committed to serving others.

Professionalism
Exhibiting professional conduct and carrying out duties that display technical and interpersonal excellence in a manner that exceeds the community’s expectations.

Caring and Kindness
Commitment to serve the community by displaying compassion and empathy in a friendly manner.

VISION STATEMENT
The City of Yorba Linda is a
welcoming, gracious, and prestigious
community that remains safe and
financially sound, where families and
businesses thrive.

STRATEGIC PLAN THEME Yorba Linda...Exceptional!

ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
DATE: JUNE 16, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CAPTAIN DE ANNE WIGGINTON, CHIEF OF POLICE SERVICES

ALLISON ESTES, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: E-BIKE EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND ENFORCEMENT UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the e-bike update and provide direction.

DISCUSSION
On October 7, 2025, as part of its efforts to address the increasing use of e-bikes, enhance public safety, and promote the responsible operation of these devices, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-1114 (attached), establishing local regulations for the safe operation of e-bikes, scooters, and other regulated mobility devices.

The City Council also directed an update on the City’s e-bike education, outreach activities, and enforcement efforts be presented at a City Council meeting approximately six months after the Ordinance became effective. The City Manager's Office and the Orange County Sheriff's Department will provide the City Council and community with a presentation on the City’s efforts, ongoing challenges, and any recommended adjustments.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

ATTACHMENT

1. Ordinance No. 2025-1114

2. E-Bike Ride Ready Outreach Campaign Materials and Schedule

Bicycle
E-Bike
(Class 1)
E-Bike
(Class 2)
E-Bike
(Class 3)
E-Dirt Bike/
**E-Motorcycle
Motor Scooter
Max Assisted
Speed Min Age(Years)
Driver’s License
Required
License
Plate
Helmet
Required
Pedal
Operated
N/A 15 MPH 16 ALL AGES
N/A N/A UNDER18
20 MPH N/A UNDER18
28 MPH 16 ALL AGES
N/A 16 ALL AGES
* 20 MPH N/A UNDER18
Bicycle
E-Bike
(Class 1)
E-Bike
(Class 2)
E-Bike
(Class 3)
E-Dirt Bike/
**E-Motorcycle
Motor Scooter
Paved Trails
(Class 1)
Bike Lanes
(Class 2) Separated Lane (Class 4)
Bike Routes
(Class 3) Earthen/Paved Trails
10 MPH 10 MPH
10 MPH 10 MPH
10 MPH 10 MPH
*All e-bikes have pedals. E-motorcycles and e-dirt bikes have foot rests. **E-motorcycles are not allowed in Yorba Linda. E-motorcycle manufacturers include, but are not limited to, Surron, Razor, KTM, Talaria, Mototec, and GMX Electric Dirt Bike. Per California Vehicle Code, any vehicle exceeding 750 watts is considered an e-motorcycle, not an e-bike.

IDENTIFY YOUR E-BIKE
Use the class system chart below to see what e-bike you have. 2ND 3RD OR SUBSEQUENT (within 12 months)

VIOLATION
$500 May be charged as a misdemeanor,
punishable by up to a $1,000 fine.
1ST

VIOLATION
$250
Violating the City’s Municipal Code, State law, or the California Vehicle Code may result in vehicle impoundment, fines, or misdemeanor charges.

Safe Riding in the City of Yorba Linda
E-BIKE
GUIDE

YORBA LINDA

R I D E R E A DY
MORE EBIKE
RESOURCES & EVENTS Questions? Call (714) 779-7098
Updated 4/30/2026

WHERE TO RIDE | SPEED LIMITS

STREETS,
ROADS,
& HIGHWAYS
SPEED
LIMIT
25 SIDEWALKS
SPEED
LIMIT
10 CLASS II/III/IV

BIKEWAYS
SPEED
LIMIT
25 PARKS &
TRAILS
SPEED
LIMIT
10 Riding is prohibited in the Yorba Linda Town Center parking structure and the Veterans Memorial at Veterans Park.

EBIKES NEAR HORSES
Slow down. Give plenty
of space. Announce yourself with a bell or
calm voice.

Avoid passing from
directly behind.

Follow the
rider’s cues.

Use caution on curves
or narrow sections.

X
E-bikes frighten horses. Remember to pass slowly and always keep your distance.

RULES OF THE ROAD
Stay to the right and
ride with traffic. E-bikes
must follow the same
traffic laws as vehicles.

Yield to pedestrians
and equestrians.

Don’t tamper with
speed controls. Check brakes, tires, and
batteries before
every ride.

Use hand signals
for turns and stops. Obey all local laws and posted signs.

