HomeMy WebLinkAbout21752 - RESOLUTIONS - 11/1/2006RESOLUTION NO. 21752
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.
'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
Resolution No. 21752
Page 2 '
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
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 CEOA (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 I
into the administrative record, which includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1 Resolution No, 21752
Page 3
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 Reoort", prepared by
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.
Resolution No, 21752
Page 4 '
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
construction 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 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
Resolution No. 21752
Page 6
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
Resolution No. 21752
Page 6 '
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.
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.
That the public improvements to be funded by the TUMF are detailed in
the most recent version of CVAG's Transportation Project Prioritization
Study (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.
That the City has complied with the California Environmental Quality Act in '
the approval of the TUMF.
Section 4.
That the City Council hereby approves the "2006 Fee Schedule Update. Nexus Study
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.
Resolution No. 21752
Page 7
ADOPTED this 1 sT day of November, 20016.
David H. Ready, � er
ATTEST:
/Jfnes Thompson, City Clerk
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. 21762 is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on the 1st day of November,
2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember Pougnet, Mayor Pro Tern Foat, and Mayor Oden.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember McCulloch, and Councilmember Mills.
ABSTAIN: None.
ames Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California
r-w.(.Wff-3ydvaM
2006 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE, NEXUS STUDY REPORT
L.1
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 Quinta
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Rancho Mirage
County of Riverside
Prepared by:
Parsons Brinckerhoff
685 East Carnegie Drive, Suite 210
San Bernardino, California 92408
909-888-1106
www,r)bworld.com
PARSONS
BRINCKERHOFF
11 June 27, 2006
i
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 Traffic Growth Attributable to New Development....................................................28
4.1. Determining Traffic Growth.....................................................................................28
4.1.1. Background on CVATS Model ............. ...------------- •-------- ._._....... ,.........................
28
4.1.2. Determining Trip Growth Forecasted by the CVATS Model ..........................29
4.1.3. Converting Model Forecasts to Project Level Forecasts...............................31
4.2. Fee Category Share of New Trips.. --------- •...............................................................31
5-0 TUMF Collection Target ----------------------- ___ .......................... ........ ......... .-------------
5A1 Other Funding Sources...... ............................ --------------------
-------- _35
.............35
,
5.1.1. Measure A .... ...... ...... .............................. ___ ... .--------------------- ____
.................... 36
5.1.2. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)........................................37
5.1.3. Unfunded Share of RACE ........................................ ............................37
5.2. Developer Dedications ................... ___ ................•--................................................
39
5.3. TUMF Collection Target............................................................................................39
6.0 Fee Calculation
-------------------- 40
7.0 Recommendations and Conclusion..... ................. --------------------___
....... 42
7.1. Fee
Adjustments and Program Updates...............................................................43
7.1.1.
Annual Inflation Adjustment ........................
..........................43
7.1.2.
Regular Program Review and Update... --------------------- .....................................44
7.2. TUMF
Ordinance Amendments..............................................................................45
7.2.1.
Horizon Year and CVATS........ .....--------------------- .._........ ..............................
...... .__45
7.22
Trip Generation Rates .............-------- ____ ........................................
......_--•--------.45
7.2-3.
Applicability.........................................................................................................46
7.2.4.
Establishment of the Transportation Mitigation Fee.......................................46
7.2.5.
Share of Trips -------------------------------------- ___ .......................... ....................--------------
46
7.2.6.
Schedule of Fees....-•......................................................................................
.•47
7.2.7.
List of Projects on the Regional System .... ___----------------------------------------------
_______47
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
r
APPENDICES
1
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) _. .......I .......... ........................................ ..... .......................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
Table 7-1
CVAG TUMF Fee Calculation .... ........... ............................. ..... ............. .------ _.......... 41
CVAG TUMF Schedule of Fees— .......... ------ - ........... - ------ _ .................. _ ............... 42
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 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 II - 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 an 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 Souihern 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 Development Proiects (also known as '
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 7 June 27. 2006
California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs
1 imposing development impact fees in California.
