HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/1/2006 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.A.?ALAI S, �
.y
� G1
U �
i Pico �
�"•acn.•� ,N
�<1FORN,P�
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2006 NEXUS
STUDY REPORT AND INCREASING THE TUMF AMOUNTS
APPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS AND AMEND BOUNDARIES OF APPLICABLE FEES
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Director of Public Works and Director of Building & Safety
Y�Jn�h�i/G1d'/
This resolution is for the purpose of modifying fees pursuant to the 2006 Fee Schedule
update, Nexus Study Report and dated June 27, 2006 ("006 Nexus Study") and
approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on July 31, 2006, and amending
Ordinance 1334 Section 2 (1) Definitions to read "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Boundary".
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony.
2. Adopt Resolution No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2006 NEXUS
STUDY REPORT AND INCREASING THE TUMF AMOUNTS APPLICABLE TO
ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS."
3. Introduce Ordinance No. , "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 8.90 TO THE PALM SPRINGS
MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO THE CODIFICATION AND AMENDMENT
OF THE CITY'S ADOPTED TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE."
I.3raaW_1►ra►'IRyF-I
The City of Palm Springs ("City") is a Member Agency of the Coachella Valley
Association of Governments ("CVAG"), a joint powers agency consisting of the County
ITEM NO. .1 'A '
City Council Staff Report
(insert meeting date) -- Page 2
(insert brief title)
of Riverside ("County"), The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Band
of Mission Indians, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the City of Blythe, and
the nine cities situated in the Coachella Valley (collectively, "Member Agencies". Acting
in concert, the Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds
needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials within
CVAG's jurisdiction (the "Regional System") could be made up in part by a
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") imposed on future residential,
commercial and industrial development within the jurisdiction.
As a CVAG member Agency, the City participated in the preparation of the 1987
Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study ("The 1987 Transportation Study")
prepared pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act and based on the 1987 Transportation
Study, the City adopted and implemented Ordinance No. 1334 authorizing its
participation in the imposition and collection of the TUMF. Section 3.40.040 of
Ordinance 1344 provides that the CVAG Executive Committee shall annually review
and, if necessary, amend the amount of the recommended TUMF to ensure that it is a
fair and equitable method of distributing the costs of the improvements necessary to
accommodate traffic volumes generated by future growth.
2006 Nexus Studv
CVAG commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff to prepare an updated TUMF study entitled
"2006 Fee Schedule Uodate. Nexus Studv Report", and dated June 27, 2006 ("2006
Nexus Study") to establish updated TUMF levels and program revenue program review
collection targets, which was approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on July 31,
2006. The 2006 Nexus Study revealed that there is a projected shortfall in the revenue
to complete the Regional Transportation System in the approximate amount of $1.2
Billion, which must be resolved from local resources, developer contributions and
TUMF. Based upon the findings of the 2006 Nexus Study and the recommendations of
the Executive Committee's TUMF Nexus Advisory Committee, on July 31, 2006 the
CVAG Executive Committee approved an increase in the Fee Per Average Daily Trip
portion of the TUMF proposed by the 2006 Nexus Study.
In view of all of the information contained in the Nexus Study and the other materials
reviewed by staff, staff recommends that the City Council take two actions:
1. Increase the TUMF fee pursuant to the 2006 Nexus Study by adoption of
the attached draft resolution.
2. Adjust the boundaries of the area subject to TUMF fees. The adjustment
will change from school districts to state highways within the Coachella Valley as
defined in the Nexus Study Report. A draft ordinance for the. adjustment will be
presented at the meeting.
I-
City Council Staff Report
(insert meeting date) -- Page 3
(insert brief title)
CEQA Analvsis
Increasing existing development impact fees and adjusting the fee collection boundaries
modify a government funding mechanism, which is not a physical change in the
environment and therefore, is not a project under CEQA. (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §
15378 (b) (4)) Further, the resolution and ordinance are for the purpose of modifying
fees, and are not intended to approve a capital project for which separate review under
CEQA will be required at the time such project is considered for approval by the City.
(14 Cal. Code of Regulations § 15373 (a))
FISCAL IMPACT:
Finance Director Review:
None. The fees collected by the City are forwarded to CVAG.
'04�—
Da 'd Barak' irector of�blic Works
on Duckworth, Director o Building & Safety
David H. Ready, City Manage
Attachments:
Exhibit A, 2006 Fee Schedule Update, Nexus Study Report
Public Hearing Notice
Exhibit B, TUMF Resolution
Boundary Map
(Exhibit C, TUMF Formula for Fees
OVAG
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS
Blythe • Cathedral City Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian Wells • Indio • La Quinta • Palm Qe$ert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage
County of Riverside Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Cabazon Band of Mission Indians • Torres Martinez Desert: Cahuilla Indians
August 3, 2006
TO: All Building/Planning/Public Works Staff
FROM: Carol Clapper, Associate Regional Planner, CVAG
RE: TUMF Increase - Effective January 1, 2007
On July 31, 2006, CVAG's Executive Committee approved an increase to the Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) fee schedule, specifically, the Fee Per Average Daily Trip_
This component of TUMF is directly related to the various costs identified in the Regional
Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) associated with constructing projects listed in the
Transportation Project Prioritization Study (fPPS).
This is the firsttime since inception oftheTUMF program, July 1,1989, the Fee PerAverage
Daily Trip has increased.
The fee increase will take effect January 1, 2007. All building permits (or grading permits for
golf courses) issued on or after January 1, 2007 will be subject to the new fee. TUMF
Handbooks reflecting the change will be distributed during the month of December.
In the meantime, to calculate a TUMF estimate using the new fee, make the following
substitutions in the Fee Per Average Daily Trip column of the TUMF Handbook:
Category Current Fee
Residential $83
Sales -Tax Producing $26
Non Sales -Tax Producing $66
Please give me a call at 346-1127 x 118 if you have any questions.
h•amM��umNna.�•�m•mowpd
., n 1nr - r ir1 r r^
Effective 01/01/07
$192
$ 74
$148
n I' -11 1 1 - v r� n1 ^ n - ^
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM SPRINGS APPROVING THE
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
(TUMF) 2006 NEXUS STUDY REPORT AND
INCREASING THE TUMF AMOUNTS APPLICABLE TO
ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs ("City") is a Member Agency of the
Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"), a joint powers agency
consisting of the County of Riverside ("County"), The Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians, the City of Blythe, and the nine cities situated in the Coachella Valley
(collectively, "Member Agencies"); and
WHEREAS, acting in concert, the Member Agencies developed a plan whereby
the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of
Highways and Arterials within CVAG's jurisdiction (the "Regional System") could be
made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF') imposed on
future residential, commercial and industrial development within the jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code, Section 66000
et seq.) establishes the criteria for establishing a fee as a condition of approval of a
development project; and
WHEREAS, as a CVAG Member Agency, the City participated in the
preparation of the 1987 Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study ("1987
Transportation Study") prepared pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act and based on the
1987 Transportation Study, the City adopted and implemented Ordinance No. 1334
authorizing its participation in the imposition and collection of the TUMF; and
WHEREAS, section 4(2) of Ordinance 1334 provides that the CVAG Executive
Committee shall annually review and, if necessary, amend the amount of the
recommended TUMF to ensure that it is a fair and equitable method of distributing the
costs of the improvements necessary to accommodate traffic volumes generated by
future growth; and
WHEREAS, CVAG commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff to prepare an updated
TUMF study entitled "2006 Fee Schedule Update, Nexus Studv Report", and dated
June 27, 2006 ("2006 Nexus Study") to establish updated TUMF levels and program
revenue collection targets, which was approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on
July 31, 2006 and which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by
reference; and
WHEREAS, the 2006 Nexus Study revealed that there is a projected shortfall in .
revenue to complete the Regional System in the approximate amount of $1.2 Billion,.
which must be resolved from local resources, developer contributions and TUMF; and
1 0)
WHEREAS, based upon the findings of the 2006 Nexus Study and the
recommendations of the Executive Committee's TUMF Nexus Advisory Committee, on
July 31, 2006 the CVAG Executive Committee approved an increase in the Fee Per
Average Daily Trip portion of the TUMF Fee Schedule to take effect January 1, 2007,
which is less than the TUMF proposed by the 2006 Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, section 4(2) of Ordinance 1334 provides that the amount of the
TUMF shall be based on the trip generation rate and as recommended by CVAG and
that the City Council shall adopt by resolution the fee amount recommended by CVAG
or a higher fee amount; and
WHEREAS, by notice duly given and posted, as described in Exhibit "B", on
November 1, 2006 the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider approval of
the 2006 Nexus Study Report and adoption of the proposed TUMF increase; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly
considered the data and information provided by CVAG, City staff and the public
relative to the cost of the services for which the fees are proposed and all other
comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 2006 Nexus Study Report provides
the information required by Mitigation Fee Act as justification for an increase in such
fees; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of this Resolution increasing existing development
impact fees modifies a government funding mechanism which is not a physical change
in the environment and therefore, is not a project under CEQA (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §
15378(b)(4)); and
WHEREAS, the City desires to approve the 2006 Nexus Study Report and to
adopt the TUMF fee schedule recommended by the CVAG Executive Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Palm
Springs as follows:
Section 1.
The City Council has considered all of the comment, testimony and evidence
submitted into the administrative record, which includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
a. Ordinance No. 1334 of the City of Palm Springs;
b. The City's General Plan, including updates;
C. The "2006 Fee Schedule Update. Nexus Studv Report", prepared by
v !
�1113 .
Parsons Brinckerhoff, and dated June 27, 2006 and all underlying
reports and documents referenced therein;
d. The staff report prepared by City Engineer and Public Works Director,
presented for consideration by the City Council at the public hearing
conducted on November 1, 2006 recommending approval of the 2006
Nexus Study Report and adoption of the revised TUMF schedule; and
e. The public comments, both written and oral, received and/or submitted
at, or prior to the City Council public hearing supporting and/or opposing
the staff recommendation.
Section 2.
That the City Council hereby finds that the City has complied with the California
Environmental Quality Act in the approval of the subject fees. The adoption of this
Resolution increasing existing development impact fees modifies a government funding
mechanism, which is not a physical change in the environment and therefore, is not a
project under CEQA. (14 Cal. Code of Regulations § 15378(b)(4)) Further, this
Resolution is for the purpose of modifying fees, and is not intended to approve a capital
project for which separate review under CEQA will be required at the time such project
is considered for approval by the City. (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15273(a))
Section 3.
In view of all of the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as
follows:
a. That the 2006 Nexus Study presents an evaluation of population and
employment growth, future transportation needs and the availability of traditional
transportation funding sources to establish updated TUMF levels and program
revenue collection targets-
b. That based on the results of the 2006 Nexus Study, it is possible to determine a
reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional impacts of new land
development projects in the Coachella Valley on the regional system of roads,
streets and highways ('Regional System") and the need to mitigate these
transportation impacts using funds levied through the TUMF program.
C. That the 2006 Nexus Study establishes the purposes of the TUMF, which may
be summarized as a uniform development impact fee to help fund ponstruction
of the Regional System needed to accommodate growth in the Coachella Valley
to the year 2030.
d. That the 2006 Nexus Study establishes that TUMF proceeds will be used to help
pay for the construction and acquisition of the Regional System improvements'
l . 00GO?
pay for the construction and acquisition of the Regional System improvements
identified in the 2006 Nexus Study Report. Such improvements are necessary
for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of
the development projects on which the TUMF will be levied.
e. That the 2006 Nexus Study Report establishes a reasonable and rational
relationship between the use of TUMF proceeds and the type of development
projects on which it is imposed, which may be summarized as follows:
New residential and nonresidential developments contribute to the
expected growth of the City and the Coachella Valley.
New residential and nonresidential developments will benefit from the
Regional System improvements and the burden of such development will
be mitigated in part by the payment of the TUMF.
The amount of the TUMF is based directly on the potential traffic
generation of proposed land uses and the projected need for additional
streets, interchanges, and intersection improvements and the cost of
these improvements has been distributed to the various land use
categories in proportion to the traffic generated from each land use
category.
The TUMF is a fair and equitable method of distributing the cost of
transportation improvements among the developments that will generate
the increased traffic.
f. That the 2006 Nexus Study Report establishes the reasonable relationship
between the impact of new development and the need for the TUMF, which may
be summarized as follows:
The continuing residential and nonresidential growth of the City and
Coachella Valley will result in increasing congestion on the Regional
System due to the impact of newly created trips and traffic demand and
future Regional System congestion is directly attributable to the
cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in the
City and Coachella Valley.
• Future residential and nonresidential development within the City and the
Coachella Valley to the year 2030 will result in traffic volumes in excess
of capacity on the existing Regional System.
If the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged, substantial traffic
congestion will result in all parts of the City and Coachella Valley and the
City, with unacceptable Levels of Service throughout the jurisdiction by
2030; capacity improvements to the Regional System will be needed to
Mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new residential and
nonresidential development; and the Regional System improvements
identified in the Transportation Project Prioritization Study, which is
incorporated by reference into the 2006 Nexus Study Report, are arterial
roadway facilities that will provide additional capacity to help mitigate the
impacts of new development and merit inclusion for funding
improvements through the TUMF program.
The 2006 Nexus Study demonstrates the extent to which the new
development of land will generate traffic volumes impacting the Regional
System and that the TUMF program establishes a fair and equitable
method for distributing the unfunded costs of transportation
improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic volumes generated
by such development.
• Revenues from other established funding sources and developer
dedications will not be sufficient to address all the Regional System
improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new residential and
nonresidential development; exactions from development will construct
only a portion of the local and regional facilities and that the TUMF
program will raise the additional revenues needed to construct the
improvements to accommodate traffic that will be generated by
development of land within the City and within the Coachella Valley and
in the absence of the TUMF program, which imposes a fair -share traffic
fee upon new development, existing and future sources of revenue are
inadequate to fund substantial portions of the Regional System
improvements needed to avoid unacceptable levels of congestion and
related adverse impacts.
Absent an increase in the amount of the TUMF collected based on the
2006 Nexus Study Report, existing and known future funding sources
will be inadequate to provide necessary improvements to the Regional
System, resulting in an unacceptably high level of traffic congestion
within and around Coachella Valley and the City.
g. That the cost estimates set forth in the 2006 Nexus Study are reasonable cost
estimates for the facilities that comprise the Regional System.
h. That TUMF program revenues to be generated by new development will not
exceed the total fair share of these costs.
i. That the projects and methodology identified in the 2006 Nexus Study Report for
the collection of fees is consistent with the goals, policies, objectives and
implementation measures of the City's General Plan.
j. That the public improvements to be funded by the TUMF are detailed in the
most recent version of CVAG's Transportation Project Prioritization Study
L _ OOU'9
(TPPS), which is on file with the City's Public Works Department.
k. That the proposed development fees comply with the provisions of the Mitigation
Fee Act.
I. That the City has complied with the California Environmental Quality Act in the
approval of the TUMF.
Section A.
That the City Council hereby approves the "2006 Fee Schedule Uodate, Nexus
Studv Report", prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff and dated June 27, 2006, and
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
Section 5.
That the City Council hereby adopts the revised TUMF Formula for Fees
attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
Section 6.
That the increased fees in this Resolution shall become effective as soon as
permitted pursuant to the applicable provisions of the California Government Code.
ATTEST;
James Thompson, City Clerk
I.Y.
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS)
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. _ is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at'a regular
L - obAo
meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on
by the following vote:
.AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT, -
ABSTAIN:
James Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California
CC)-- ",
ORDINANCE NO,_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 8.90
TO THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE,
RELATING TO THE CODIFICATION AND
AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S ADOPTED
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE.
City Attorney's Summary
The City Council previously adopted an uncodified
ordinance establishing a transportation uniform
mitigation fee program. This Ordinance codifies
essential provisions of the uncodified ordinance as a
part of the Palm Springs Municipal Code and allows
the Council to implement, amend, and administer the
fee program from time to time by resolution.
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs ordains:
SECTION 1. Chapter 8.90 is added to the Palm Springs Municipal Code to
read:
Chapter 8.90
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
Sections
5.30.010
Purpose and Intent
5,X020
Establishment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee
5.30,030
Exemptions
5.30.040
Credits
5.30.050
Appeal Process
8.90.010 Purpose and Intent.
It is the purpose and intent of this Chapter to codify the Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee program previously adopted by the City Council for the purpose of
imposing a fair -share traffic fee on new development to fund regional
transportation improvements. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to any
activity which requires discretionary or ministerial action by the City resulting in
the issuance of grading, building, plumbing, mechanical, or electrical permits,
,
5'_I^I, 1
certificates of occupancy, or change the use of, any building or property and
which results in change of use and generates additional vehicular trips.
8.90.020 Establishment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee.
A. There is hereby established a Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee, the proceeds of which shall be placed in the trust fund established by the
Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") and used to construct
the transportation improvements and provide the additional capacity needed to
accommodate the traffic generated by the development of land in the City and in
the Coachella Valley.
B. The amount of the mitigation fee shall be based on the trip
generation rate and as recommended by CVAG from time to time and as
adopted by the Council by resolution.
C. The Council shall annually review and, if necessary, amend the
amount of the mitigation fee to insure that it is a fair and equitable method of
distributing the costs of the improvements necessary to accommodate traffic
volumes generated by future growth. If the amount of the recommended
mitigation fee is amended by CVAG pursuant to CVAG's annual review, the
Council shall amend its fee amount in accord with the amount recommended or
in an amount greater consistent with all applicable provisions of law-
D. No Tract map, parcel map, conditional use permit, land use permit,
building permit, change of occupancy, or any other discretionary or ministerial
entitlement shall be approved unless payment of the mitigation fee is a condition
of approval for any such entitlement. The mitigation fee shall be paid to the City-
E. No building or similar permit, certificate of occupancy or business
license reflecting a change of use shall be issued unless the applicant has paid
the mitigation fee.
F. Mitigation fees shall be imposed and collected by the City and shall
be transmitted to CVAG to be placed in the Coachella Valley Transportation
Mitigation Trust Find. All interest or other earnings of the Fund shall be credited
to the Fund.
8.90.030 Exemptions. The following developments are exempted from
payment of the fee required by this Ordinance:
A Low and lower -income residential housing, including single-family
homes, apartments, and mobile homes built for those whose income is no more
than 80% of the median income in the San Bernardino -Riverside Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area and as determined and approved by the legislative
5^-17it I
body or its designee. The sale or rental price shall not exceed the affordability
criteria as established under HUD Section 8 guidelines.
B. Public buildings, public schools, and public facilities unless they are
primarily for lease to private, for -profit enterprises-
C. Buildings used for religious purposes but excluding other
commercial properties or businesses owned by a religious institution.
D. The reconstruction of any building so long as the reconstructed
building both continues a use of the same category as the prior use and
generates the same or fewer trips as the original building and reconstruction
commences within one (1) year from destruction of the building.
8.90.040 Credits.
A. Where a developer improves those regional streets identified in a
resolution implementing the provisions of this Chapter beyond the requirements
established in subsection B of this Section, the developer shall receive a credit
against the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. To receive a credit, the
developer shall obtain, in advance, an agreement with CVAG pursuant to
CVAG's rules and regulations. That credit shall be an amount equal to the actual
engineering and construction costs incurred at the time of the development to the
extent that CVAG has included those costs in its estimated cost of constructing
the regional system.