Riders under 16 years
old may not carry
passengers. Passengers must be in a seat.

HELMET
Required for riders
under 18 years old.

NO PHONES
Put away distractions
and focus on the road.

REFLECTIVE CLOTHING
Use lights, reflectors,
and bright clothing.

BELL
Use a bell to
announce yourself.

GEAR
CHECK
Before you’re ready to
ride, check your gear!

Bicycle
E-Bike
(Class 1)
E-Bike
(Class 2)
E-Bike
(Class 3)
E-Dirt Bike/
**E-Motorcycle
Motor
Scooter
Pedal
Operated
Max
Assisted
Speed
Min
Age
(Years)
Driver’s
License
Required
Helmet
Required
Paved
Trails
(Class 1)
Bike
Lanes
(Class 2)
Bike
Routes
(Class 3)
Separated
Lane
(Class 4)
Earthen/
Paved
Trails
License
Plate
N/A 15 MPH 16 ALL AGES

N/A N/A UNDER
18 20 MPH N/A UNDER
18 10 MPH 10 MPH
20 MPH N/A UNDER
18 10 MPH 10 MPH
28 MPH 16 ALL AGES 10 MPH 10 MPH
N/A 16 ALL AGES
*
*All e-bikes have pedals. E-motorcycles and e-dirt bikes have foot rests. **E-motorcycles are not allowed in Yorba Linda. E-motorcycle manufacturers include, but are not limited to, Surron, Razor, KTM, Talaria, Mototec, and GMX Electric Dirt Bike. Per California Vehicle Code, any vehicle exceeding 750 watts is considered an e-motorcycle, not an e-bike.

YORBA LINDA

R I D E R E A DY
E-BIKE

CLASS SYSTEM

GET MORE TIPS ON
HOW TO RIDE READY!

EBIKES | PARENT FAQ’S

1. At what age can my child ride an e-bike?
E-bikes that fall under Class 1 or Class 2 (see back for details) have no minimum age requirement.

Class 3 e-bikes require riders to be a minimum of 16 years old. E-dirt bikes and e-motorcycles require riders to have a valid driver’s license with a motorcycle endorsement.

2. What is considered an illegal e-bike?
An e-bike is considered an e-motorcycle or e-dirt bike and is generally considered illegal if it does not meet e-bike classifications. These requirements include whether the vehicle has pedals or foot rests, maximum speed capabilities, and vehicle motor size. See backside for details.

3. My child’s e-bike max speed can be controlled through an app, does that make it legal? If an e-bike has the capability to exceed the maximum assisted speed, that e-bike is still considered illegal.

4. Can my child ride an illegal e-bike if accompanied by a parent? The legal requirements for e-bike riders are still enforced even in the presence of parents.

5. Can my child ride as a passenger on an adult’s e-bike? Passengers are only permitted on e-bikes if the primary rider is over the age of 16 and if the vehicle is equipped with a passenger seat. Passengers must be seated at all times.

6. What are common e-bike violations?
Common e-bike violations include riding illegal e-bikes, speeding, not following the rules of the road, not wearing a helmet, and exhibiting inappropriate riding behavior including wheelies or riding with passengers illegally.

7. What is the punishment for e-bike violations?
Violating the City’s Municipal Code, State law, or the California Vehicle Code may result in vehicle impoundment, fines, or misdemeanor charges. The first violation is a fine of up to $250. The second violation is a fine of up to $500. A third or subsequent violation within 12 months may be charged as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $1,000 fine.

8. How much is it to release an e-bike from impound?
E-bikes that have been impounded will be subject to an impound fee and daily storage fees. The cost for releasing an e-bike from impound can exceed $2,500.

9. Can parents be held liable for their child’s e-bike violations? Yes, parents can be held liable for their child’s e-bike violations and may face felony charges depending on the seriousness of the violations.

YORBA LINDA

R I D E R E A DY
LEARN MORE EBIKE TIPS

20 MPH Max Assisted Speed
Class 1: Pedal Operated
Class 2: Not Pedal Operated But Has Pedals
No Minimum Age Requirement
Helmet Required for Ages 17 & Under
CLASS 1 & 2 EBIKES
CLASS 3 EBIKES
No Max Speed
Foot Rests Not Pedals
Driver’s License and Registration Required
Helmet Required for All Ages
EDIRT BIKES & EMOTOS

YORBA LINDA

R I D E R E A DY
Riding Prohibited on City Streets and Trails
28 MPH Max Assisted Speed
Pedal Operated
Age 16 Minimum
Helmet Required for All Ages
LEARN MORE EBIKE TIPS