Companion documents referenced in this report include the Transportation Project
Prioritizotion 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-seclions 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 care, 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
stag6s. The conclusions for each analysis stage are summarized below:
4i 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
(<I % of all trips) to traffic in the CVATS modeling area. If 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. -
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 I
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 SR111 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.
-- 1
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 3 June 27, 2006
Figure 1-1 CVAG TUMF Boundary
s ,
Legend
- ------ _" -- - _ - --- - -' PROPOSED TU7AF BOUNDARY
San eernefinohF j COUNTY I " r--
l Current 7U A4 F Bo unda ry
LINE a1
_.;a Mcmnue Regonal PCR _ _ _ — Boundary Proposed by WRCOG
�Rversrde County
{ JOSHUA TREE i PAa�arRoads
f
` NATIONAL PARK I ® CVAG Cities
NWm4, P5h L Uwan R uitlr ( fl
— f ., BORDER i P3d.s
CLOSING GAP
I �I
BETWEEN ', f
WRCOG & CVAG
SanNO /
M4TCHES CURRENT "Lake
I TUMF BOU14DARY -
•r l
4` An=Bmego ofxrt Stale Pink
(COUNTY'
C{erelen3tli ., i LINE
P alcnar Alin Stale Pedc ,Cle.elaitl lJF — ---
_ Pahmer Min S!Na Pai.
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
/ L
P w,
TOWNSHIP i
ul _ LINE j
a P;' (10E-11E)
Satan Sea State Park,
ii
Aam6.rreglollemit Slate Path '
Nexus Study Report
4 June 27, 2006
It 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 Park 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
Coachella 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 Quinta, 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 Cabozon Band 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 roads 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 Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 5 June 27, 2006
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 2004 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
e 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
typ6 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 Nollan ruling
clarifies that once the adverse impacts of development hove been quantified, the
QC_aLgove P.nt mi rct than rinct im .nt the relationship hatwaen tha nrniprt and the
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.Ct. 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
(1996) CoLAppAth 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_
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 7 June 27, 2006
2.0 FUTURE GROWTH AND THE 14EED 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 (SLAG) 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 belter transportation system, integrated
with fhe 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 rote of
approximately 2.6% annually. During the some 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.
Table 2-1 Socio-Fconomic Data for CVAG TUMF Study Area (2000-2030)
1
1 2000
1 2030 1
Change
% Change
% Annual
Population
j 320.081
686,590
366,509
115 %
2.6%
Households
117,539
260.373
142.834
1M.
2.7%
1Employment
127,322
255,596
128,274
101 0
2.4%
Source:
SCAG 2004 RM Destination 2030, 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, traffic 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.
Southern California Association of Governments, Deslinotion 2030 - Executive Summarv. April
2004
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 8 June 27, 2006
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)
(Measure of Performance (Daily)
I 2000
I 2030
Change
%Change
%Annual
JVMT- TOTALALLFACILITIES
5,692,310
10,474,430
4,782.120
84`e
2.l o
(VMT-FREEWAY
2,237,250
4,184,330
1.897,080
83 %
2A o
40TAL ARTERIAL VMT
3,405,060
6,290,100
2,885,040
85% I
211
VMT IF LOS D OR WORSE -TOTAL ALL FACILITIES
498,468
5,829,620
5,331,152
1070%
8-57
VMT IFLOSDORWORSE- FREEWAYS
0
2,940,430
2.940.430
No
n/a
TOTAL ARTERIAL VMT (IF D OR WORSE)
I 498,468
2,889,190
2,390,722
480%
6.0%
7. OF ARTERIAL VMT WITH LOS D OR WORSE
I 157.
467.
31%
NOTES
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP, Destination 2030. Year 2000 and Year 2030 Baseline Network scenarios
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total Combined distance that all vehicles Irovel on the system(
LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratiosl
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 to capacity (v/c) ratio threshold for LOS D is based on the Transportation Research Board
2000 Edition of the Hiahwav capacity. Manual (HCM 2000) LOS Maximum VJC 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
arterial 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 TUMF 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 480% or 6.0% compounded 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 fhe 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 artenal 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 using ciltiamate ft rnding sources, the T IMF pry ram establishes the share of i rnfunded
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 10 June 27, 2006
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 (Le_
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 Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 11 June 27, 2006
I�
3.0 TPPS AND RACE
The Transportation Project Prioritization Sludy {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
$2,602,939,252_
Due to the essential nature of the TPPS and RACE in establishing the TUMF nexus and
associated program fee levels, it was necessary to review the assumptions and
calculations of these related studies in the context of TUMF. A few main conclusions
were formed in relation to the cost estimation methodology and projects included in
the TPPS and RACE, as described in the sub -sections below.