B. The fees required by this Ordinance shall be in addition to any fees,
conditions or exactions for on -site and off -site improvements imposed upon
projects pursuant to state and local laws, ordinances, or administrative policy
which may authorize the imposition of conditions, fees or exactions on
development and the developer shall not be entitled to any credits for such fees,
conditions or exactions-
C. If a developer constructs, or is required by the City to construct, any
portion of the regional network as identified in a resolution implementing the
provisions of this Chapter in excess of that required to meet standard street
requirements as provided by local ordinances, municipal codes, and the City's
General Plan, the developer shall be entitled to a credit for the cost of such
excess construction. All such construction on the regional network must have
the approval of CVAG as to plans and detailed costs estimates.
D. Should the credit exceed the applicant's total fee, the' different@
may be credited against any of the applicant's future development within five (5)
years which would be subject to the fee. The credit may not be refunded in cash.
L . O®J,LI
521i13 I
E. Should a developer provide improvements which benefit adjacent
undeveloped land, the developer may be reimbursed for a proportionate share of
the cost of such improvements contingent upon future fees contributed from
other benefited developments and pursuant to special agreements made in
advance with CVAG and in accordance with CVAG's rules and regulations.
8.90.050 Appeal Process.. An applicant who disputes the fee may file a
written notice of appeal with the Executive Committee of CVAG within 15 days of
imposition of the fee. The Executive Committee of CVAG must decide the
appeal by majority vote and within 60 days of the filing of the appeal.
SECTION 2, The City Council specifically finds that this Ordinance is
declaratory of existing laws, ordinances, and policies of the City. The City Council
further finds that this ordinance is a codification of Ordinance No. 1334, an
existing ordinance and program of the City, and that this Ordinance does not
create or establish a new fee. Ordinance No. 1334 not be in force or effect upon
the effective date of this Ordinance;
SECTION 3. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section,
paragraph, sentence, or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid
by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any
preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs,
sentences, or words of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4_ The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage
and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary
thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law and this
Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF . 2006.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
RON ODEN, MAYOR
L _ Mfl5
S1J 711 1
James Thompson, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Douglas Holland, City Attorney
5'_I713 1
EXHIBIT "A"
2006 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE, NEXUS STUDY REPORT
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
2006 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
NEXUS STUDY REPORT
Prepared for:
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
In Association with:
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Indian Wells
City of Indio
City of La Quinto
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Rancho Mirage
County of Riverside
-- Prepared byt
Parsons Brinckerhoff
685 East Carnegie Drive, Suite 210
San Bernardino, California 92408
909-888-1106
www.obwcrld.com
94- PARSONS
BRINCKMHOFF
June 27, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Introduction.._ -------------------------------------- ......... ........ ..... ___ ----------------
......... ........ ........... .._ 1
1_1.
TUMF Boundary Determination............................................................................2
1.2.
Measure A and the CVAG TUMF Program..............................................................5
1.3.
Mitigation Fee Act and Other Legal Requirements...............................................6
2.0
Future Growth and the Need for TUMF.........................................................................8
2.1.
Future Growth Trends........................................................_..............
..... 8
2.2_
Future Highway Traffic.............................................•----------._...................................__.8
2-3.
The TUMF Concept ... .......... ....... .................. ...-------------------------
................................. 10
3-0
TPPS and RACE. ------ ............................................................. .....•-----------------
.................... 12
3.1.
Cost Estimation Methodology.................................................................................12
3.2.
Projects Included in the TPPS and RACE...............................................................26
4.0
4.1
4.2
5.0
5.1
5.2.
5.3.
6.0
Traffic Growth Attributable to New Development__,_, ..... ....... __ -------------
Determining Traffic Growth................................................................
4.1.1 _ Background on CVATS Model__________________________ .....................,--
4.1.2. Determining Trip Growth Forecasted by the CVATS Model..._. ..........
4.1.3. Converting Model Forecasts to Project Level Forecasts .....................
Fee Category Share of New Trips.................................................................
TUMF Collection Target...................................................................
Other Funding Sources.... ---------- 111 .............................
5.1.1. Measure A.........................................................................
5.1.2. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) .....___-
5.1.3. Unfunded Share of RACE. ------------ ___ .......................
Developer Dedications_. ....................................................
TUMF Collection Target .... .................•---------- ___ ...................
....
Fee Calculation .........................................
...........35
...........35
.......................36
.....................37
..........................37
.......................... 39
.......................... 39
7.0 Recommendations and Conclusion....................................................
7.1, Fee -Adjustments and .............
7.1.1. Annual Inflation Adjustment......,. ....... ....... ____ --------
7.1.2. Regular Program Review and Update.,.... .... .......... __
7.2. TUMF Ordinance Amendments ...........................................
7.11 _ Horizon Year and CVATS.................................____ .......
7.2.2. Trip Generation Rates ......................................................
7.2.3. Applicability......................................................................
7.2.4_ Establishment of the Transportation Mitigation Fee....
7-2.5. Share of Trips......-.--.. ...... ..................................................
726- Schedule of Fees-------- ---------------------- ...................
7.2.7. List of Projects on the Regional System .........................
.... 40
MIK
............................ 4.i
............................ 43
........................44
---------------- ----45
___ ---------------__ 45
................................ . 46
............ ___ --------- ...... 46
.............................. .. . 46
L_ L '119
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Updote 1 June 27, 2006
APPENDICES
Appendix A - SCAG 2004 RTP Model Network Plots. -------------- ..............................................48
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Socio-Economic Data for CVAG TUMF Study Area (2000-2030) ------ _-----------
____ _.8
Table 2-2
Regional Highway System Measures of Performance for CVAG TUMF
Study Area (2000-2030)..... __------------ _............... _------------_....................-------------_
9
Table 3-1
Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project .................. ......----- _.....................
___ 19
Table 3-2
"Maintenance Only" Projects Included in the 2005 TPPS and RACE
Updates-_ ------------ __........................... ..........................--------- _......... ...........
..... .._27
Table 4-1
CVATS Model Trips --------- ____ ........... _------ ............................ .-------- ___ ................29
Table 4-2
Distribution of CVATS Model Internal -Internal Trips ....................... .......................32
Table 4-3
CVATS Model Trip Purposes by Fee Categories________ ..............................
..... _33
Table 4-4
CVATS Model Refined Trip Purposes by Fee Categories.....................................33
Table 4-5
CVATS Model Trip Purposes versus Fee Categories - Reassigned.... -------
_..__34
Table 5-1
Measure A Revenue Estimate for Coachella Valley _.._... _ ..................................36
Table 5-2
STIP Funding Estimate for Coachella Valley. -------- _ ................... --------------
......_37
Table 5-3
CVAG RACE Inflated Cost Estimate............................................................
__...._38
Table 5-4
Unfunded Share of RACE 2005 Update .... ...---- ___ .................... .--------- __.............
38
Table 5-5
TUMF Collection Target ----..,__................ ____ ........ ............... .-------- __.................. 39
Table 6-1
CVAG TUMF Fee Calculation ................ ............................... __. .... _.... .................... 41
Table 7-1
CVAG TUMF Schedule of Fees ... __------- _................... _------- __.......................
_ _.42
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure]-] CVAG TUMF Boundary ............................................................................................_4
Figure 3-1 Projects in the 2005 TPPS Update................_.......................__,_..........................13
Figure 4-1 CVATS Model and TUMF Collection Areas............................_...........:.................30
Figure 7-1 Construction Cost Index Comparison. ..... ............................. __ ................... ... _ 44
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 11 June 27, 2006
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In July 1989, the agencies of the Coachella Valley adopted a landmark Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program to collect a uniform development impact fee to
help fund construction of the regional system of roads, streets, and highways (excluding
state or federal highways) needed to accommodate growth in the region- During its
15+ years of existence, the TUMF has helped to fund numerous improvement projects
including arterial street construction, street widening, intersection capacity
enhancements, and freeway interchange improvements_
Throughout its existence the TUMF structure and policies have remained essentially
unchanged. However, many roadway improvements associated with the original TUMF
have been completed and plans for future development within the Coachella Valley
have evolved substantially_ Furthermore, the reauthorization of Measure A in Riverside
County commits a significant future stream of funding to transportation improvements in
the Coachella Valley. Combined with other public sources of funds, the funding mix for
roadway projects in the Coachella Valley has changed substantially since the TUMF
was originally adopted.
To reflect the accomplishments of the original TUMF program and the continuing
changes in regional growth, transportation needs and available funding, CVAG has
recently completed on update of the Transportation Project Prioritization Study and the
Regional Arterial Cost Estimate. The Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) and
Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) each represent fundamental elements of
CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The TPPS identifies the
arterial roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the transportation impacts of
new development on the Coachella Valley and prioritizes the implementation of these
improvements. The RACE determines the cost associated with implementing the
roadway system improvements identified in the TPPS and therefore provides a core
variable in the formula for calculating the fee level for the TUMF program.
Changes in the TPPS and RACE documents that provide the underlying basis for the
TUMF program have necessitated the review and update of the TUMF program to
reaffirm the nexus between projected development and needed transportation system
improvements. The reevaluation of the TUMF nexus also provides the opportunity to
address important policy issues including consideration of a new horizon year of 2030
(based on the latest available socio-economic forecasts from the Southern California
Association of Governments) and the related traffic growth attributable to new.
development in the Coachella Valley, and verification of the percentage of
improvement costs to be funded by other funding sources and developer dedications.
This Nexus Study Report presents the evaluation of population and employment growth,
future transportation needs and the availability of traditional transportation funding
sources to establish updated TUMF fee levels and program revenue collection targets.
This study report is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code
Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Develooment Proiects (also known as
ems '
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update l June 27, 2006
California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs
imposing development impact fees in California.
Companion documents referenced in this report include the Transportation Project
Prioritization Study (Katz, Okitsu and Associates, 2006), the Regional Arterial Cost
Estimation (Katz, Okitsu and Associates, 2006) and the CVAG TUMF Boundary
Determination [Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005). These documents that are directly related
to the 2006 Fee Schedule Update are available from CVAG.
The following sub -sections provide some background information on CVAG's TUMF
program including the results of the recent boundary determination and the provisions
of state legislation relating to mitigation fee programs. The remaining sections of the
TUMF 2006 Fee Schedule Update Nexus Study Report present the findings of the nexus
study data analysis and the revised TUMF fee schedule.
1.1. TUMF Boundary Determination
In cooperation with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), CVAG
has participated in efforts to determine an appropriate boundary between the two
regions. The resultant changes in the CVAG jurisdictional boundary necessitates
consideration of expanding the TUMF collection area boundary to match the new
jurisdictional boundary and therefore a nexus must be established between
development in this area and transportation improvements in the Coachella Valley.
The CVAG TUMF Boundary Determination (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005) established a
roughly defined area within which there exists a "reasonable relationship" between
new development and traffic conditions on TUMF roadways. In short, this area includes
the CVAG core, as well as outlying areas along the 1-10 east, SR74 south, SR86 south,
and SR111 south corridors. The roughly defined area was identified in three analysis
stages. The conclusions for each analysis stage are summarized below:
• Distribution of Trips. -
The analysis of trip distribution based on the 1997 and 2020 origin -destination trip
tables of the Coachella Valley Transportation Study Model (CVATS)' model
determined that areas outside the CVAG core have a relatively small contribution
([1 % of all trips) to traffic in the CVATS modeling area. It also found that areas within
the CVAG core were the primary contributor to trips within the core. Thus; •the
analysis of trip distribution found a clear nexus between areas within the CVAG core
and traffic conditions on the TUMF roadways, most of which are located in the core
area. It did not, however, establish a clear nexus between new development in
outlying areas and traffic conditions on the TUMF roadways.
• Average Trip Length/Use of Arterial Streets:
OM2
The analysis of trip length and use of arterial streets supplemented the analysis of trip
distribution. Based on uniform distance buffers around city borders, as well as
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 2 June 27, 2006
selected route specific time points, a 'reasonable relationship" was established
between certain outlying areas and traffic conditions on TUMF roadways. Four time
points located roughly at the edge of where a "reasonable relationship" could be
established were identified. These four time point locations are as follows:
- Time point on the 1-10 east corridor_ 1-10 Frontage Road ramps (near Cactus City
and the Rest Area)
- Time point on the SR74 south corridor: Ribbonwood (located along SR74 near the
SR371junction)
- Time point on the SR 86 south corridor: Oasis (located on the west shore of the
Salton Sea)
- Time point on the SR11 1 south corridor_ Desert Beach (located on the east shore
of the Salton Sea)
• Limitations to Development:
Largely undeveloped areas exist between the time point locations identified in the
average trip length analysis stage. These areas are of limited relevance to the TUMF
program since development within them is either legally prohibited, exempt from
TUMF payment, or restricted by the terrain. For this reason, a more detailed analysis
of these areas was not pursued.
In order to assure accurate and timely implementation of the TUMF program, it is
desirable that the TUMF boundary be easily identified and understood by developers, as
well as by jurisdictions responsible for fee collection_ Formal boundary lines were
defined based on the results of the analysis in relation to easily administered features.
Good boundary devices are easily identified, stay relatively constant over time, and
can be related to data collection or analysis zones in order to facilitate future analysis
updates. Roads, established rivers, lakes, parcels, township lines, county lines, city
borders, as well as national or state park borders are examples of easily identified
devices.
The rough boundary established in the nexus analysis was proximate to several easily
defined features_
• the Riverside County line to the north and south,
• Joshua Tree National Park to the northeast,
• township line 10E-11 E to the east, and
• the WRCOG/CVAG border to the west.
These features define the updated CVAG TUMF boundary which is depicted in Figure 1-
1_ It should be noted that the jurisdictional border between WRCOG and CVAG is
subject to further negotiation and that the location shown is based on CVAG's currently
preferred option.
CVAG rUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 3 June 27, 2006
F[gure 1-1 CVAG TUMF Boundary
PROPOSEOTUAIF 0WNDARY
-
`.y�..'_ �Cu Trent TU LI F Bou n dary
_- -' ---=-l�gwzorom_h,Re eL .F, 's_`:;-,.; ,:. .I�_'..-;'<;-=fit-:,—'-BoundaryPmPosedhylM�CGG
I V,il' _- - �Riversde County
Major Roads
`• '•.. r; riiiK:",'_' ®CVAG Cities
R Parks
-5
CLOSING GAP_ 11
BETL}fEEN_..:
INRCO:G•&CVAG,=
San a DNF
--_ - - .'r•"i:v}'.: .lake Cn _ Park T
h/WiCH)=S'CIJRREt1T.,� TYlWH$Hlp.l
TUFAF BOLINDARI'
snlm Saa Slide P01
Fr
COUNTY
NF
Pahmw Min SIMI Park +T�
C{ewlxid iJF-
PdmierMEn Stria Park` _ _ _ - �.� • .. tj - - - ,
'-' p.f=-..'-:'tix �'fU„n�•Qgo,Dezil�?%tePn&: l='�. -- - - - - _ _ ~�7
1
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
4
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
If should also be noted that the portion of the boundary coincident with the Joshua Tree
National Park border is defined as "the Joshua Tree National Park border", rather than
as a specific physical location_ This section of the boundary is defined as such so that it
would shift to match any future revisions to the Joshua Tree National Pork borders.
1.2. Measure A and the CVAG TUMF Program
The CVAG TUMF program is a component of Riverside County's Measure A. Measure A
is a one-half percent sales tax program that provides funding for a wide variety of
transportation projects and services throughout Riverside County_ It was approved by
voters of Riverside County in November, 1988. Measure A was due to expire in 2009, but
on Election Day 2002 a thirty year extension of the one-half percent sales tax for
transportation was approved by 69.2 percent of Riverside County voters_
Funds are allocated to the Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley
areas proportionate to the Measure A funds generated within those areas. The
C6achella Valley area and the City of Blythe, located within the Palo Verde Valley
area, are part of CVAG.
The Coachella Valley area is defined by Measure A as located in the central part of
Riverside County and including the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot
Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinto, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage. It
also includes the unincorporated areas, and the tribal lands of the Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Bond of Mission Indians, and the Torres Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians.
The Palo Verde Valley area is defined by Measure A as located in the for eastern part
of Riverside County and as being geographically separated from the Western and
Coachella Valley areas. It contains the City of Blythe and unincorporated portions of
Riverside County.
Measure A requires a TUMF program be administered for the Coachella Valley area,
but not for the Palo Verde Valley area. Measure A defines TUMF as a fee that is
charged on new development by local governments to assist with the building and
improvement of regional arterials.
Cities and the county in the Coachella Valley must participate in the TUMF program to
assist in the financing of the priority regional arterial system in order to receive local
Measure A funds. If a city or the county chooses not to levy the TUMF, the funds they
would otherwise receive from Measure A for local streets and roods is added to the
Measure A funds for the Regional Arterial Program. A portion of the Measure A
revenues for the Coachella Valley area is returned to the cities and the county in the
Coachella Valley to assist with the funding of local street and road improvements_
These funds supplement existing federal, state, and local funds_ Local street
improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments are.typically
paid for by the developers.
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
E
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
ff)r�r
Although Measure A has been reauthorized with expiration now extended to 2039, the
evaluation for the TUMF Nexus Study uses a horizon year of 2030_ The use of a 2030
horizon year for the TUMF Nexus Study is primarily linked to the availability of socio-
economic and travel demand forecast data needed to support the analysis. As
described in Section 2.1, the most recent forecast information available for the
Coachella Valley was published by the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) as part of the 200A Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update using a horizon
year of 2030. To reflect the available data and for consistency with other regional
transportation planning initiatives, the 2030 horizon year was also used as the basis for
the TUMF nexus determination. Where future Measure A revenues are described in
Section 5.1.1, the revenue estimates have been developed for the period through 2030
to remain consistent with other elements of the TUMF analysis. Measure A revenues to
be generated in the period from 2030 to 2039 were not included as part of the TUMF
nexus determination for this program update.
1.3. Mitigation Fee Act and Other Legal Requirements
The Mitigation Fee Act, also• known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or
California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq., governs imposing development
impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in
California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow some basic principles
when instituting impact fees as a condition of new development. These principles are
as follows:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee. (Government Code Section 66001(a) (1))
2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. (Government Code Section
66001(a)(2))
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the
type of development on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code
Section 66001(a) (3))
4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facility and the type of development project on which the fee is to be imposed.
(Government Code Section 66001(a) (4))
5. Discuss how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and
the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the
development on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section
66001(b))
These principles closely emulate two landmark US Supreme Court rulings that each
provide guidance on the application of impact fees. The first case, Nollan v. California
Coastal Commission (1987) 107 S.Ct. 3141, established that local governments are not
prohibited from imposing impact fees or dedications as conditions of project approval
provided the local government establishes the existence of a "nexus" or link between
the exaction and the state interest being advanced by that exaction. The N611an ruling
clarifies that once the adverse impacts of development have been quantified, the
to al gov rnm .nt must then document tha ralntinnshin hatwaan the nmiwnf culd_Jhg�,_
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 6 June 27, 2006
need for the conditions that mitigate those impacts_ The ruling further clarifies that an
exaction may be imposed on a development even if the development project itself will
not benefit provided the exaction is necessitated by the project's impacts on
identifiable public resources.
The second case, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 114S.Cf. 2309, held that in addition to
the Nollan standard of an essential nexus, there must be a "rough proportionality"
between proposed exactions and the project impacts that the exactions are intended
to allay. As part of the Dolan ruling, the US Supreme Court advised that "a term such as
'rough proportionality' best encapsulates what we hold to be the requirements of the
Fifth Amendment. No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city (or
other local government) must make some sort of individualized determination that the
required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed
development"
The combined effect of both rulings is the requirement that public exactions must be
carefully documented and supported. This requirement is reiterated by the provisions of
the State of California Mitigation Fee Act and subsequent rulings in the California
Supreme Court (Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 C4th 854) and the California
Court of Appeals (Loyola Marymount University v. Los Angeles Unified School District 45
(1'996) Cal.App.4th 1256).
This Nexus Study report is intended to satisfy the requirements of the State of California
Mitigation Fee Act. Specifically, this Nexus Study report will outline the purpose and use
of the TUMF, the relationship between new development and impacts on the
transportation system, the estimated cost to complete necessary improvements to the
arterial street system within the Coachella Valley, and the 'rough proportionality' or
'fair -share' fee for differing development types.
CV,AG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
Nexus Study Report
June 27.4,2006
2.0 FUTURE GROWTH AND THE NEED FOR TUMF
2.1. Future Growth Trends
The most recently available demographic projections for the Coachella Valley were
developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to support
the preparation of the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) titled Destination 2030_
Adopted by the SCAG Regional Council on April 2004, Destination 2030 is "a multi -
modal Plan representing (SCAG's) vision for a better transportation system, integrated
with the best possible growth pattern for the Region over the Plan horizon of 2030."1
The SCAG demographic projections are typically used by sub -regional agencies in
Southern California as a basis for developing their own demographic forecasts. Based
on the SCAG regional growth forecasts, the population of Coachella Valley is projected
to increase by 366,509 in the period between 2000 and 2030, a compounded rate of
approximately 2.6% annually. During the same period, employment in Coachella
Valley is anticipated to grow by 128,274 or 2.4% annually. Table 2-1 summarizes the
SCAG 2004 RTP socio-economic data for the Coachella Valley_
ITable 2-1 Socio-Economic Data for CVAG TUMF Study Area (2000-2030)
200
I 2030
IChange
I
Annual
1Population 01
686,590
366,509
1150
26%
+ 11,08
I
,
IIChange
1Households
2.70
Employment 1 127,322
255,596
128.274
101%
2.4
Source:
SCAG 2004 RTP. D292 nati n 30, Year 2000 and Year 2030 Plan data
2.2. Future Highway Traffic
To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on
the transportation system in Western Riverside County, existing (2000) and future (2030)
traffic data were derived from the SCAG 2004 RTP Model, The SCAG years 2000 and
2030 trip tables and network files were obtained for the purpose of evaluating future
traffic growth (and trip distribution) in the Coachella Valley. To quantify traffic growth
impacts, troffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for each of the two
scenarios. The CVAG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional SCAG
model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Coachella Valley only.
Measures for the CVAG TUMF study area included total vehicle daily miles of travel
(VMT) and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS D or worse).
These results were tabulated in Table 2-2. Plots of the Network Extents and evaluation
results are presented in Appendix A.
I Southern California Association of Governments, Destination 2030 — Executive Summary. April
2004
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 8 June 27, 2006
1
Total arterial VMT and LOS D Threshold VMT were calculated to include all arterial
roadways included in the SCAG model. These roadways in the SCAG model
encompass the projects included in the TPPS. Regional values for each threshold were
also calculated for a total of all facilities including arterial roadways and freeways.
Table 2-2 Regional Highway System Measures of Performance for CVAG TUMF Study
Area (2000-2030)
leasureofPerformance(Daily)
I 2000
1 2030
%Change- %Annual
JVMT- TOTALALLFACILITIES
I 5,692,310
I 10,474,430
_Change
4,782,120
84% I 2.1%
_
(VMT-FREEWAY
I 2,287,250
4,184,330
1,897,080
83% 2.07
troTAL ARTERIAL VMT
+ 3,405,060
I 6�290.100 I
2,885,040
I 85% I 2-1-
VMT IF LOS D OR WORSE -TOTAL ALL FACILITIES
' 498,468
5,829,620
5,331,152
( 1070% 8.5%
VMT IF LOS D OR WORSE -FREEWAYS _ _
0
2,940,430
I
2,940,430
I n/a I n/a
OTAL ARTERIAL VMT ( IF D OR WORSE)_
( 498,468
I 2,889,190
2,390,722
( 4807. 6.0%
I%OF ARTERIAL VMT WITH LOS 0 OR WORSE
I 15%
I 46%
317.
NOTES:
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP, Dnsfinotion 2030. Year 2000 and Year 20$0 Baseline Network Scenarios
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance That all vehicles travel on the system)
LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios)
The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values:
VMT = Link Distance' Total Daily Volume
VMT LOS D or worse = VMT (on arterial links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.62 or
freeway links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.71)
Notes: Arterial volume t0 capacity (v/c) ratio threshold for LOS D is based on the Transportation Research Board
2000 Edition of the Hi av Cooacity Mnnual (HCM 20D0) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane
Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 21-2, Chapter 21, Page 21-3).
Freeway v/c ratio threshold for LOS D is based on the HCM 2000 LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Basic
Freeway Segments with 65 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 23-2, Chapter 23. Page 23-4)
The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2000 and
2030, and the average annual change between 2000 and 2030. As can be seen from
the SCAG 2004 RTP Model outputs summarized in Table 2-2, the additional traffic
generated by new development in the Coachella Valley will cause congestion on the
arteriol roadway system to increase in the absence of additional highway infrastructure
investments. Many facilities will experience a significant deterioration in LOS to
unacceptable levels as a result of new development and the associated growth in
traffic. According to the Hiahwav Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board,
2000), LOS C or D are required to "ensure an acceptable operating service for facility
users."
The need to mitigate the impact of new development is shown by the adverse impact
that new development will have on arterial roadways in the Coachella Valley. As a
CVAG iUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 9 June 27, 2006
result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment
in the Coachella Valley, additional pressure will be placed on arterial roadways with
the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimated to increase by 85% or 2.1%
compounded annually -
As shown in Table 2-2, the VMT on arterial facilities experiencing LOS D or worse will
increase by 4807o or 6.0% corripounded annually in the Coachella Valley in the period
between 2000 and 2030. By 2030, almost one half of the total VMT on the regional
arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS D
or worse without substantial improvements to the arterial street system- The combined
influences of increased travel and worsened LOS that manifest themselves in
congestion highlight the continuing need to complete the improvements
recommended in the TPPS to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new
development.
The SCAG 2004 RTP Model outputs summarized in Table 2-2 clearly demonstrate that
the additional trips generated by future new development in the Coachella Valley will
lead to increasing levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The
need to implement the TPPS to improve these roadways and relieve future congestion is
therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the additional trips.
2.3_ The TUMF Concept
All new development has some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a
community, city or county due to an increase in the total number of trips- Increasing
usage of the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing
congestion and decreasing the level of service. In order to meet the increased travel
' demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become
necessary to sustain pre -development traffic conditions.
The projected growth in Coachella Valley can be expected to increase congestion
and degrade mobility if further investments are not made in the transportation
infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways that carry a
significant number of the trips between cities, since traditional sources of transportation
improvement funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be
nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to serve new development.
Developer dedications generally provide only a portion of the improvements with
improvements confined to the area immediately adjacent to the respective
development, and the broad -based county -level funding sources (i.e-, Measure A)
designates only partial revenues for arterial roadway improvements.
The TUMF program establishes a uniform development impact fee to generate the
revenues necessary to fully fund the implementation of the TPPS resulting in construction
of the regional system of roads, streets, and highways (excluding state or federal
highways) needed to accommodate growth in the region. Recognizing that some
improvements within the Coachella Valley will be completed by developer dedications
or i isino alternate funding_ sni ireas- theTLT 1_hE program estahlish .s the shore of unfundpd
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 10 June 27, 2006
i.
00 0
improvement costs in rough proportionality to the number of trips generated by new
development and assigns the fair -share fee to new developments on this basis.
A sizable percentage of trip -making for any given local community extends beyond the
bounds of the individual community as residents pursue employment, education,
shopping and entertainment opportunities elsewhere_ As new development occurs
within a particular local community, this migration of trips of all purposes by new
residents contributes to the need for transportation improvements within their
community and in the other communities of Coachella Valley. The idea behind the
TUMF program is to have new development throughout the Coachella Valley
contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve
these trips within and between communities. For this reason, the TUMF revenues are
used to improve transportation facilities that primarily serve trips within and between
communities in Coachella Valley (primarily arterial roadways).
Much, but not all, of the new trip -making in a given area is generated by residential
development (i.e. when people move into new homes, they create new trips on the
transportation system as they travel to work, school, shopping or entertainment). Some
of the new trips are generated simply by activities associated with new businesses (i.e.
new businesses will create new trips through the delivery of goods and services, etc.).
With the exception of commute trips by local residents coming to and from work, and
the trips of local residents coming to and from new businesses to get goods and
services, the travel demands of new businesses are not directly attributable to
residential development. The TUMF program considers the relative impacts of different
sources of new trip generation by assessing both residential and non-residential
development for their related transportation impacts_
In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following:
A uniform fee is levied on new development throughout the Coachella Valley to
mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of trips generated by new development.
The fee is assessed with rough proportionality on new residential and non-residential
development based on the relative impact of each new use on the transportation
system.
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
77
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
3.0 TPPS AND RACE
The Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) and Regional Arterial Cost Estimate
(RACE) each represent fundamental elements of CVAG's Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The TPPS identifies the arterial roadway improvements
necessary to sustain mobility within the Coachella Valley. The TPPS describes the set of
arterial roadway improvements to be funded by the TUMF program and other
regionally available funding sources (including Measure A and State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) funds), and prioritizes the implementation of these
improvements. The RACE determines the cost associated with implementing the
roadway system improvements identified in the TPPS and therefore provides a core
variable in the formula for calculating the fee level for the TUMF program.
The TPPS and RACE are stand alone documents updated by CVAG on a regular basis.
Their most recent update was conducted as a separate study in parallel to this TUMF
Boundary Determination and Fee Schedule Nexus Study. The most recent revision, of
the TPPS and RACE, the 2005 update, was used as the basis for this Fee Schedule Nexus
Study_
In addition to identifying regional arterial projects to be funded, the TPPS ranks these
projects based on a project score. Figure 3-1 illustrates the location and score of each
project included in the TPPS. Table 3-1 lists the cost estimate for each project as
developed in the RACE process. All projects included in the TPPS and RACE total
$2,602,939,252.
Due to the essential nature of the TPPS and RACE in establishing the TUMF nexus and
associated program fee levels, it was necessary to review the assumptions and
calculations of these related studies in the context of TUMF. A few main conclusions
were formed in relation to the cost estimation methodology and projects included in
the TPPS and RACE, as described in the sub -sections below.
3.1. Cost Estimation Methodology
The review of the RACE cost estimation methodology yielded two primary conclusions:
• The RACE cost assumptions were reviewed and found to be within industry
standards for the development of planning level cost estimates for a system
total.
• Construction and right-of-way costs have been escalating at a rapid rate in
recent years. In order to maintain accurate estimates and representative fee
levels, it is recommended that the RACE and resultant TUMF fee schedule be
updated annually to keep pace.
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
12
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
Figure 3-1 Projects in the 2005 TPPS Update (page I of 6)
N'3t TO
Scale
L 7-7 L
%
S
Ts
�J
LEGENAP r J
L)y
:
Line/Symbol Score�rr I
0.0 5.9
60-7.9
8.0 9.9
13 12GIB9 v
14.0'+
N--
1A4937
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fete Schedule Update
Figure S-1
Studied Segments and Total Scores
S-24
13
C VA G ma; TPP S Update
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
..r.L
�i
_ Ta
LEGS
L3ac/SymG
IA4S-,V
+ I Kuz, OUM&Rsxrie[es
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
Figure 3-1 Projects In the 2005 TPPS Update (page 2 of 6)
Figure S-2
Studied Segments and TotaI Scores
S-25
14
CVAG zoo, TPPS Updwe
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
Figure 3-1 Projects In the 2005 TPPS Update (page 3 of 6)
LN
fl�t To
h COUNTY OF RIVERSIQE--
LEGEND: �
r
Une/Symbol Score
6.0 7.9 AL
_._
00-9-9 \ ;irolyj
n 10-0-11.9 _
® 14.0 s
T-1 7 r�
1hC937
Figure S-3
Studied Segments and Total Scores
7J
I:sz,O3aleuEhs�d•2ra
5-26
CVac TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
15
CVAG zoo; TPPS Upeleme
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
age A of 63
p�5 i�pS
�; it
,
GV�b fee S�hedole UPdat�
Za
Ctexusde 2 206
Figure 3-1 Projects In the 2005 TPPS Update (page 5 of 6)
��! _�uir�:-ti;���"``;�^'"-i.�-, 'ice -' '----'--I•\ y` _. 1—_ '
r o'l
-_�iV^l, ] .J " : ' YRNRIO I ANR„ YRHILIx ` \ 1•]
Y
jy I] JAi g5 $Cie
I S J/I I_iI �-b �7
�1,�
IiYlif,iii �� —�.�. �lB • ;nirgJ _ 27 F+ A���aa�Y-- M _ `� � i r� • y _� Y:� i
,ryAE .�.11
y d I.- s��a
. EJ ]TA • W�� �7 _ �. '!I
g �7j Vr,�.,r tt
DMO .\✓V •6'�+y ;j y'f
VVELLasz�"15�=i'93r
kr P 3'a3 I Ic.J J }s •r, I•..� rcor bsror.: �� — - a ,
! s a o u _�.o.., 11 �' �•fi�!//�tsd�- I sos�
my �Li�I V-1�
i4� r I_ s. _Fr/ �gi sor
LEGEND:.. , 1r_� , `u
SO
.1 " C SOLI E_ • OF OW Y-,^I�SOI'-�: ~ •t.3OR y
Line15Ym 6of Score
.. 00.5.9 .��x��� f ,c.i._ �f=.1_.]ij u. i� ...� ,r ���✓C. r�� y,I
6.0 7.9 -�'` a3['� 1 'i i _ ,s- -' s ' z ii:_ :4 • �f ,(� `.. six
r
�._.._..� .� 8.0 99 .: - sxp, i i sx[ HO sxe sxFIL
Q 14.0+ Imo! L_ _ �_ 04
call ,.1
i,R I �.�.aH .-.-. ep:1.C.-•i`,}+iE yyD
)A4937
Figure S-5
Studied Segments and Total Scores
Rv1z/01eu& Rwri es S 28 CVAC 200$ TPPS U1,Ave
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 17 June 27, 2006
Figure 3-1 Projects In the 2005 TPPS Update (page 6 of 6)
.f.L e4'c seo
i= sne 'I�#'�•�
Iyyy� g.u(ry N
L1laCaA1 !Y CL � �E 1Sd To
^ifA 56e 5 C Sftt 56E 1
` ``� •. - ,• 5_ .� _ •.!. ,_...�.__--�• • 15fir • t� ;—t}— j
9 �sw .•l �
.J SrA Fl ._� �N SiC 5® SrE
LEGEND?.
m i
Line/Symbol Score
0.0-5.9
6.0 7.9
10.0019
�— • �* - L1 f2d4133 �; �
p ta.0+
JA4937
Ruiz, CIELs &Aswfiates
�-� Pls..... Ied f......I.,
•J
.CVAGTUMP
2006 Fee Schedule Updafe
ItG
.-�._•.-._ � — «....� •,=^Sep i .��.� .J��
� I
i —7 •
_I
Figure S-6
Studied Segments and Total Scores
S-29
18
C IAC zoos TPPS Update.
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page I of 7)
caxr odw cly, coAxc3nwa, aKS Dvsx Hr 4&w, W344A W-k1dw V&P, LO.Lz G&W
PD-P&M Dasor& PS.PaYv Wu4 PU=M&who MAW , Lk%O-U*<opa
Qdj Gu-cat'e�
AVE 64
1-224
COA
130�AMM
PNyIIIIOFIIFM*(IMI 31 180
WMMW
V4,642,100
MONROE ST
B.3E4
2ND
BacAww
'wWw SI I-i DIG
tDo
04169keoo
ST,532,000
MADI&ONST
13.0413
IND UNC
MIM AVD 10 Fred Waing Dr "ImsinR Fa4j
id a
tZim'AFA
563A25.7ab
,1AGNTEFlEY AVE
UH0
1. 10 lo R%TOn Rd
le a
53h25A140
DATE PALM 05
MID
Co
I 10 M Vanw (Intl r"Un aW &' a I I-D-D Cy11 CV1)
MD
$81173,680
47510JODD
FRED WARIM, DR
R-1:89
LQ UNO
0q Mms Rd l Jeff& san TH
ILO
$3i775,420
670,"W,^J
E PALLMOYN DR
13:40
Co
Dare Palm 0 Pen 'SpllrtgCO tv CILY um!'
1Z 0
5eD77,42H
U6.S-17.726
IRDIANAVE
P-163
I's
133063M6
Oil Palm SP[rPSCrIFLinl[IORRX]rg(IPXI B� al WA lmr.ar Ryrj
140
t=107140
563035,M
HIGRWALY III
B WS
lyt GAL
BBG)ftnl%
G0 SE 10EXINOW Dr
140
V1339103D
M.424X6
HIGIIWAY 111
8-w
IN CAL
Ba*b�e
EI&Wa Di ra &Ilw Aw.
14 0
$131"211DO
$23 .Wa.476
MAD ISON ST
64N7
IND
RffJ I II M MIW Ave
14.0
P.476,0-D3
M7.7%2.126
VAN BUREN T
51,37
IND UNO
Indo WW4 10 Aya 48
14.0
sA105sym
salf.M.Bw
rENI1AUTRYTRA!L
DIDW
PS
agab"
Whllnu+rar RT 8 Xiio
MG
V84IPST,1120
$576.1317.79D
AVE52
B-220
ODA
Bnkbono
" III V, SMOG (Ind Rf 1
131.0
sspapw
Mkm
AVE 62
Ma
CAL
2ZLW(MG
AVG W -911-W IC
13.0
$30"463'M
w gsl 6, M
DA VALL 10
5-0G%
cc UND
B-CWr
FdIW@ Da Vail I- 10 JC (IC, & FIR Br 1
130
Wfwwo
$W400O.Dw
I-RWAVAY 111
13454
VK GAL
86abMe
I'LL7 39S9V4T.1M W61S OR Jr.15 la OM[ -91
$80
51,092JOD
$66010*A0
HIGR,Yfffli
134131
IND DAL
Badbo'io
J -c50 SI W MID ElVd
*0
$4,6011,D30
M7491;480
PORTOLAAVE
B-M
PD
BliabMD
FWYQ PUIC99 AVQ 1-10 IG
Mo
4740.660030
$70,271,460
DATE PALM DR
Mg
OG
vlBia clim w 1.10 pa I ID 10 a 41n Br ]
13.0
S I.M.000
MM1.460
WSTACHINO
B-054
GC
NID P0:m D1 10 Oa Vail Rd JWis4ng EA
130
$iMWAZO
IkMAYAO
PAIKOW UR
B-149
PS
RMW Rd!D F PZJM Cr DA
130
$M30020
S726438-0
MADISON 9T
13-W5
IrTI)
Fu.u, Plawc"l I W rC (mEr O FIR[
f3-0
$44111003)
Waos�%2w
AVE 50
13.218
COA
vw Buren 5110 Ref I I I
13.0
58,963,810
MWIM
AVE54
B.n
POA
7y.ar,9 ra Hwj I 11
13.0
63.629.m
$133.201.940
AVEB2
B-318
1-110
Pwca 81 lo'SlIMS
laro
S4,99,WO
1737,770.640
GROMEY RD 1QPLF CLUB DR
13,330
ps
rinw Rd o.k1wqP.a Aya
I&D
03,194m0
S79DI905240
G MOSSILEY RD 9 GOLF CILUBOR
B3M
P9
-W 811MOS Eo E Palm C}n
lav
$2,154,240
$793, 1101480
HAP-918CMZT .
&54
GOk
AVO 54 ra AVQ 66
13]
46,647,520
57C13.767,000
CVAGTUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 1 ? June 27, 2006
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page 2 of 7)
CC.Cgho&aFCJY. NV-VlP OWra
PD.P&Ya 09SO1 PS-AXT SpIlV4 N&R"D AQ499 U?.C-U*=qxwd0o, CAL-CAYwS
-, , � -- -0 - , �� - _.. , '.-? I . --` ,..:- ' , . . . . -_ . - ,
jh
PALM CY14 DR
13.1,18
PS
A) ato F. a to Fwnm Rd
12.6
$6,040,970
I976.SD7.070
HfGHKAY 1 If
31W10
IND CAL B.UNII
1�.Oq Oil V.
12.1)
40
RAMON RD
SOLY
PS
EIMN9W, ' El CliDIG Ad
12.0
$7ASU.37A
3621,705.7-4
AYE411
8.102
COA IND
JacLarn SI 19 Van Biro q
FPO
$5,648,427
S8207.354.211
a D a', ST
B-139
PD
OWnlry OLD In VIAllmolAr 8T9
120
MA4.1741
SWXB,W
NOIAN M DR
3-144
PS
Rb ,, Rd o Acia n.j
120
$7,40400
iW8.6102.417
U40A)i GITA on
RA46
I PS
AOO Rd ro RWqjOI OlhoG FoJ
110
s9,401,w9
l651i6D3,465
VARNER RD
B 181
Gi; Ur4c
MaLn Ian YIOAr Ad 0 D311 Palm Or
12.0
$t5,766J4
S687,689.E30
AVE 54
B-222
COA
1-1=15oi 81 to Tptw S:
12.0
$13,024.000
*EG2
"IS
UNC
AIrr&q 8110 pwm SI
ILL)
0904.227
. sn0,517,857
GRAPEFRUIT ELVD
8347
GOA
Ava 490:m Ad s, oa ,o
120
57.926."
WiS43X7
MONTEREYAVE
B-w
PD ftm
Olaray Lim 10 Counvy CiaI) of
MO
$3594)3
swi2$4;857
VONTEREYAVE
B-369
PD R?J
FfKA alrdlfA Of W G"Eld Fld Or
120
$5590,SS5
W6.1525,452
IVOMEREYAVE
&570
PD FDA
GWald Fad Dr tO Dnoh 2h7m Do
120
$7,421.2t0
W4MU62
Y0,HTERRYAVE
0 B71
PD
Olneh Share Dr In I FO OWL r 1010 aid MR Er)
12.0
$1,628,°.L0
W61672,9B2
RAVORAD
B-M
CC AS BaCkbon
GMDAJIIy Trdl W lv11 1maler Av CirA B, 9KAlogiaw Rs,)
116
sorazi 1289
59%.514,260
RAWON RD
B 055
PS
Plan cyn Of ID &inr. A woy (I"I Bollv"xan; fWd XrDj
11 6
510,271,9011
S925.776,156
IN'DWIAVE
B-164
PS UNC
2011 Ara 0 LOW Ave (Intl noinswan el wai Aro 9. 20m Avay
115
M035,570
$927le4116%
AYE 581 A) RPORT BLVD
E5.123
COA un BaGkbona
AV6 66 SR -US IC,
It 0
WE072,005
rJ95,013,658
AVE 68
&4317
CAL 311VONL9
AV& 683R-M 10
F1.13
$35X0,000
M8jqI3X8
CROSSLEY RD I QCLF CLUB DR
Ba"2
Ps Jv�Wn*
Ali 34 to Los Sinl.a IhYJ or , P," Cy, 01,4)
41-0
87.638,984
$1,007.450.042
GOLF CENTER PMVY
B348
IND Boc,%OMD
wi GWIV Pwj 1 10 4C
11.0
$14,017.501
HIGI-AVAY'ItI
B-no
IND CAL BaCW.qo
Modson51 io MwO; Sr
11.0
$9.679M
v03i'8471672
MADIS0113T
B444
IND UQ
Ava.52 to Avo. 50
11.0
KSEABOD
$1.026,6321612
VISTAGHIKO
B453
GO
E Bark ol4Vllllenetar Br 10 Lin," EIRI
Ji.D
$7,200.200
S1.043,732,02
RAMON AD
D 054
PS
El Cwo Rj 1. Gans Auby Tail
11.5
mm.m
81105tp7ealoia-
AVE 46
5.1130
IND
HOLM OF 10 &IORT03 SI
WO
$31977P5z
$1.05000W,2
AVE 48
B-io t
R1.9
ik"OB sk ob ioA.5a) So
11.0
$8,807,064
tl.RT?OCO.120
AVE 62
EFAEG
4104 IND If.*,
13Aa al La 0eir.". el
11.0
$3.129,780
11.072.129900
AVE52
B-ita
COA uNc
021h" & ID Fr"Ij SI
11.0
S51651.6410
S1.077.M1.145
E PALM OYN DR
34151
Ps
24,rlso Viay ID Fardl 11-
110
N49LSO0
$1,07B, 110,214
LITTLE PAORONUO RD
B-lail
OHS
Pi6aw WAJ ro Tw Bwl, Flayns Tr
110
$5,670,191
S1,D6%70,306
DILLON RD
B-169
P8 UNC
CR-62 ID Ind an AV& (Incl. Iii4sv0m OF bli'm RQ rnclon Ara)
l7.0
WZ5212130l)
$1.0AW2460
TWO D1,4470H PAI-AtS TA
&igs
UNC
lndm Ave lo U IIIB &Iump Ad 4ml4rri Iml
I La
19.94AW
$1,10312441908
GHASEXI,=LPD
8212
U40
1.10 b Reiner, ad (P. soorg link)
11.0
S;JA4/*0
W03,17,003
VARNEFLADIAVE42
B-223
IND
Mad SI 10 M.Ooroo a.
110
$8.041.440
SIJ18,221,748
DATE PAbJ OR
8 Ln
cc
Dinah Snao. Dr 4D FIRIMOO Rd
11.0
MM.236
3IJ24.511l042
MQNROEST
0-241
dND
AVO 40W1 iD 10
11.0
$917PI.050
01.134O2.092
AVE 62
3410
UKT
Jc sm Sl 10 van EkffhSl
110
M1015/ta
$1,142,637,400
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee S6h e dole Update
20
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
ez-
0
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page 3 of 7)
CO.CChad'efCly, 6M96hitW-t�
ft%�rLa-LRWra
PD-Pakv Dmr& -'MV9, fl&4R-Icko M.-Its, UvC-Uwhv.-Px;9#a rAtC rwx
w
aor
I
..... .
2.
XIF)Ww
M
16v;4 aZV
AVE82
[1-3, r
I INC
W. B"w 5111110 Hemma a 71 1 F;W6
i7.750.678.6
AVE62
B313
m4D
Tyor % ID PDT St
1f0
$7,cA9,7Ed
i1,1P,677.7*9
DAVALLAD
B-237
cc UNI'
AM0 80 to 1 10 (mG4rq
$4.789,540
MON'T ErIEY AVE
B-355
PD
HL7hmy I I i to RW Warily Cr
11.0
$21J841800
RAMOM AID
111157
UITO
bL06orbmereyAVG prrJ In!"MlIWWR9.MMRd5VffwwRdJ
10.7
$4,94.777
$11170,218z1
0465
Lvc
PkOx YAVOIDTq3dgordP3m%CvnRjJ(LneI IM9MMT6Fr%T06Fld4FgMt1GY
TDS
$22,70,633
S7I132,943,450
ALW)
VISTACHINO
BIDM
P,3
REcIMGf,4
100
$85,46W
t109,4,ArAo)
JAMM ST
B363
NO
Backbone JW<� & I. 10 IC
10.0
LVASAINGTONST
6.029
LO
Ave SO to Ave 43
100
WASFAH40TOAST
64)27
to
AnAS IDHWJ ill
too
MADISONST
11-043
Lo
Ave 64 WAV& W (misEog M)
To 0
MISONST
B-D45
IND
Ave W b AW 49 fn0s g FMJ
IQ 0
$8.0:113.600
41,238,41PIO1D
RMN BD
[3-081
cc
02rG NM or 10 Da %eil Rd
AG.0
1 $G,027A0
COUNTRYCLUB DR
Bv9
PD
LWI&IY AI 10 PfflOa A"
10.0
W,"Wl)
$1.-JAX&SX6
000TRYCLU5 DR
B-060
PD
P=1 Ave to Go*91
So
$7,700,180
COUNTRY OLLS DR
B W2
PD
EISM0 EV to OKS Ghih Di
100
savooao
AdES2
B�iji
COA
Fre1dICkSIIoHWr.EM8IJIrCl
too
MAnflo
AVE 667 MRPMT BLVD
9.1%
CDR UNG
0.28r1
ioa
$9.009,079
Goal, ST
8440
PD
Whllmrw Dr 10 Fred WvIq9 of
100
$29G21M.
$I,134,6K,6I52
INDIAN OYN DR
6-148
PS
F)UWM CIbb Rd 10 ad Palm FTeings My Limlis
10.0
$81616730
41,143,479,252
E PALM OYN DR
8 152
I's
FW61 DI to G;mo Autry TraL
10.0
SBINB,WO
S1,3521425,$52
VARNSH RD
B-185
I)NO
Ghtisw WW Hd to VInn r.91M 81
too
$3,330,220
$1,366,762,W2
PAILESAVE
8.202
IND
isftml Q% to %.MI6AIw RV,
tDG
K47BAG
$1.K.06.742
JEFFERSON Si
B-206
HID
AVD40roAve36
100
v4l149,885
4rw5,30S.m
WE 64
B.W
PDA
VW 1kren 61 ID Hemson Al
100
S,jlwIqn
$t.*69.056547
YrARNERADIAVE42
B-226
HID
JQIV6 n 31 to Madwn st
10.0
MI1&61440
S1.176059P
GATE PAW DR
B-237
CC
Gerald Fwd [If to 6rr11 SMrD Dr
10.0
$7,4E,.30D
S1.3WEM.2a7
E PfiiM OYN DR
a-z!)
cc UX
PeM.9pNgGALaIh,xJmI City LIM46 to Caltadal G)n 34 [Z01 VA&-CN L'. At W
10.0
$7IW519G0
31.31%9'936.277
0wheft, qn Ghrjj
JACKS014 ST
9248
IND
Ave 40 to Ave 46
10.0
$7.207.01
$1,397.243,168
PQJ1TOLAAVR
0415
PR
HWJ I I I go MIg,111, F.1r, Dr
1"
$9020B
41.3%.1451f56
AVE 60
B-252
GOA
SRAM ID 1 10 (M.15,tmi rnk]
10.0
M,214,933
$1 12 1 W, 4 FA
AVE62
&M
utio
FM SI 10 FIIM0.G91
too
$B,510.642
$1I427970,956
BOB HOFF DR
8222
VITO
Renton Rd b 1. 10 (rnatDo It*.)
1D.0
$1,721319D0
$1,427,699,806
GERALD FORD DR
R44 5
PD
EM %110 Fror& Blum Or
10.0
$0
$1342969@11156
HARRIM .4 ST
U361
Cop,
ef.Wit,11 Uvd to Ave 82
la D
$5,Bgwe30
4t*M.687,696
HU4TEFIEYAVE
0190
PD RA W40 0,xnlre Clw of 10 Frwt 81=a C',
100
$6,075,280
$1,440.665,978
CVAGTUMf
2006 Fe6 Schedule Update
21
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page 4 of 7)
CG.CWW*W Cry. COA-O0act4a_%Wta-09W ROC 50 lSWPa LO-La OrLas
PQ.Pahir fHsert, P5=Pa5ar SprVga, R.N=Rm4nY0 aftrlga, 1.0,'C=UUY:xrlcvraled. G4L=CaY,ans
_ - - - _- _�. - -� -_ �.1.. �i'" - ..Y T�`. - -i.%- - _ - _ r-i :- - - - mow•:
, I'-.. I -�+ -- � ,_,'1 P-' �i�=.y._ :�� y � J _ "1' bJr. •,�P!11' F�'" r�.��, .. �)'Sj l.{r: iil• 1f�' •'1-c..l ,�L,'•l :'f i�
_---__ _I'- _-</�r _ 5• --^Yli ). yi - -�fa ~,D. ��`�~L ��_'3_I'� '�lt'. °IFL�•'�_.-.d -_ kch ti.=...
AVE43
0.103
COA
IND U1x
9.6
$d1105,610
$11443,741,4%
HACIENDAAVE
0.10
OHS
LING Msimgo Rtl N Pc}a BI
9.6
E90,3B7,C80
$7,451,1<s',665
7ACKSOI18T
B-247
11.40
11010IQ An46
e.5
W,19B,495
$1,1�,3G7,4}71
WE 50
B-104
COA
BadO�Fulws Afire 605H E39 E3
9.0
533,900,000
$1,5rA,22T.Ce7
4Vf a i AmpmT BLVD
8.191
D1{
gflr4 rru Post SI M Hxv II I MJ Giae SAmrallm r>rer Hay 111 &rd SPRR)
so
EB,317,010
E7,5[0,644,071
4VE 52
B206
COA
BacAb n Gain Sepwalim al Hlw 11 HSPRR
60
$d,BSR,Wa
$7,i ld,35B,871
COOKST
B$28
PD
$a61.Wne & it 1Y6'9,calgr 01rd
6o
$12.123,W0
E1,520,525,031
DILLON RD
B240
COA
3nrkbina 011m RY11010
60
SI4,650,030
$11541,375,rA1
01LLOl?RD
B-341
ODA
Bac"9u 011m Rd SA 865 IC
9A
W4,W5,030
$1,65'S1N1,C37
HIGKA'AY 111
01367
IW
LO CAL
S:Pble h91W Ave W',Wihh3-m Ave
90
$10,ff'B,630
$103,243,631
HIG AWAY 11i
H-358
I LID
CAL
Baruw@ Jailgrsar 51 ID Medson SI
90
$71539,310
51,673,78i,471
MAD ISCW ST
B-W
IND
025 MI N 01 Ave 4010 NAY 111 (earl mleslr,g rnk]
90
$4,923,400
, $1,573,7C8,671
RAVOKRD
B-050
CC
L8.dlu BNtl ro Dala RKM or
go
".278,eE0
$11533,OP8,531
FFLQJKSINATAA DR
B4172
A
Bob KcN Cr ro .Mcrrwsy A':n(Ind rn wwollon 0f FraM&Ima A 036 Hope)
&0
V,165,594
$1,563,142,125
FRANK SINATRA DR
B-WS
PJ
RM
MwerayAve 10 1`9100 Ave
90
SN229109B
$1,i ,377,221
FRANK VRAiRA OR
8-074
PD
PaldaAv01a Gcrb SI
DO
$6,033,BYd
S1,BOf1405,071
G'JNTRYCLUB OR
M78
R61
Bob Hcpe Or l01,4amcmy Ave
8a
$1,0811D3S
51,E0214mRa
AVE52
B-my
1-40
UIN;
1.'rcY4nn SlM Mauve SI
9.0
$9,755,630
$1,HU3,242,206
AVE52
B-109
IND
UKC
Wm[ S110 j.v,,, IS1
9.0
£B,90B,270
SI,01611W.479
AVE 581 AIRPORT BLVD
8.122
COA
WIC
SPRR Io E GI ,Cf P: al Ccee]Ig11a'.9y 5!1rm G1gl
0.0
$1,844,010
$1,9171M.41E9-
MODN7AIN VIEW
B-164
UNC
D11m ASS 2710 Av0
90
$0,1V8,230
$1,628.M.719
THOU3AKD PALMS RD
B1"
UNC
Awon Rd A-D4'w, R9
90
576,615,070
51,045,295,71E
DILL0.YAD
B-170
w4C
Md.m Avg ID P£m Lr pf9 lmvsg T00% of Dlhn Ail a Pair. DA
90
SI$B79,400
$1,858,275,119
DILLON RD
H,74
I.4AG
TISYJwM Palm; C}11 HM IQ Sunny Rxb Rd
9.0
526,972,600
OSSI,847,613
0ILLON RD
B 4U5
Ur4C
SLrny Rm6 Rtl IQ Avg 4e
9 0
$20,4751000
51,772,822,673
DILLON AD
3479
BNC
W-awaW B, 10 Hvy I I 1
9.0
$4,40%460
$1171702,OR7.
VARNER RD
D-180
CC
U140
Ralm Or to MmideIB Mew Rd
9D
1%77a.W4
$1,728,0 [0; 153
VARNER RD
8-082
CC
UNC
Dale Prom Dr 1D Remm Rtl
00
t28,015,025
£1,764,026078
VARNERRD
6183
UNG
Ramm Rd m mm%roy Alto
0.0
$4,2201821
£117CB,255,709
MISSION LAKES BLVD
8-191
DPS
UND
51LI mAvg to WHO M=l,p Rtl
90
$05401930
$1,7eAD04,699
HACIENOAAVE
SAW
DNS
Pam Of N I7VJrlan ViAw Ra
fr0
$W,745.040
$1,777,550,33,3
MILESAVE
an
114D
Cinlan SI to Im a elvO
90
£9,268,184
$1,753,818.&W
AVE 50
0.216
IND
1.'aGs ,, 51 UAiafa 039
90
$7,128040
$1,793,94e,1W
AVE EO
34t7
COA
IND
Jgckvn S IQ W. 3&1(U at
90
01OU1120
11,8C0,539,853
JACKSON Si
B2A9
COA
WD
Ae0411 I0 AVOW
90
S%4e7,440
-$1,8[O,B92,7[ft
PORTOLAAVE
D457
PD
Cwnlry CVO LL to rie1H 6lralre Or
9.0
$12.655,,962
51,E I8,6i3,OB5
PORTOLAAVE
B 258
PD
FrmR Suva Cr *Gwald Fow LV
B0
$519OS070
$7,826,552,BSb
AVE$0
Bm
MA
Dr. In Ail Mn, Con31]Ln San 1
90
$2,103.480
$1,6RgA%,13$
AVE44
BWe
IND
MWINSIMGlm R211rr1 Lmv Walar >g)
90
$245,199,330
$ijMS55,4%
BOB HOPE DR
B3121
AN
UNC
OhaN S'Iug 10 Runan Au
fr0
$11,d40,403
$11669,J%jem
LATHED RAIL CYN DR
a =
CC
Turma Rd le E Palm van
9.0
530689,128
00t,975103B
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
22
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2OO6
Table 3 -1 Summary of 2005 RACE Up d ate By Project {page 5 of 7)
CC-Cd!W&W GUY. DPOS.anMWSA&VsWO-Wr VN14rLO.L. Qfiia
Dracutps-pafn 10hvs Rld-nr o UUVV UVG.Un CffPxdssir avi vms
�i A1,
[F,r �-g
r
GATIISDFLAL 0) N DR
a &)3
14 s-"n 01 v, DIIRYaw 6, lu Dinah 81 din G
aATHEDRALCYN DR
81127
PC
01.1aln St.ora [a ID ROMWI Rd
9.0
siiliDam
OROSSUEY BID I GOLF CLUB DR
BMI
PS
Mafzqu 19 Awa 0 A-10 34
OLD
24AM1,1513
D&VALILFIO
B-335
cc RPI UNC
WaIM Way DAYa W
go
$2.292,991
$1.997.529JEO
OA VAIL RD
13 3139
Go UNC
r io no Vsf,10f Rd (IrrC9 Br al Lwg Gyn CMI, rwss,n I-q
�AVa
B 0
Vi7f0i905
SI.194�Lm,w
G RAPFFRUIT W-VD
e 30
ODA
FA 10 Aw M
lAro
9 a
$61BS5,00
3
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
BM
GOA
e 10 AT &
0.0
$7.074.000
51L909.2696:50 -
MONTEREYAVE
13*66
PD RM
Rd WafI;,qj Or ro 01a q Lena
go
".220.377
S7,01614%226
PORTOIAAVE
9472
PD
Cisirairl Pard or 0 1 90 (misshg Prih) i
9.0
$2,909,800
18,3500n'8
DATE PALM D9
SZ5
cc
Erack[
Pairn 0y1 10 Garald Fot (sna W ar 14 Ga3adhat Cyn OW and Whinwavu
45
$1E,768,254
9712W
AVE 52
3-$M
GOA
Ra rism 51 `8R�611V RAY I i I (Iri[i CUL"11w 01 AV, 62a:rl 14Y, 111)
5133!
PALM GYN DR
B-N7
PS
Vsra Chino 10 A1,10 Rd
86
$695,515
$1,937,4061739
AVE SO
B-284
00, U?j0
8nnekbano
A%T 53 11010
60
S401EA0,000
V,040061738
AVE 64
B 26B
COA
eani,i>)u
o"do Sawii6w ar " II US RR
AVE44
B 3of
Wo
U,:Rtmm
Ave 44 Br &wN Winer Xing
DILLON AD
B-342
ODA r4l)
Ba,,bCM
Grata Saparallan al Hwy I i 1)-PRFI
3.0
$4,374,000
57,091493,091
PORTOLAAVE
B474
PD
Backx.9
BF &L91CIwa19rCvw
80
21311655,030
JEFFERSON ST
B-030
IND
[.W 10 and W turf AIR
0 D
$10.20,720
52.01030,81E
FRANK SINATRA DR
6076
P10
QC& S In Tarna!W% RW CR 0xii rr[sRiN 11,14)
B 0
52,222.410
$2.01OL3131.2'R
OCUNTRYCLILD DR
B 061
PD
0W"I;jb Of to Vd'asWq Im 31
1310
$7.75800
V-R24-j 17.428
AVE49
[I M
IND
djiiflfla9arl 8110 Air AMW GsfQa1
so
031270;357
S2,037.3977D5
PA01 DR
9.137
DNS
I`Wsoh &vd Is Vsscn Latin EJ'X
so
$0
$2.Oa7,M77S5
WASHINGTON ST
B-142
UNC
I 101WAYaW
00
SBX81BOD
P.D44L226.%5
E PALM CYN DR
6.1&D
P19
PJM OW or 10 SUNso Way
go
S8,3861%0
$2,0so-052.5m
INDIAN AVE
8.165
PS UNC
10-1 A.b 0 Lilian Ad
so
$7,01OMa
12,0571622595
INDIAN AVE
a 166
LjqG
D"i'm Rd 13 14Ih Ave
&0
t8.034A'U
S2,0156128,1595
INDIAN AVE
13-159
DHS
PWMr,8'1d 10 P591O, Lain 8TAJ
a D
t5,761L070
PO7z,037A135
INDIAN AVE
D.159
Wig
kisifo, if Qs. Evil IoSR 62
8 D
$119.6013,70
$2,DB8j646,3E6
MOUNTAIN VIEW
B-105
00 UNC
Mh Ave 10 Varner Ad
0.0
27,635,63D
$2.095.481-99�
oiLLO4 no
B-172
UNO
MMIW NOW 10 BKMU Rd
so
$1 Lvjsio
DILLCN RD
B 173
ONG
ewinall Rd M Th"HP.,J Pains C}, FW
So
$S1916.5OD
DILLON AD
9176
ODA
Ave 44101.1D
a 0
ts.AKWO
$21841729N5
DILLON RD
B-177
GOA
I 10 ID iWis,"Ior a.
0 D
SAma.e4o
4120.5%65
WNER RD
9-tea
IND UNC
S1 10 Addrns 91
80
SSB84D)
$4140f85,046
PIERSON BLVD
D 19
WO
ion fa Wimp Rd ro Pan Di
90
$7,0201o00
PEASORBLVI)
B igo
DHS
Pahn Dr 0 Esslarin lambs to D"Ortlaf;nXAL"
ga
$12,834,767
?AIUE3AVE
B 23?
ILD
Si
30
$0
VAN BUREN ST
8 1OR
M:L UNC
Ave 60 Io Ave 52
a
0183a,040
VAN BURN ST'
B-211
COA UNC
ALVQ &1 10 AVO 5fteAW1
8.D
,a.
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
23
Nexvs Study Report
June 27, 2006
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page 6 of 7)
0C-G9hetlref Cfy, CO. C&Wc ;'a, L*G.Oe&eAH ! Sp'Bga, rN0.Rub, rw AntlSn YSI,k, LO-La Ot"A
PD.Pala Dasery PL-PeSn$rdg& RM.RaaYm WIP LOV —s: 046ll-C&T ru
AVE 50
8-27h'
IND
VARNER RD 7AVE 42
1-07
RfD
INDIO BLVD
B.264
1H0
PORTOLAAVE
81258
PO
AVE 43
B M
OOn 040
AVE IM
B-201
OOA
WE 58
&305
UHO
AVE62
8403
UNC
AVE82
"12
U,ha
BOB 110E DR
B-a20
RN
G ERALDFORO DR
8844
PC
HARRISON ST
B-559
LbA
>.hnrea Sl win%[ '1 SI
ko
$13,E89.Wi)
Jae,tt Al to H•ny 111
80
$0
flapos[fa Fa[s Dr w 0a, ry qW Dr(aa& Al WMlcavale, CM)
90
$13,375,780
Grace 99PWaIIM al HwA I 1 iwnR
a0
S41%5 i70
Gram Saperalot Rwy 11 uSFRR
B.D
54,374,W0
A ]ffoe 61 Po Ja4 Sot SI
8A
$13,15B7,0611
raw" 91 rn Jack»t Si
8.0
$8,772.205
Hanlsal Gi. V Tyler Sr
8.0
$6�6,640
GCTnw Fad ID Dtl=h S'IRO LY
80
Mehvre7Ave Io PUIC4a Avo
8.0
$7,36%270
Ave 52 ro Ave Bt
8.0
MIE6,31600
LJ
^ram
M1175,ICi,275
M,7B[,874,915 .
$9,f81,814,975
M,f83,7 �,87d
M,74d,1 5,275
52,202,E00,276
$2,2CO,D671393
$2,216,8:9,d58
M,222,dnSs12W
$2,232,746,1 M
$2za.0B7.313
$2, 243,948, 1 I3
AVE 52
B11a
COA
UCIL0.a
IF01ue Ava 629R869 IC
70
53B,WBA0
S2,^ce-9,984, 113_
DILLON RO
3.178
UNC
Baca4n
8:.:1 MONalar Chid
70
$9,BWX0
5r,2B9,B81,d1?
AVE 5D
8-219
GOA
Baa'h+w
IHw7111 USP.98S (Intl Fr ar YRSewala? C.il
7 D
SB,454,478
$$298,33516W
ADAMSST
B-Ma
LO
BeOtate
BT a1LVMIsa,Bla; Chi
70
$10,160I D
2,'✓J7,396,63
CATHEDRALGYN DR
Bin
00
Bacf.tcna
Br l YiA IwABr Crr4
a
7 D
$8,843,472
$2,315,239,E61
WASHINGTON 8T
8 025
LO
Ave d210Ave 60 ([IN Er al Le Oinla Eac Chi!
7.0
$D
$,2,3I5,239,581
7.1ADISON ST
8042
La
A%e;d w Ave 54
7.0
57,E-2,2(0
52,37d,031,801
MAD ISW ST
B-049
IND
FrW Wvlllg Dr to lndo Wd
70
U1027,150
$2,3271t18A51
FRED WARIN13 DR
B�068
LO URC
Wasrerg Iin 51 w Dine Pains R7
70
87,9t2,620
$21s3 .931.471
AVE S2
B 108
LO
VB1laaon w Addsen pncl- Br. al Al Arno Camq
7.0
$9,24017ea
g2,41,1721431
AVE587 AIRPQR7 BLVD
B-018
UNC
fltt 5110 Jactsm 91
7.0
$S,40%44D
$2,340,d73,8R
WE 5B 7 A3RPCAT BLVD
6.117
UNC
JaGks SI lD 025 mike W of Van Dxon 51
70
$3,68o,040
$21350, r331911
AVE 581AIAPORT BLVD
B-119
LP4C
HBrdaal SI ID TBIar 91
7 D
54,748,720
$2,354,960.631
PALM DR
LIT26
DHB
Tan Bu.h RNms Tr ro PIWs n RwDi
7 0
to
$2,a54,8E0,f31
INDIANAVE
8-167
06G
f4',t Ave l D Raram Rrd
7.7
$5,719,240
0,10598,871
LITTLE MC{{ONG,0 RD
B-162
DHS
inn Bunch Paln:s Fl to D,Wi Rtl
7.il
MOBJE0
$2.372.606.036
MOUNTAIN VIEW
6.463
DIAS UNC
Haclem Ave to Dimon Rtl
70
$914691578
$2,3B2,?63,807
DILLON RD
B-171
DIX
P9m Or lD Mwnleln Mva
70
$I3X16,D3o
52,aB6A93,607
VAR4ER RD
B-i34
U,4L
Nanlaray Avg w Ulm Sctaol Rd
7.0
$1,235,520
P2,389,93jv-
R4,UENDAAVE
B-085
DNS
Mnnldn Virx Rd to D11m R3¢cng Cya RRI
70
$24910170
$P M1845,917
IEFFERSOH ST
B-204
IND
-00 M M. 40
7.0
$0
'$2,410,B45,9L7
VAN BUREN ST
6-208
OOA
AVe 4a uA4o 60
70
$B,ES9,BW
$24T7,6141667
AVE dD
6&214
N40 LO
JeRxscn 8143 Matlsm 81(ETcl Br ar Al4Arner Catal)
70
$B,977,240
$2,424,491,797
AVE 68
"M
LO
JBlfrrsa151 ro Ma[15m 31
7.0
$4r49a,Lv0
$,M.990,357
AVE E8
B*04
LO
h1d aleon Si io IAM.B S 1
7.0
$4122 4,0:0
i2,433,214,3$7-
AVE58
B3T8
Uro
dacltsm SI Ba Vat 6ua) FA
7.0
$6,B701182
$21439163A5M
DA VALLRO
B-M4
CC Rf.l
M ul, Slag to Ramw Rd
7 D
$8,467,440
$2,4401341,979
GRAPEFRUIT BLVO
B "u5D
GOA
AVB 64 [D Ava 66
7A
$6,1 .Dw
, f214$[,49319j8
7 y
CVAG TUMF
r 2006 Fee Schedule update
24
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2005
Table 3 -1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page 7 of 7)
CGLC3r4UWdIC ,4X4-CoaaW4'd, WD-113b, JW-b34kR &M LOdA 0awa
PD.Paba Dowr P-1-pam 40ve. RxfLqMo Wage aw—Effivpm Pd aqL.Catrws
-vq
f
3v r *fs
J
_a
ho� a
AVF.e8
B.W9
LINO Bari,.L�nR
Ave W Pi JLUn' Walor AnR
60
M027,ea0
DUNE PAL M, AID
B 243
UO Ba.tor�
Rf aVMIw3Ior0rrJ
8.0
W3L270/24
rAADIXfl ST
6 04D
to
Ave SO W AVQ 50
0.0
$414f4IO90
$214711215.403
SERALD FORD DR
6.06%
PD
Pa: aAvo w Gcok Si
a a
$54770,100
12447aim'5W
AVE 0
B-1135
Lo
wownflifflal to J"Horml sl
8.0
$0
S2,4761981,505
AVEB3 I AIRPORT BLVD
3420
W;G
T)IWSi [a Polk 231
8.40
$4.701720
"'481j3ei223
PIERSON BLVD
BAD?
OHS UNC
SR82 to lWar. AVB
BA
$ill.WBAO
12,40512341623
PIERSON BLVD
B-188
DFIS UNC
Indm Ave Ie Li flo I.WoNg Ad
00
$S,4171940
v.5W52.763
VkN BUREN ST
B-210
GOk UNG
Ave 52 0 Aye 51
as
$0
$2150],742,763
GOOKST
B 23f
PD
Frank arvira Ono Gerald FWd Or
80
52P3.640
I2,EKJ31296.4%
FRLVUK SINATRA DR
GI833
RM
Vallo"Wr Ro, w
a 0
$16,478,164
V 518,774I557
INDIDBLVD
801
ING
ia9"311 Sul 10 to F.raC19Dn SL
80
$0
WZ56
B.W?
UNC
Va Burm Sr 0 Hardison 91 (SR-136)
SLO
01266,832
BOB HOPE DR
B41B
JIM
FfxKSr,aIra or W Goravi Ford Or
So
;51 "91240
52.6'ASS3,029
CM' ST
0-029
Iw
Ffw waling r, FtKy 111
Ba
$448ADD
$2.533.012.69
INDIO BLVD
6.0.32
1"
Hwy 111 ID Ave 40 (Was HWY1 11 A)
3.0
to,791,201)
$2,639,601t329
WASHINOTORST
3.143
UNC
AV4 36 10 Flarnm Rd
55
54,431X0
5'e1 544 D3614 30
ITTLE MORONCO Flo
3490
DKS
kis Usk" DIM [a Pigsw Blvd
5.0
4;51274r720
$21549,3IDj203
TWO BUNCH PAJAIS TH
B-197
OAS
1_11110 2AXMI)D Ad to Pah Or
50
$81Ee6,160
$2.62.99%M
TWO B=H PALATS TA
B log
DRS
PWm Dr ra ?Akada HLI Ad
5.0
SBIE31250
.42,567,193,578
AVE 60
6.213
to
W0,11"Im.91 % Jalfarsw 81
5.0
$0
VARNER RD I AVE 0
8-223
(ND
iro&cm 8110 Golf aw.1w pkWv
60
t5,697.12.0
$21672,11501699
YACKSOI, ST
3.1240
IND
Aft 40 ID 1.10 10
5D
$3.31f'230
"16BIj1871EeR
JACKSON ST
B-25D
Irw UNC
AVe 0 *Ava 62
so
Vifflilw
$216K749,858
INOIOBLVD
0.253
IND
klarlw S1 * jaasm 91
5.0
$0
$2.65$,748.658
DAWCRD
IS 205
cc AM
Adman Ad 10 KICCRIDin 1#01
5.0
62_2711776
12,65:31121,432
&IADIWffaT
13.041
to
Me 69 IDAVQ 66 (Mrw 244d]
4.0
$41041080
S21682,5361612
AVE &S Ifil RPORT BLVD
B 114
Ln
madsw Sr 10 PiXlon Si
40
0
V.SW635,512
PAISS'DN LAKES BLVD
a 192
DAB UNC
Ul-A FANMg J FW 19 EaSIWD To,rnMW ai %WtMx Or
4.0
W,4031740
5209vi2e
NDIOELVO .
B252
NO
M3amSrmMxo"r
40
so
S2.002,553.252 -
TOTAL $2,602,939 U
CVAGTUMF
2006 Fee SchiDduie Update
25
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
3.2. Projects Included in the TPPS and RACE
In order to be consistent with California's Mitigation Fee Act, TUMF funds should not be
1 applied towards maintenance projects. For this reason, PB reviewed the projects
included in the TPPS and RACE to determine what portion of projects could clearly be
categorized as maintenance projects. Maintenance projects were identified based on
1 the Level of Improvement Standards (LOIS) used to develop construction cost estimates
in the RACE_ The following LOIS appear io be purely maintenance related:
• RS2:
Resurface existing 24' (2 lanes)
• RC2-A:
Reconstruct existing 24'
(2 lanes)_ Average daily traffic less than 10,000,
• RC2-AA:
Reconstruct existing 24'
(2 lanes)_ Average daily traffic greater than
10,000.
• RS3:
Resurface existing 36' (3
lanes)
• RC3-A:
Reconstruct existing 36'
(3 lanes). Average daily traffic less than 10,000.
• RC3-AA:
Reconstruct existing 36'
(3 lanes). Average daily traffic greater than
10,000_
• RS4:
Resurface existing 48' (4
lanes)
• RC4-A:
Reconstruct existing 48'
(4 lanes). Average daily traffic less than 10,000.
• RC4-AA:
Reconstruct existing 48'
(4 lanes)_ Average daily traffic greater than
10,000.
• RS6:
Resurface existing 72' (6
lanes)
• RC6-A:
Reconstruct exisfing 72'
ij6 lanes). Average daily traffic less than 10,0W
• RC6-AA:
Reconstruct existing 72'
(6 lanes). Average daily traffic greater than
10,000.
Table 3-2 lists projects, or components of projects, falling into one of the above LOIS
categories_ As can be seen at the bottom of the table, the construction cost
components of these projects total $293,250.330, or 11 % of the total RACE value of
$2,602,939,252. Since this value is less than the "other funding sources" identified and
factored into the TUMF Target Collections, as discussed in a later section, the inclusion
of these maintenance projects in the TPPS and RACE does not raise a nexus issue.
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
Nexus Study Report
26 June 27, 2006
Table 3-2 "Maintenance Only" Projects Included in the 2005 TPPS and RACE Updates
IStreet Name
I Segment Num1w I LOIS
Constmetion Cost[
(AVE 44
446
I RC4-A
$8,619,0001
IAVE 52
I1I
52H
I RC4-1
$122.1001
AVE 52
521
1_ RS4
$790.5001
AVE 52
I 52.1
I RG4-AA
$111,0001
ICATHFDRAL CYN DR
I CYHCN2
IRCG1-AA
$3676.3201
ICATHEDRAL GYN DR
I CTHCN4
I RG4•AA I
$4.102,560I
CATHEDRAL CYN DR
CTHCNS
II RS4 I
$903,.5.501
COOK S7
CK8
I RS4 1
S448.8001
(COUNTRY CLUB DR
CG3
I R54 1
_
$897,6 00I
ICROSSLEYRD
I CROSLY3
I RG6A 1
V,,097,1201
ICROSSLEY RD
I CROSLY4
RGi-A
1
$2.154,2401
IDILLON RD
I DLN7
RG2-A
$12,375.0001
IDILLON RO
I DLN6
_
I R82 1
57,436.3701
IDILLON RD
I DLN7
RG2-A I
$30,916,5001
IOILLON RO
OLN8
I HG2-A I
_
$25,072,5001
RD
jl DLN9
I RG2-A 1
$29,475,000I
IDILLON
E PALM CYN DR
I PL CN7
I RC4-AA 1
$5,860,8001
E PALM CYN OR
, PLCN8
I RS4 1
$448,8001
E PALM CYN OR
I PLCN9
I RC4-AA I
W046,600I
IE PALM CYN DR
I PLON10
I RC4-AA 1
$7,335,9901
IE PALM CYN OR
I PLCN11
I RC4-AA 1
$1.748,2501
IFRANK SINATRA DR
I FS4
i RS4 I
$532,1001
IFRANK5INATRA DR
I FS5
RS4
$326,4001
IFRANK SINATRA OR
I FS6
II RC-4-AA
-AA
$6.857.580
(FRANK SINATRA DR
FS7
I RC4-AA
S5,033.8501
IFRANKSINATRADR
F58
I RS4
$8959001
(FRANK SINATRA DR
I FS9
1804A I
$1,300,5001
(FRANK SINATRA DR
I FS11
RC4-AA
$133,2001
IORAPEFRUIT BLVD
I ORPFI
RC4-AA1
$7,326,000
IHAAR18ON ST
I HARSNI
I RC4-AA 1
$5,860,8001
]HARRISON ST
I HARSN2
IRC4-AAI
$5.860.0001
IINDIAN CYN DR
I INCNI
I RC4-AA I
$Z908,2001
IINDIAN CYN DR
I INCN2
+ RS4 I
$450.5001
IINDIAN CYN OR
I INGN3
+ R54 I
$438,7701
IINDIAN GYN OR
INCN4
RS4 I
3442.0001
IINDIAN CYN OR
I INCNS
RS4 I
$442,0001
IINDIAN CYN DR
I INCN6
9C4-AA I
58,846,700
IINDIO BLVD
I INDIOS
I RC4-AA 1
$3,791.2001
IJEFFERSONST
I JEFS
I RC2-A 1
$4,001,2501
(MILES AVE
I MIL3A
IRC4-AAI
S4,395,6001
(MILES AVE
I MIL4
I RCA -A 1
$2.692,8001
IPALM CYN DR
I PLCN2
I RS4 I
$448,800I
(PALM CYN DR
I PLCN3
RC&AA
$2,613,600
(PALM CYN DR
I PLCN4
R03-AA
$2.613,6001
IPALM CYN DR
I PLCN5
RCd-AAI
S3,207.9001
(PALM GYN DR
( PLCN6
I
RC44AA I
$2,375.4001
IPIERSON BLVD
PRS3S
I
RC4-A I
$4.039.2001
IPIERSON BLVD
II PRS4
I
RC4-A I
S9485,0001
IPORTOLA AVE I
POR1
I R84 1
$897.6001
IRAMON RD
RAMS
I RGFrAA+
$7,8.92,1601
1
1 RAM8
I RC"
S7.T38,000
IRAMON RD I
FIAM13
I RC4-AA
$4,260,180�
IRAMON RD I
HAM14
I RC4-AA
$111,0001
ITHOUSAND PALMS RD
I THPL1
RC2•A
$i8,615,0001
WARNER RD I
VRNR4
RCA -AA,
$136.5301
IVARNER RD I
VRNR5
I RC2•A 1
$3,818,2501
IVARNER RD I
VRNR6
I RS2 I
$1,235.5201
WARNER RD 1
VRNR7
I RS2 j
$1,756,9001
IVARNER RD
VRNRBA
_
I R53 I
_
$686,4001
WARNER RD/AVE 42 1
VRNR9
I RG2-A 1
$4,680,0001
IWASHINOTON ST I
WSH10A
j R84 I
$1,615,0001
IWASHINOTON ST I
WSH10B
I R52
$1,092.6001
ITOTAL
++
$293,250,3301
[TOTAL AS PERCENT OF RACE
I
11 % 1
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 27 Juf1e 27r, (Nq!kl
} 4.0 TRAFFIC GROWTH ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT
Traffic growth attributable to new development in the CVAG TUMF Collection Area is
one of the two inputs which determine the TUMF Fee Schedule. Simply put, the TUMF
collection target, described in a later section, is divided by the estimated traffic growth
to develop the TUMF fee per trip. Section 4.1 describes the methodology used to
estimate traffic growth.
The current TUMF Fee Schedule has three rate categories: residential, retail, and non -
retail or hotel. The fee for each land -use category is based on the portion of future
growth attributable to each of these land -use categories. As a policy assumption, the
current TUMF Fee Schedule reassigns 60% of trip growth attributable to retail to the
residential category. The 60% factor was a policy decision made during the initial TUMF
Plexus Study and ordinance development process_ The 60% factor was reevaluated
based on data from the newly updated CVATS Model and CVAG Origin -Destination
Survey. Section 4.2 describes this analysis and presents the revised factor.
4.1. Determining Traffic Growth
The Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study (CVATS) Model provided the most
comprehensive forecast of traffic growth in the CVAG TUMF Collection Area. A model
update was in process at the time of this study, and was sufficiently advanced to
provide estimates of future traffic growth.
Using the CVATS Model, traffic growth attributable to new development inside the TUMF
Collection Area was estimated as follows:
• Trip growth as forecasted by the CVATS Model was determined (Section 4.1.2)
• CVATS Model forecasts were converted to project level forecasts (Section 4.1.3)
4.1.1. Background on CVATS Model
The CVATS Model provides the best available quantitative estimate of travel occurring
and expected to occur in the CVAG region. It is based upon estimates of
socioeconomic and land use characteristics. CVAG and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) maintain it jointly_
The CVATS modeling area includes nine cities and neighboring unincorporated areas of
Riverside County. The nine cities included in the CVATS modeling area are Desert Hot
Springs, Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert. Indian Wells, La
Quinta, Indio, and Coachella.
The CVATS modeling area is divided up into numerous transportation analysis zones'
(TAZs) which provide the spatial unit (or geographical area) within which travel
behavior and traffic generation are estimated. Most TAZs cover the "internal" CVATS
modeling area, while eight of them are cordons covering the area "external" to the
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 28 June 27, 2006
V�"
CVATS modeling area- The eight cordon locations are as follows.- 1-10 at the northwest
end of the Valley, 1-10 at the southeast end of the Valley, SR62, SR74, SR111, SR86, 70th
Avenue, and 66th Avenue/Box Canyon Road.
Figure 4-1 illustrates the extents of the CVATS modeling area. The extents of the internal
TAZ borders are shown in red shading. The figure also illustrates the relationship
between the CVATS modeling area and the TUMF Collection Area (as updated in 2005
during the Boundary Determination phase of this study).
The CVATS Model is periodically updated to better reflect current conditions. A model
update was in process at the time of this study, and was sufficiently advanced to
provide estimates of future traffic growth. The updated CVATS Model used for this study
produces O-D tables for a 2000 base year, and a 2030 future year.
4.1.2. Determining Trip Growth Forecasted by the CVATS Model
The total traffic growth was estimated by subtracting the Year 2000 CVATS Model origin -
destination (O-D) table from the Year 2030 one. The CVATS Model estimates the
number of vehicle trips will grow by 2,359,605 trips between Year 2000 and Year 2030, as
shown in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 CVATS Model Trips
Numbers of Trips
Internal
Internal
External
External
Internal
to
to
to
to
Total
to
Intemal_ _External
Intemal
External
_
Internal
Yeor2000 1,015,746
35,804
I 35,630
21,768
1.108.948
I 92%
Yeor2030 3,159,3621 91,955 91,783 1125,453 3A68.553 91%
Growth 2,143,676 56.757 56,153 I 103,685 2,359,605 90.8%
(2000 to 2030)
Share of Trips
Internal External External
to to to
External Internal External
3 0 340
3% 3%
2.4% 2.4%
2%
4%
4.47
As described above, the CVATS Model has an "internal" modeling area illustrated in
Figure 4-1 and several "external' cordons that capture the contribution of external
areas to traffic on CVAG roadways. The majority of new trips, 90.8%, will both start and
end in the internal CVATS modeling area. The CVATS Model estimates about 4.8% of
new trips to be between internal and external areas, while an additional 4.4% to pass
through CVAG starting and ending in external areas.
it is important to note that not all of the total traffic growth captured in the CVATS
Model O-D tables will be generated by new development inside the TUMF Collection
Area- It is necessary to determine this portion in order to develop an appropriate TUMF
fee schedule. In other words, since the TUMF Target Collections represent improvement
needs of new development inside the TUMF Collection Area, so too should the trip
estimates used in conjunction with the TUMF Target Collections to develop the TUMF fee
schedule.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 fee Schedule Update 29 June 27, 2006
n
Figure 4-1 CVATS Model and TUMF Collection Areas
- - C1J*T.
�ilJSaR'BaenierplM1MPIF}�_: _
.-
i-eellst PalA f ?
La•rrler Cwinry. P lh
Legend
„ _ ., __ _, TUMF Collection Area (2005 Update)
lomn9?,Iiip:nnaI�Pta'r`lit}"+�..--":;�-_;_;_r�i=-___---CVATS ModeArea
`..r.-: ®CVAG Cities
'f JOSHUA TREE
f NATIONAL PARK
BORDER Joshua Tree WP
l f
Y
_- - - - _ ail. _ _ _- ••�_,..��_ � ,s
- -. - _ .i E.. i• . Lake C - P-l'rK--
- TOVI U3 HEP-
' LINE.
13
-• ';:3' - --" Sellcn Se Slp'loPark
Ales-8onega Dasetl Slala Perk
levebn"
�afaman Min'aw. Parke Cleveland NF
_ _--- _ `4;f
gr1�s 13arre�d�00sert Slalrr_P.ark
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee. Schedule Update
30
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
Figure 4-1, illustrating the correspondence between the CVATS modeling area and the
TUMF Collection Area, is a key tool in isolating this portion attributable to new
development inside the TUMF Collection Area. As can be seen in the figure, the CVATS
internal zones roughly correspond to the CVAG TUMF Collection Area, while the CVATS
external zones do not. Thus, the portion of traffic growth attributable to new
development inside the CVAG TUMF Collection Area includes only those trip ends
localed iri one of the internal CVATS zones. In other words the portion consists of both
trip ends of the "internal to internal" trips and only the internal trip end of the "internal to
external" and "external to internal" trips. This results in 2,143,616 plus half of 56,151 and
56,153 trips, or a total of 2,199,768 trips attributable to new development inside the TUMF
Collection Area_
4.1.3. Converting Model Forecasts to Project Level Forecasts
The next step in developing the necessary input for the TUMF fee calculation, was
converting the number of model forecasts into trip ends or project level forecasts in
order to be consistent with the TUMF implementation process.
Model forecasts correspond to the total number of trips generated in the modeling
region_ Project level forecasts are computed for a specific development typically using
trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
manual or another source. The CVAG TUMF program is implemented by computing a
given development's fee obligation as follows_ the fee rate is multiplied by the specific
development's trip generation rate as prescribed in the ITE Trip Generation manual to
yield the fee obligation for that particular trip end. Since fees are assessed on new
development that could represent either end of a model forecast trip, it follows that the
fee rate should be set based on trip end or project level forecasts.
The total project level forecasts for a region are about twice the model level forecasts
since project level forecasts are computed for each of the two trip ends of a model trip.
This can best be understood with an example. Consider a trip made from someone's
home to their office_ The model would count this as one trip. However, the sum of the
project level trip generation for the house and the project level trip generation for the
office would equal two trips (i.e. one at the house end and one at the office end).
Applying this simple one to two relationship between model and project forecasts, it
follows that two times 2,199,768, or 4,399,536, project level trips are attributable to new
development in the TUMF Collection Area.
4.2. Fee Category Share of New Trips
The current TUMF Fee Schedule has three land use categories utilized to determine the
fee rate:
• Residential
• Retail
• Non -retail or Hotel
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 31 June 27, 2006
The Pee for each rate category is based on the portion of future trip growth attributable
to each of them.
The newly updated CVATS Model and the CVAG Origin -Destination Survey were key
tools in determining the distribution of trips between the three fee rate categories. The
CVATS Model breaks internal -to -internal trips down into five trip -purpose categories
based on the type of land use at each of a tnp's two endpoints:
1. Home -Based -work (HBWI: One trip end is a residence and the other trip end is a
retail or non -retail workplace.
2_ Home-Based-Shopoinp (HBShol: One trip end is a residence and the other trip
end is a retail land-use-
3- Home -Based -School HBSch : One trip end is a residence and the other trip end
is a school (i.e_ a non -retail land -use).
4. Home -Based -Other (HBO): One trip end is a residence and the other trip end is a
non -retail land -use not fitting into one of the other categories.
5. Non -Home -Based (NHBI: Neither trip end is the person's home.
Table 4-2 shows the distribution of internal -internal trips amongst the five categories_
Since trips between internal and external CVATS zones were not broken down into
these five trip purpose categories by the CVATS Model, the distribution of internal -
internal trips into the five categories was applied as an approximation.
Table 4-2 Distribution of CVATS Model Internal -internal Trips
HBW -I
HBSho
I HBSch
I HBO I
NHB
I Total I
Year2000 I
13%
I 13%
I 10%
4 29%
35%
100%
Year203O
10%
I 16%
I 8%
I 34% I
32%
100%
Gr000 owth
I
97
I— 18%
I 6%
37%
30%
100%
2030)
The five trip purpose categories relate to the three fee categories (residential, retail,
and non-retail/hotel) as shown in Table 4-3. For example, the 9% of trips that are in the
Home -Based -Work category con be attributed 50% to residential because one trip end
is a home, and 50% to retail or non-retail/hotel since one trip end is a retail or non -retail
workplace. In other words, 4.5% can be attributed to residential and 4.5% can be
attributed to either retail or non-retail/hotel. A similar logic was applied for the other
categories_
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 32 June 27, 2006
r.d
Table 4-3 CVATS Model Trip Purposes by Fee Categories
HBW
HBSho
I HBSch
HBO NHS I
Residential _ _
4_5%
9%
3%
18.5%
Retail
4.5%
9%
30%
1 Non -Retail & Hotel
3%
18.5%
1 Total _ I
9%
18%
6% 1
_ _ 37% 30%
To establish the distribution of trips between the three fee rate categories, the model
irip purposes were refined to determine the breakdown of the Home -Based -Work and
Non -Home -Based trip purpose categories between the retail and non-retail/hotel fee
categories_ Using the CVAG Origin -Destination Survey, this breakdown was estimated
based on current travel patterns. The survey results showed that the 4.5% HBW trips
attributed to retail or non-retail/hotel could be broken down 34% retail and 66% non-
retail/hotel. Similarly, the survey results showed that the 30% NHB trips attributed to retail
or non-retail/hotel could be broken down 35% retail and 65% non-retail/hotel. Table 4-4
shows the final correspondence after refining the trip purpose breakdowns by fee
category.
Table 4-4 CVATS Model Refined Trip Purposes by Fee Categories
HBW _(
HBSho"3%
HBO
NHB I
Total_ I
Residential
4.5%
I 9%18.5%
35%
Retail
1.5%
9%
10.5%
217.
Non -Retail & Hotel
3%
3%
18.5%
19.5%
447.
I Total
9% _
18%
6%
37%
307,
100%
General policy number 7 of the original Uniform Transoortation Mitiaation Fee
Ordinance Report (CVAG, 1988) states "that added benefit in the form of shorter trips
will accrue to residential land uses from the convenience of close -in retail/commercial
development; as a result some of the retail/commercial trips should be reassigned to
residential trips." Consistent with this policy, section 6 (e) of the CVAG model TUMF
ordinance dated June 7, 1988 reassigned 60% of trip growth attributable to retail to the
residential category. The 60% factor was a policy decision made during the initial TUMF
Nexus Study and ordinance development process. The 60% factor was reevaluated as
part of this study in light of more extensive and recent data availability.
To reflect the intent of this policy, it was determined that the retail share of HBW and
HBSho trips would be allocated back to the residential trip end. This methodology is
consistent with NCHRP Report # 187 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques
and Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978), which
details operational travel estimation techniques that are universally used fQr the travel
demand modeling. Chapter 2 of this report states that "HBW (Home Based Work) and
HBNW (Home Based Non Work) trips are generated at the households, whereas the NHB
(Non -Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere;' Based on this premise, the 1.5%
HBW retail component, as well as the 9% HBSho retail component were reassigned to
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 33 June 27, 2006
the residential land use category_ The reassigned distribution is shown in Table 4-5. As
can be seen by comparing the right-hand columns of Tables 4-4 and 4-5, this translates
into 50% of retail trips being reassigned to residential. More specifically, half of the 21%
retail total shown in Table 4-4 was reassigned to residential leaving 10.5% of trips in the
retail category.
Table 4-5 CVATS Model Trip Purposes versus Fee Categories - Reassigned
HBW
HBSho
HBSch
HBO
I NHB
Total
Residential I
6%
I 18%
3%
18.5%
45.57o
Retail
057,
I 07.
10.5%
10.5%
Non -Retail & Hotel
3%
3T.
18.5%
19.5%
4476
Total
9%
18%
6%
37%
1 307,
I 100%
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 34 June 27, 2006
00r11
5.0 TUMF COLLECTION TARGET
Based on the TPPS and RACE document described in Section 3.0, the total value of
needed improvements to the arterial street system in Coachella Valley exceeds $2.6
billion- However, only a portion of this amount can be attributed to improvement
needs necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new
development. Some of the improvements identified in the TPPS address existing
transportation needs that have not been caused by the impact of new development
(although new development may exacerbate the existing need). Other projects in the
TPPS are for maintenance purpose only and therefore do not directly mitigate the
impacts of new development.
The availability of other funding sources to address existing needs and maintenance
projects in addition to future capacity expansion can offset the share of improvement
needs that are attributable to new development and obligated through the payment
of TUMF. Developer dedications as a condition of development approvals can also
result in the completion of improvements identified in the TPPS further reducing the
share of the RACE allocable to the TUMF- This section of the Nexus Report will quantify
the share of the arterial improvement costs that will likely be satisfied by other available
funding sources and developer dedications. By accounting for the use of other funding
sources to help address existing needs and roadway maintenance, and the share of
the TPPS that is likely to be accomplished through developer dedications, it is possible
to establish the TUMF collection target which is the rough proportion of the RACE that
will be assessed through the payment of TUMF.
5.1_ Other Funding Sources
Section 6 (a) of the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated June 7, 1988 prescribes that
"the Uniform Transportation Mitigation Fee proceeds shall not exceed the unfunded
portion of the construction cost of the regional system..." Section 6 (b) further clarifies
that "the Uniform Transportation Mitigation fee is not intended to be the sole source of
funding for the construction of the Regional System." Consistent with Section 6 (c) of
the model ordinance, the original TUMF collection target was adjusted by 50% to
account for other funding sources that would be used to implement the regional
system improvements. The 50% other funding level was considered to adequately
account for existing needs and other funding sources but was not quantified as part of
the Nexus determination. Section 6 (c) of the model ordinance indicates that "this
share may change, however, as future revisions are made to the fees." For the purpose
of this update, it was determined that an estimate of the other revenue sources
expected to be available for implementation of the regional system would be used as
the basis for adjusting the TUMF collection target to address other funding-
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 35 June 27, 2006
5.L1. Measure A
in accordance with RCTC Ordinance No. 88-1 Riverside Countv Transportation
Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax
(Measure A), 35% of the sales tax revenue generated by Measure A within the
Coachella Valley is allocated to CVAG for use on the Regional Arterial System. CVAG
uses this revenue to complete projects included in the TPPS. With the reauthorization of
Measure A and in accordance with RCTC Ordinance 02-001, commencing in Fiscal
Year 2009 the share of Measure A revenues to be used for regional road improvements
will increase to 50%. CVAG intends to continue to utilize this revenue for projects
included in the TPPS.
For the purpose of determining the share of Measure A revenues that will likely be
available for completing future TPPS projects, actual Measure A revenues for the period
from 1990 to 2005 were reviewed and future revenues forecast to 2030 based on the
historic trend. Table 5-1 summarizes actual and estimated Measure A revenues for
Coachella Valley.
Table 5-1 Measure A Revenue Estimate for Coachella Valley
I Measure A Total Revenue for Coachella Valley
I FY 1990 Revenue in millions (it
$10.1
I FY 2005 Revenue in millions nl
$33.7
Annual Revenue Growth since 1990
8.34%
Estimated Revenue 2007 to 2030 in millions I
12,764,01
Inl Source: Riverside County Transportation Commission, Marctr3.2006
J
Measure A Allocation for Coachella Valley Regional Arterials
Estimated Revenue 2007 to 2030 in millions I
$2,764.0
Regional Arterial Allocation through FY 2008 (2) I
40%
Regional Arterial Allocation FY 2009-2030 I3l I
50% I
Estimated Allocation 2007 to 2030 in millions I
$1,373.8
(2) Ordinance 88-1 defines that 55%of Measure A Revenues generated within
Coachella
Valley will be used on State Highways and Major Regional Road Projects. The
ordinance
provided for "about y." to supplement Federal and State funds for specified State
highway projects. 8y formula 15% of revenues is provided for this purpose with
the
balance (40%of total revenues) allocated to regional arterials.
pl Ordinance 02A01 defines that 50% of Measure A revenues will be used "for store
highways and regional road improvements ... implemented through CVAG"
Between 1990 and 2005, the total Measure A revenues generated in the Coachella
Valley has grown from $10.1 million to $33.7 million, a rate of approximately 8.34%
compounded annually. By projecting the actual 2005 revenues at the historie annual
growth rate, it is estimated that approximately $2.76 billion in Measure A revenues will
be generated between 2007 and 2030.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 36 June 27, 2006
Since only a portion of the Measure A revenues are utilized for TPPS projects, the
funding share prescribed by the respective RCTC Ordinances was applied to the
funding total to determine the share of future Measure A revenues that will be available
for TPPS projects. Of the estimated $2.76 billion in forecast Measure A revenues,
approximately $1.37 billion is expected to be available for use by CVAG on TPPS
projects.
5.1.2. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The STIP is a multi -year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and
off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the State Highway Account
and other funding sources. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) Through the
Caltrans Transportation Programming Division develops forecasts of future STIP funding
availability and allocates funding authority to the various transportation funding
agencies statewide as the basis for project programming. RCTC is responsible for
administering STIP funding within Riverside County and allocates a portion of STIP
funding to the Coachella Valley based on a predetermined formula. CVAG is
responsible for programming STIP projects within the Coachella Valley.
RCTC estimates that approximately $16.9 million in STIP funding will be available to
CVAG for the period from 2007 to 2011 (approximately $3.4 annually). For the period
between 2005 and 2011, Caltrans State Highway Account Revenue Assumptions
indicate relevant STIP funding categories will grow by a combined rate of
approximately 2.74 o annually. By inflating the approximate annual CVAG STIP funding
share by the combined funding growth rate, it is estimated that approximately $1 12.9
million in STIP funding will be available to CVAG between 2007 and 2030 for use on TPPS
projects. Table 5-2 summarizes the STIP funding estimate for CVAG.
Table 5-2 STIP Funding Estimate for Coachella Valley
STIP Available Funding for Coachella Valley
I FY 2007-2011 Estimated New Capacity Funding in millions „I
$16.9
FY 2007 Proportionate_ Annual Share in millions
$3.4 I
I forecast STIP Annual Revenue Growth FY 2005 - FY 2011 l2I
2 74%
I Estimated STIP Allocation 2007 to 2030 in millions
$112.9
pI Source: Riverside County Transportation Commission, March 9, 2006
i2i source: Collrans 2006 STIP FE Assornption5 Book, May 26, 2005
5.11.3. Unfunded Share of RACE
To determine the other funding share of the RACE, it was necessary to escalate the
total cost to improve the regional arterial system to account for cost inflation_ Inflation
of the RACE value was necessary to enable a fair comparison between future TPPS
improvements costs and the anticipated future Measure A and STIP funding sources
forecast based on expected growth_
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 37 June 27, 2006
Based on the CVAG RACE 2005 Update, the total cost to implement the TPPS is $2.60
billion including $2.29 in construction costs and $317 million in right of way (ROW) costs.
A, review of the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index indicates that
construction costs have increased at a rate of approximately 3.07% annually between
1990 and 2005, while the July 25, 2005 Coachella Valley Economic Report indicates the
median resale price of an existing single family home has increased 6.71 % annually
between 1990 and 2004. Based on thoso rates for inflation of construction and ROW
costs, respectively, Table 5-3 summarizes the inflated total cost estimate for the 2005
RACE.
Table 5-3 CVAG RACE Inflated Cost Estimate
RACE Total Construction Cost in 2005 (in millions) $2.286
Annual Change in Construction Cost since 1990 3.07%
Inflated Construction Cost Estimate 2007-2030 $3,372.9
RACE Total ROW Cost in 2005 (in millions)
$317
Annual Change in Housing Cost since 1990
6.71 0
Inflated ROW Cost Estimate 2007-2030
$806.9
RACE Total Cost Estimate in 2005 (in millions) $2,603.0 1
Innoted Total Cost Estimate 2007-2030 (in millions) $4,179,8 1
A comparison of the inflated RACE value to the total estimated revenues from Measure
A and STIP sources is provided in Table 5-4. As shown in Table 5-4. approximately 35.6%
of the RACE inflated cost estimate is expected to be available from Measure A and STIP
funding sources. Consistent with the TUMF model ordinance Section 6, the remaining
64.47. of the estimated cost to improve the regional arterial system will need to come
from the TUMF program or developer dedications_
Table 5-4 Unfunded Share of RACE 2005 Update
CVAG Revenue Share of RACE 2005 Update
Value
Share
RACE Inflated Total Cost Estimate 2007-2030 (in millions)
$4,179.8
7I
Estimated Measure A Allocation 2007 to 2030 fin millions)
$1,373.8
32.9 .
Estimated STIP Allocation 2007 to 2030 (in millions)
$112.9 I
2.7 e
Subtotal Other Available Revenue Sources
$1,486.6
35.6%
Unfunded Share of RACE Inflated Cost Estimate
$2,693.2
64.4%
The TUMF program is intended to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation
impacts of new development and therefore is not intended for use on maintenance
projects or other existing needs. By dedicating regional Measure A and STIP funds
toward the total cost to improve the regional arterial system. CVAG is able to
demonstrate a substantial financial commitment to address existing needs . and
maintenance projects incorporated in the TPPS_ As indicated in Section 3.2 of this
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 38 June 27, 2006
report, the total cost of maintenance only projects included in the TPPS is approximately
11 % of the total RACE value. By comparison, Measure A and STIP funding will contribute
over 35% of the value to complete the TPPS by 2030.
5.2. Developer Dedications
Section 6 (d) (2) of the CVAG TUMF model ordinance indicates that CVAG will
"establish an estimate of the value of customary developer dedications to the extent
they have been included in the total cost of the regional system." Dedications are right
of way and/or completed roadway segments that are required to be completed by
developers as part of their development approvals_ This estimated value of developer
dedications is used as the basis to offset the TUMF collection target. The reduction of
the TUMF collection target to account for developer dedications is intended to provide
appropriate program `credit' to developers for completing actual improvements to the
arterial system.
During the original Nexus development, CVAG determined that 25% of the total
regional system cost represented the value of customary developer dedications as
conditions of development approval. Ongoing experience with the TUMF program has
indicated that the 25% factor is fair and adequate to reflect the value of developer
dedications. CVAG has determined that it will continue to apply this factor as the basis
for reducing the TUMF collection target.
5.3. TUMF Collection Target
Having determined the share of the regional arterial system improvement costs that will
be derived from Measure A and STIP funding sources, and the value of improvements
that will be accomplished by customary developer dedications, it is possible to establish
the TUMF collection target. The TUMF collection target is the second key variable
needed to determine the TUMF program Fee Schedule.
Table 5-5 summarizes the adjustment of the total cost outlined in the CVAG RACE 2005
Update as the basis for establishing the rough proportion of improvement costs
allocable to new development through TUMF. As indicated in Table 5-5, the total cost
to fully fund the TPPS is adjusted by 35.6 % to reflect estimated available other funding
sources and 25.0% to reflect customary developer dedications. The remaining
unfunded balance of $1.65 billion is the inflated value of arterial system improvements
that would need to be derived from TUMF revenues to fully fund the TPPS.
Table 5-5 TUMF Collection Target
Fully Funded TPPS Collection Target values
Inflated RACE Total Cost Estimate 2007-2030 (in millions)
Estimated Available Measure A/STIP Revenues
Estimated Customary Developer Dedications
Remaining Balance (Inflated TUMF Collection Target)
value
Share
$4,179.8
100.0%
$1,486.6
35.6% I .
$1,045.0
25.0% l
$1,648.2
39.4%
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 39 June 27, 2006
Or) =-�
6.0 FEE CALCULATION
The fee amounts that will need to be collected to mitigate the cumulative regional
impacts of new development on the arterial street system in the Coachella Valley are
quantified in this section. The calculation of the TUMF program fees follows the basic
methodology that was utilized to establish the original fee schedule in 1988 yielding a
fee per trip for three land use categories. As described in Section 3.0, the total present
day cost to fully implement the TPPS (as presented in the RACE) is $2.60 billion.
For the purpose of calculating the fee, the total RACE value is adjusted to reflect the
availability of other funding sources and the value of customary developer dedications.
Having accounted for other funding sources and developer dedications in Section 5.0,
the share of the total RACE value that will be attributed to new development is 39.4%_
At this level, the TUMF collection target to fully fund the implementation of the TPPS is
approximately $1.03 billion in present day dollars.
The total Irips resulting from new development are divided between the three fee land
use categories in the next step of the fee calculation. Based on the distribution of trips
by purpose obtained from the CVATS model, it was determined that 35% of the new
trips would have a residential based trip end, while 21% would have a
retail/commercial trip end and 44% would have a non -retail or hotel trip end. The
resultant trip values are used as the denominator in the equation to determine the
respective fee levels per trip for each land use category.
The numerator for the final fee calculation is the share of the TUMF collection target that
is considered to be attributable to the particular land use category. As described
previously, CVAG policy establishes that the added benefit in the form of shorter trips
Will accrue to residential land uses from the convenience of close -in retail/commercial
development and therefore some of the retail/commercial trips should be reassigned
to residential trips. Based on the evaluation of trip purposes derived from the CVATS
model, the retail trip end of retail related home based work trips and all home based
shopping trips are reassigned to the residential land use_
Table 6-1 presents the TUMF Fee calculation following the steps described above. Table
6-1 indicates the resultant fees for the CVAG TUMF are $303 per trip for residential land
uses, $117 per trip for retail/commercial land uses, and $233 per trip for non -retail and
hotel land uses.
CV/AG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 40 June 27. 2006
0CC)f�0
Table 6-1 CVAG TUMF Fee Calculation
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PART I: TUMF COLLECTION TARGET
VALUE I SOURCE OR
FORMULA
A
I total Sysiem Cost
I_ $2,602,939,252 I
Table3-dare]
(RACE
B',�Shareof.Cost'
tobe.Fundedbydtlier5ources;
'
',r+;Tatile,
C
Portion of Cost to be Funded by Other Sources
I $926,646,374
C=A*B
D
Share,of;CosT,Attnbbtg6letoQevelo
55
E
I Portia ofost Attributable to Customary Developer
$650,734,813 I
E=A'Q
Dedications
F
TUMF Collection Target
$1,025,558,065
F-A-C-E
- PART II: NEW PROJECT LEVEL TRIPS
G
Total New Average Weekday Trip Ends
4,399,536
Section 4.1.3
(CVATS 2005 update)
K
L
IM�
IN
to
I
New Average Weekday Residential Trip Ends I 1,539,838
New Average Weekday Retail/Commercial Trip Ends 923,903
New Average Weekday Non -Retail & Hotel Trip Ends 1,935,796
PART III: COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO LAND USE CATEGORY
Share of Cost Attributable to Residential
Shore of Cost Attribulable to Relail/Commerciol-
Share of Cost Atlributable to Non -Retail & Hotel
Portion of Cost Attributable to Residential
Portion of Cost Attributable to Retail/Commercial
Portion of Cost Attributable to Non -Retail & Hotel
Residential Pee per Trip
Retail/Commercial Fee per Trip
Non -Retail & Hotel Fee per Trip
PART IV: FEE PER TRIP
I NOTE Shaded rows are inputs or policy assumptions.
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
41
45-5%
10.5%
445.
$466,628,920
$107,683,597
$451,245,549
$303
$117
$233
K=G*H
L=G*I
M=G*J
Table 4-4
Q=F*N
R=F*O
S=F*P
T=Q/K
U=R/L
V=S/M
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it has been possible to determine a
reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional impacts of new land
development projects in the Coachella Valley on the arterial roadway system and the
need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the TUMF
program. The reasonable relationship between the impact of new development and
the need for the TUMF can be summarized as follows-
• The Coachella Valley is expected to continue to grow as a result of new
residential and non-residential development in the future_
• The continuing residential and non-residential growth of the Coachella Valley will
result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways due to the impact of newly
created trips and traffic demand.
• Future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative
regional transportation impacts of future development in the Coachella Valley_
• Capacity improvements to the arterial roadway system will be needed to
mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development.
• Revenues from other established funding sources (including Measure A and STIP
funds) and developer dedications will not be sufficient to address all the arterial
roadway improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development.
• The arterial roadway improvements identified in the TPPS are arterial roadway
facilities that will provide additional capacity to help mitigate the impacts of
new development and merit inclusion for funding improvements through this fee
program.
The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the
improvement cost attributable to new development based on the availability of other
funding sources and improvements to be completed through developer dedications.
Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to
mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in the Coachella
Valley in rough proportionality to the trips that will be generated by future residential
and non-residential development. The respective fee allocable to future new
residential and non-residential development in the Coachella Valley is summarized in
Table 7-1 -
Table 7-1 CVAG TUMF Schedule of Fees
Land Use Category Fee per Trip
Residential
Retail/Commercial
Non -Retail & Hotel
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
$303
$117
$233
Nexus Study Report
42 June 27, 2006
7.1. fee Adjustments and Program Updates
7.1.1. Annual Inflation Adjustment
Section 12 of the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated June 7, 1988 includes provisions
that provide for an annual review and adjustment of the TUMF schedule of fees to
account for cost inflation. To ensure the TUMF program revenues are adequate to
accomplish the improvements recommended in the TPPS, it is appropriate to regularly
adjust the underlying cost assumptions 10 reflect inflation. Specifically, the project costs
identified in the RACE should be adjusted annually to reflect the influence of right-of-
way and construction cost inflation. Based on the revised improvement cost
information, the TUMF Schedule of Fees can be recalculated and the fees adjusted
accordingly to sustain the value of the program -
As the basis for completing an annual inflationary adjustment to the TUMF program, it is
recommended that CVAG utilize separate indices for right-of-way and construction
costs. By applying the respective index for right-of-way and construction costs, CVAG
can adjust the project cost values presented in the RACE and summarized in Table 3-1
of this report. The resultant total cost value can then be used as the basis for
recalculating the TUMF Schedule of Fees as presented in Table 6-1.
For right-of-way cost adjustments, CVAG should utilize the "Existing Home Price Trend for
Coachella Valley" as presented in the Coachella Vallev Economic Report compiled for
the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership (Exhibit 31 in the July 25, 2005 version of the
report). The Existing Home Price Trend for Coachella Valley is developed from
information compiled by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to track the median
sales price of existing single family homes in metropolitan areas across the country. The
median sales price of existing single family homes represents the most widely available
index of property values providing a relative measure of property values in a given area
over time- Although the acquisition of rightof-way may involve some properties other
than existing single family homes, this index provides a reasonably concise and readily
accessible source of data reflecting the overall trend in land values.
For construction costs, CVAG should utilize the Engineering News Record (ENR)
Construction Cost Index (CCI). The ENR CCI represents the most widely accepted
standard index for assessing changes in construction material and labor costs over time
based on a monthly survey of the largest metropolitan markets in the United States.
ENR builds its construction cost index by developing a twenty city average of the
combined costs for labor and various common construction materials.
The use of the national ENR CCI represents a more stable index over time by reducing
the influence of local short term fluctuations in the supply of materials and labor. The
application of a more stable index for adjusting cost values is recommended to reduce
the potential for erratic fluctuation in the TUMF Schedule of Fees as part of,the annual
adjustment.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 43 June 27. 2006
Figure 7-1 compares the ENR CCI with the Caltrans Highway CCI and the FHWA Price
Trends Composite Index from 1985 to 2005- The comparison of the three indices
illustrates the greater stability of the ENR CCI over a twenty-year time frame compared
to the remaining two indices. Figure 7-1 also includes linear trend lines for both the ENR
CCI and the Caltrans Highway CCI. As can be seen in the graph, the linear trend for
the two indices is almost identical despite the greater volatility of the Caltrans index.
Figure 7-1 Construction Cost index Comparison
1 0 ENR CCI — Caltrans CCI - FHWA PTCI - -- Linear (ENR CCI)
8.000
7,000
6,000 I -
5,00o
-- Linear (Caltrans CCI)
3W
f250
- --- �. �- 200 Q
150
U
g100
2.000 o
U
1,000 — -
1985 19% 19871983 19891990 1991 199215,93 1994 19951996 1997 1998 1999 20002001 2002 2W3 2004 2005
Year
5 ouroe;:
ENR Ca-Eri;f rinnNwm RecordCor15inuflon Cost 1r 1-I1story
Cdtt=CCI-Stoteof CdlforrioDEp3t riot Tr=pDrtotion HIawWCamtrudlon Cost In
FHWAPTCI-Fedxd HlgxgAdNrisndion Prix Trmca Coffcus itslyd_x
To facilitate the annual adjustment of the TUMF Schedule of Fees, it would be
appropriate for CVAG to establish a schedule of specific milestone dates for the annual
adjustment process to correspond with local jurisdiction budget approval cycles. Key
milestones may include determination of the respective indices, recalculation of the
fee schedule, adoption of the revised schedule of fees by CVAG and final
implementation of the updated fee schedule by the local jurisdictions.
7.1.2. Regular Program Review and Update
Section 66001 (d) of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that a comprehensive review of a
mitigation fee program be completed at least every five years. While section 12 (c.) of
the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated June 7, 1988 introduces elements of the
statutory requirements relating to timely expenditure of TUMF revenues, CVAG needs to
establish a process for the regular comprehensive review and update of the TUMF
program. The comprehensive review is intended to reaffirm the purpose of the fee and
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 44 June 27, 2006
Qnrr)(7
the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is being
charged, and to reassess the program's financial status to ensure the designated
improvements can be fully funded.
The comprehensive review also provides the opportunity to update the program to
respond to changing needs within the area. In particular, successive updates provide
the opportunity to utilize the latest available demographic and travel demand forecast
information for the area to reflect changing rates and patterns of development. By
responding to changing development trends, the program can be adjusted as
necessary to adequately address the improvement needs resulting from changes in
development activity.
In accordance with the provision of the Mitigation Fee Act, it is recommended that
CVAG undertake a comprehensive review and update of the TUMF program within five
years of the date of adoption of this Nexus Study. In addition to meeting the intents of
the Mitigation Fee Act by reaffirming the rational nexus for the TUMF program, CVAG
should use the comprehensive review and update as an opportunity to reevaluate the
program within the context of changing development patterns and improvement
needs_
7.2_ TUMF Ordinance Amendments
Changes to key assumptions, methodology and findings of the CVAG TUMF Nexus as
presented in this report will necessitate amendments to the respective local TUMF
ordinances to ensure consistency. The following section summarizes necessary changes
to the TUMF ordinances based on a review of the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated
June 7, 1988.
7.2.1. Horizon Year and CVATS
Various sections of the Model Ordinance will need to be amended to refer to the new
horizon year 2030 which supercedes the original horizon year of 2010. Furthermore, the
Model Ordinance refers to the 1987 Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study
(CVATS) as the basis for the horizon year and for determining the extent to which new
development will generate traffic_ Such references will need to be amended to reflect
the current methodology for establishing the TPPS. In particular, Sections 1 (a), 2 (b), 3,
3 (a), 3 (b), 3 (c), 3 (d), 3 (f), 4 (c), 6 (e), and 15 include references to CVATS or the
horizon year 2010.
72.2. Trip Generation Rates
Section 4 (e) of the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated June 7, 1988 references the
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Third Edition as the basis for determining
trip generation rates for fee calculations_ The current version of the ITE Trip Generation
Seventh Edition (published in 2003) should be referenced as the basis for fee
calculations.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 45 June 27. 2006
7.2,3. Applicability
Section 5 of the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated June 7, 1988 indicates the
provisions of the ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 1989. Subsequent to the
update of the program Nexus Study and the proposed amendments to the respective
ordinances, it will be necessary to establish a new effective date in accordance with
the desired time frame for implementation of the new schedule of fees.
7.2.4, Establishment of the Transportation Mitigation Fee
Section 6 (c) of the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated June 7, 1988 indicates that
one-half of the cost of the regional system will be attributable to new development
although this amount may change as future revisions are made to the program.
Consistent with Section 6 (c) of the model ordinance, the original TUMF collection target
was adjusted by 50% to account for other funding sources that would be used to
implement the regional system improvements. The 50% other funding level was
considered to adequately account for existing needs and other funding sources but
was not quantified as part of the original Nexus determination. For the purpose of this
update, an estimate of the other revenue sources expected to be available for
implementation of the regional system was prepared as the basis for adjusting the TUMF
collection target to address other funding.
As described in Section 5.1 of this report, approximately 35.6% of the total cost to
implement the TPPS was determined to be available through existing revenue sources
including Measure A and 5TIP. This amount is considered to adequately account for
existing needs on the regional system and therefore was used as the basis for adjusting
the Total System Cost in the fee calculation_ Reference to the one-half cost adjustment
in Sections 6 (c), 6 (d) (1) and 6 (d) (3) of the Model Ordinance needs to be amended
to be consistent with the revised fee calculation methodology.
7.2.5. Share of Trips
Section 6 (e) of the 1988 Model Ordinance reassigns 60% of trip growth attributable to
retail to the residential category. The 60% factor was a policy decision made during the
initial TUMF Nexus Study and ordinance development process. To better quantify the
influence of residential land uses on retail trip generation, the 60% factor was
reevaluated as part of the Nexus Study update_ As presented in Section 4.2 of this
report, the share of trips between residential, retail and non -retail land uses was
calculated based on data from the newly updated CVATS Model and CVAG Origin -
Destination Survey.
For the purposes of the fee calculation, 45.5% of the system cost was determined to be
attributable to residential development, while 10.5% was determined to be retail, and
44% was determined to be non -retail- Reflecting the intent of the original policy
decision, the calculation of the share of trips effectively resulted in 50% of the retail trips
being attributable to residential land uses. The relevant provision of the Model
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 46 June 27, 2006
Ordinance needs to be amended to be consistent with the revised share of trips
methodology.
7.2.6. Schedule of Fees
Section 6 (h) of the 1988 Model Ordinance presents the schedule of fees on a per trip
basis for each of the applicable land use categories. The schedule of tees needs to be
amended to reflect the revised schedule of fees presented in Table 7-1 _
7.17. list of Projects on the Regional System
Appendix B of the 1988 Model Ordinance included a list of projects on the regional
system to be implemented under the auspices of the TUMF program. The 2005 update
of the TPPS establishes the list of projects as the basis for this Nexus Study update_ The
TPPS list of projects needs to be included by reference in the Model Ordinance
superceding the list of projects contained in the original Appendix B.
CVAG TUMF
2006 ree Schedule Update
47
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
,�I-�1ir„r7
APPENDIX A - TCAG 2004 RTP Model Network Plots
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
48
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
'tio-zoo
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2000 SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
NUMBER OF LANES PER DIRECTION
i
Numl}er of Lanes Per Direction
1 lane per direction
-- 2 lanes per direction
3 or more lanes per direction
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 5/24/2006
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2000 SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
BY DAILY VOLUME
i -
I
Daily Volume
Daily Volume < 10,000
Daily Volume >= 10,000 and Daily Volume < 20,000
Daily Volume >= 20,000 and Daily Volume < 30,000
Daily Volume >= 30,000 and Daily Volume <40,000
Daily Volume >= 40,000 and Gaily Volume < 50,000
Daily Volume >= 50,000
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
�. T Printed 5f24)2006
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2000 SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
DAILY VOLUMES GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 20,000
C
Daily VoIurn a >=20,000
Daily Volume <20,000
Daily Volume >= 20,000
I111a ., 11I ,,, III .. - I - iit Ili n
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 5/2412006
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNEMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2000 SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
BY DAILY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
Daily Level of Servioe (LOS)
LOS A, B, or C (Arterial: VIC<0.621 or Freeway: WC<.711)
LOS D (Arterial: 0.621<= V1C<0.821 or Freeway: 0.711<= V10<0.891)
LOS E (Arterial: 0.821<=V1C<1.000 or Freeway: 0.891<= VIC<1.000)
LOS F Mc>=1.000) -
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 51241200E
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2000 SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
DAILY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) D, E, & F
I r
f
ii
I
I
I �
I �
Daily Level of Service
1 LOS A, B. or C
LOS D, E, or P
I
f�
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 5/25/2006
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2030 BASELINE SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
BY DAILY VOLUME
C
Daily Volume
Daily Volume < 10,000
Daily Volume>= 10,000 and Daily Volume < 20,000
Daily Volume >= 20,000 and Daily Volume < 3 0, 00 0
Daily Vol ume>= 30,000 and Daily Volume <40,000
Daily Vol ume>= 40,000 and Daily Volume < 5 0, 00 0
Daily Volume>= 50,000
G�
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 5)2412006
YEAR 2030 BASELINE
r
1
t.
6
I
Daily Level of Service
LOS A, B, or C
LOS D, E, or F
I
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2030 BASELINE SCAGNETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
DAILY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) D, € Sa F
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 512512006
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNEMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2030 BASELINE SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
BY DAILY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
ZZ
Daily Level of Service (LOS)
LOS A, B, or C (Arterial: VIC<0.621 or Freeway: VIC<.711)
LOS D (Arterial; 0.621 <= VIC<0.821 or Freeway: 0.711 <= VIC<0.891)
LOS E (Arterial: 0.821<=VIC<1.000 or Freeway: 0.891<= VIC<1.000)
LOS F (VIC>=1.000)
r�
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 5/24/2006
11CIrr r wCl Lo I',ll �:Jl i` �I :; :CI!•.:I�•^r ..i .i�
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2030 BASELINE SCAG NETWORK- CVAG AREA ONLY
NUMBER OF LANES PER DIRECTION
ZZ
r Number of Lanes Per Direction
j T lane per direction
2 lanes per direction
3 or more lanes per direcflon-
0
5
U
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 5/24/2006
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2030 BASELINE SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
DAILY VOLUMES GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 20,000
i
Daily Voluma >=20,000
Daily Volume < 20,000
Daily Volume >= 20,00.0
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
I �, Printed 512412006 i
EXHIBIT "B"
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
1�1Cl
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE
PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs,
California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of November 1, 2006. The City
Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East
Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
The purpose of this hearing is to solicit and consider public comments on the proposed
change to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee prior to the adoption of a
Resolution revising the City's Comprehensive Fee Schedule. Under state law all fees
charged by the City must be reasonably related to the actual costs of providing various
public services.
REVIEW OF INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents
regarding this matter are available for public review at the City Hall between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please contact the City Clerk's
(Department at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review
these documents.
COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally
at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be
made to the City Council by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to:
James Thompson, City Clerk
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Any challenge of the proposed fee modification in court may be limited to raising only
those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing.
(Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)).
An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard.
Questions regarding the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee may be directed to Tom
Wilson, Assistant City Manager, at 760-323-8270.
Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs. y puede
hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245.
es Thompson, City Clerk
({-9�, a
PROOF OF PUBLICATION 1'ITis Is Space for County Clerk's Pdmg Stamp
(2015.5.C.C,P)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
I am a citizen of the United Slates and a resident of Proof of Publication of
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen ----„_ __•....... _
years, and not a party to or interested in the
above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk ora
Printer of the, DESERT SUN PUBLISHING
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, "No-331�
Count of Riverside, and which NOTICE OF PUBLIC REARING
Y newspaper has been
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS C" COUNCIL
Superior Court of the County of Riverside, Slate of COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE
California under the date of March 24, 1988. Cuse PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE
Number 191236; that the notice, of which the TRANSPORTATION
UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the, City Council
than non panel, has been published in each regular or the city of Palm Springs, California, will had a
ppublic hrrarmpp at ks mooing Ot November 1.
and entire issue of acid newspaper and not in any 2006. The Clfy Council meetlnq boglns at 6:00
pm, In the Council Ch'rmber at City Hall, 3200
supplement thereof on the following dal to Wit: Eisf Tahqui z Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
ih m The purpose of this hearing is To solipl and Con -
October 18 , 25 , 2006 cider public comments on the proposed chaoyu
- —__ _ _- _ ,- to the Transportation Unlfonn Mdlg a[lon Fee prior
•---•--
•- ------ d the adoption of u Resolution revlsmn the Ity's
Comprelianalve Fee Schedule. under state law a4
ees charged by tile
e City must be reasonably re-
---------- tCd tO the actual CO,,IP or providing varlou^ pub -
All in the year 2006 - lic scr fcus.
REVIEW OF INFORMATION- The staff repent and
Lee .:upporting documen% regqardln this matter
are avwlnbU. roe public review ;d Inz �Iry Hall bo-
1 certify (Or declare) under penalty of perjury that the tween the hours of 8A0 a.m. and 5:00 ,rn . Mon-
foregoin is true and correct. day through Friday. Plouse contact the City
!: Clerk's Oapparhneni at (760) 323-a204 rf you
would like to schedulu an appointment to review
Dated at Palm f Springs, Calir these documents.
0 nia this — 2511i, —, day COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response
- -- to the+ notice may -be mad, verbally at the Public
Cl October- --- --, 2006 Hearing and/Or In well I efore•rnemearinqq Wee.
tcn commrnfs may be made to the Clry Gouncd
by letter (formal or hand delivery) to.
q Janes Thompson, Cly Clerk
C7 _ 3200 Eonl Tahgultz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA g22G2
Any t maynb e'li the proposed foe drily Thoseahon s
L•,I _ Ilalu re court may o abbe a ing de ib dose Issues
- rated at the Dunce hearing described in d This the
-- flev, Or In written rior, to t gubli delivered fa the
CIty Clerk Code
of prior, m the pp dhc hearing. (Gov-
- Crnment Cede SeOtlon 65005(b)(S))
• CV „
An opportunity will be given if said hearing for all
•- Interested per; ohs to be hoard Questions regard-
'' � � � •� Fee may
be dlr Tiledead to Tom Wrl oon ln, Unifo
rm
ty V arag-
Sr, at 7G0.323-e270.
o SI nr cealta Ayuda con Lsta carta, porfavor Ii.ime a
N la Ciudad de Palm Spnn y puede hab(ar con
.Nadine Fleger teletono (•/bd0) 323•F2AS.
OJames l nompsen, Ulry Ulerk
Published: 10/18, 10/25/2006 — —
t ?PA a
City of Palm Springs
U N
Office of the Citv Clerk
* c ryC0M OggiCO.4�e ` 3200 E. T.1h�luia Canyon ly.°ay • Palm Springy, California L)2262 4 %V. Tel! (760) 323-820 t - Fax (760) 322-8332 - Vrcb: Nww.P.palm-cprings.ca.us
q�FOR�
AFFIDAVIT
OF
MAILING NOTICES
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby
certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing to solicit and consider public
comments on the proposed change to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
prior to the adoption of a Resolution revising the City's Comprehensive Fee
Schedule, was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on
the 13'h day of October, 2006, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and
depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California.
(17 notices mailed)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 13th day of October, 2006.
MES "fHOMPSON
City Clerk
/kdh
H:\USERS\C-CLK\Hearing NoticesWffidavit-7UMF Fees 11-01,doe
Onc,13
Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS
MS ROXANN FLOSS
(BEL DESIERTO NEIGHBORHOOD)
930 CHIA ROAD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
MS DIANE AHLSTROM
(MOVIE COLONY NEIGHBORHOOD)
475 VALMONTE SUR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
MR BOB DICKINSON
VISTA LAS PALMAS HOMEOWNERS
755 WEST CRESCENT DRIVE
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
MS LAURI AYLAIAN
HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB ORG
377 WEST BARISTO ROAD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
VERIFICATION NOTICE ti9 =9 =;�
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA
INDIANS=D =E,_D
rc'
MS APRIL HILDNER
(TAHQUITZ RIVERS ESTATES)
241 EAST MESQUITE AVENUE
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
MR JOHN HANSEN
(WARM SANDS NEIGHBORHOOD)
PO BOX 252
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263
MR BOB MAHLOWITZ
(SUNMOR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP)
246 NORTH SYBIL ROAD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
MR BILL SCOTT
(OLD LAS PALMAS NEIGHBORHOOD)
540 VIA LOLA
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
MODCOM AND
HISTORIC SITE REP a
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ATTN SECRETARY
PO BOX 2743
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743
MS MARGARET PARK
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA
INDIANS
777 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, STE. 3
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
Mr. Fred Bell, Executive Director
BIA
77570 Springfield Lane, Suite E
Palm Desert, CA 92211
MR TIM HOHMEIER
(DEEPWELL ESTATES)
1387 CALLE DE MARIA
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
MS MALLIKA ALBERT
(CHINO CANYON ORGANIZATION)
2241 NORTH LEONARD ROAD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
MS PAULA AUBURN
(SUNRISE/VISTA CHINO AREA)
1369 CAMPEON CIRCLE
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
MR SEIMA MOLO1
(DESERT HIGHLAND GATEWAY EST)
359 WEST SUNVIEW AVENUE
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2459
MR PETE MORUZZI
PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE
PO BOX 4738
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738
CASE (TUMF Fees)
MRS. JOANNE BRUGGEMANS
506 W. SANTA CATALINA ROAD
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
1`rrrD U
EXHIBIT "C"
TUMF FORMULA FOR FEES
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF)
FORMULA FOR FEES
Fee Per TUMF Fee
Daily Trip Average Per Land -
Code TUMF Land Use Generation Unit Daily Trip Use Unit
Rate Code $ $
VIII - RETAIUSERVICES
1200.00 Retail/Services
(per 1,000 square feet)
1200.01
0 to 75
76.81
A
74
5,683.94
1200.02
75.001 to 76
76.43
A
74
5,655.82
1200.03
76.001 to 78
7568
A
74
5,600,32
1200.04
78.001 to 80
74.97
A
74
5,547.78
1200,05
80.001 to 82
74.28
A
74
5,496.72
1200.06
82.001 to 84
73.61
A
74
5,447,14
1200.07
84.001 to 86
72,96
A
74
5,399.04
1200.08
86.001 to 88
72.33
A
74
5,352.42
1200.09
88,001 to 90
71.73
A
74
5,308.02
1200.10
90,001 to 92
71.14
A
74
5,264.36
1200.11
92.001 to 94
70.56
A
74
5,221.44
1200.12
94.001 to 96
70.00
A
74
5,180.00
1200.13
96.001 to 98
69,46
A
74
6,140.04
1200.14
98.001 to 100
68.93
A
74
5,100,82
1200.15
100.001 to 120
64.34
A
74
4,761.16
1200.16
120,001 to 130
62.42
A
74
4,619,08
1200.17
130.001 to 140
60.68
A
74
4,490.32
1200.18
140.001 to 150
59.10
A
74
4,373.40
1200.19
150.001 to 160
57,66
A
74
4,266.84
1200.20
160.001 to 170
56.34
A
74
4,169.16
1200.21
170.001 to 180
55.12
A
74
4,078,88
120022
180.001 to 190
53.98
A
74
3,994,52
1200.23
190.001 to 200
52.93
A
74
3,916.82
1200.24
200.001 to 210
52,04
A
74
3,850.96
1200.25
210,001 to 220
50.66
A
74
3,748.84
120026
220.001 to 240
48.24
A
74
3,569.76
1200.27
240.001 to 260
46.20
A
74
3,418.80
1200.28
260.001 to 280
44.45
A
74
3,289.30
1200.29
280.001 to 300
42.94
A
74
3,177.56
1200.30
over 300
42.94
A
74
3,177,56
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF)
FORMULA FOR FEES
Fee Per
TUMF Fee
Daily Trip
Average
Per Land -
Code
TUMF Land Use
Generation
Unit
Daily Trip
Use Unit
Rate
Code
$
$
IX - MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL SERVICES
1225.0
Outdoor Materials/
96.21
D
74
7,119.54
Garden Center
1223.0
New/Used Car Sales
33.34
A
74
2,467,16
(compute bath, use
or
the highest)
210.50
D
74
15,577.00
1223.1
Rental Car Center
5.73
P
74
424.02
1222.0
Service Stations
168.56
H
74
12,473.44
1223.2
Convenience Market
845.60
A
74
62,574.40
1226.0
Coin -Operated Car Wash
16.60
1
148
2,456.80
1226.1
Full Service Car Wash
273.00
D
148
40,404.00
1261.0
Day -Care Center **
448
F
148
663.04
(see Conditional Waiver of TUMF)
1267.0
Private Schools'*
1.50
F
148
222,00
(see Conditional Waiver of TUMF)
X -
STAND ALONE RESTAURANT
(On own site with own parking
lot)
1281
Low Turnover
8995
A
74
6,656.30
Restaurant/Night Club
1282
High Turnover Restaurant
127.15
A
74
9,409.10
1283
Fast Food Restaurant
606.06
A
74
44,848.44
XI - FINANCIAL
1290
Financial Institutions
201.49
A
148
29,820.52
(1)I-) )G
TRANSPORTATION
UNIFORM MITIGATION
FEE (TUMF)
FORMULA FOR
FEES
!
Fee Per
TUMF Fee
Daily Trip
Average
Per Land -
Code
TUMF Land Use
Generation
Unit
Daily Trip
Use Unit
Rate
Code
$
$
V - RECREATIONAL
1232.0
Indoor Recreational Facility
37.64
A
148
5,570.72
1232.1
Bowling Center
33.00
O
148
4,884.00
(compute both, use
or
the highest)
333.30
D
148
49,328.40
1232.2
Outdoor Recreational Facility
90.38
D
148
13,376.24
1232.3
Race Track/Stadium
38.17
D
148
5,649.16
1810.0
Golf Course
5,04
D
148
745.92
1232.4
Live Theater
0,10
E
148
14.80
12325
Movie Theater
1.76
E
148
260.48
1232.6
Recreation Courts
38.70
M
148
5,727.60
VI - MEDICAL
1244
Hospitals
17.57
A
148
2,600.36
1252
Nursing Home ** (See
2.37
G
148
350,76
Conditional Waiver of TUMF)
VII - OFFICE
1210
Office Building
35.05
A
148
5,187.40
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF)
FORMULA FOR FEES
Fee Per
TUMF Fee
Daily Trip
Average
Per Land -
Code
TUMF Land Use
Generation
Unit
Daily Trip
Use Unit
Rate
Code
$
$
1-TERMINAL
1411
Commercial Airport
104.73
K
148
15,500.04
1411
General Aviation Airport
1.97
K
148
291.56
II - INDUSTRIAL
1310
Industrial/Automotive
6.97
A
148
1,031.56
Repair (compute both,
or
use the highest)
51.80
D
148
7,666.40
1315
Wind Turbines/Antennas
6.97
N
148
1,031.56
1340
Mini -Warehousing
2.50
A
148
370.00
III - RESIDENTIAL
1110
Single Family Detached
9.57
B
192
1,837.44
1120
Multi -Family (Also Time-
6.72
B
192
1,290.24
Share Units, Condos
1130
Mobile Home Park
4.99
B
192
958.08
1252
Congregate Care Facility
215
B or G
192
412.80
(Compute both, use the highest)
RMIIrebit] Ikq w
1233 Lodging (Ancillary Uses - 7.27 C 148 1,076.96
50% of individual rate)