3.1. Cost Estimation Methodology
The review of the RACE cost estimation methodology yielded two primary conclusions:
• The RACE cost assumptions were reviewed and found to be within industry
standards for the development of planning level cost estimates for a system
total.
• Construction and right-of-way costs have been escalating at a rapid rote in
recent years. In order to maintain accurate estimates and representative fee
levels, it is recommended that the RACE and resultant TUMF fee schedule be
updated annually to keep pace_
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
12
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
Figure 3-1 Projects in the 2005 TPPS Update (page 1 of 6)
�fy f
PR51 i PIM P11sm RA53 'PRfL
- >`J I _ . __ten'— M � _ H0.[l� NASiB= Iil Hnn t •1 '
+� �-—----r�-'��'•i. .ePq
I!i;t��
!
LEGEND:
JI u51 0.N2 g iJim
I1 I�I 0.�_�Ir _i
L.!_—__'�
Line/symw
Score
00-59
60-7.9
10O11.9�'-- '
••�•• J']
120139 __` 4
IR
140+ LI--I I
JA• 9-37
VI,3 K: , Ohlsu &: la ogl
�i rr...... ... e, P,. —,
z
Figure S-1
Studied Segments and Total Scares
S-24
I
J
CV.4G 200j TPPS Vpdare
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 13 June 27, 2006
Figure 3-1 Projects In the 2005 TPPS Update (page 2 of 6)
V
Scale
01
T W.
: FA1 r x �" OLS MP!!5
LEGEND: nlit3 a!Y xunz ?�' Prna ��'$ o rt
M../Symbol sce �• _ �, ,".,I ��.0 or ^ ; a'S'. �•F_i
00 9-9
! l �
. , 140 12 0+ 9I �.L�E.'-JF�y.�_.
N.
JA407
Figure S-2
cG Studied Segments and Total Scores
r,..,., ..: ........,! 5-25 CKAG 2,705 iPPS Update
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 14 June 27, 2006
Figure 3-1 Projects in the 2005 TPPS Update (page 3 of 6)
r1 r-
LEGEND: J
Mne/Symbol Score
0.0 59
@0 79
-- 8A-99
1001f.9
�- -- CI 12 Q139
1A9937
OWN Ka .GIHL�&rua�<<
r_.- i _„
r
N
� Sca[e
COUNTY OF171VERSiD-'-w_
-'
Figure S-3
Studied Segments and Total Scores
5-26
CMG "5 TPPS UpAve
CVAG TUMF Nexus Siudy Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update i5 June 27, 2006
LEGEND:
Linel$Mbd Score
0.0 59
60.7.9
. __.-.._.
B.0-9.9
. ,
10..0-119
—• �� - 1'f
12.4139
14.0+
ih4937
Ka'z Mflu&Asmdxlr:
P? mreg rid E,g m[u ey
CVAG 7UMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
Figure 3-1 Projects in the 2005 TPPS Update (page 4 of 6)
1-: e �
d I � � � '��'�•' ; i � I Norm
�--
I � i � t "� .i S} .ion[ •y � r `. '
p MIRAGE 1!
ANCtIO
-Y FLI E55 Pr-% FL ,Yv FSI 'i FS]
`' •� L'_} it NJ a� :'_ r i r�, r-� `t •l .+,1JJI
- • `� a;.� I. �����_ ,. � r �'p4�� �I - ccs I r. ' �i�.i �CL��'J
fl-i �1 ,��{I l i i �'y,{ jJ 9��Y �.+.-�r,rf1;�L�_
1 J k o- nT 777 H r ii ➢'Pi F�I �lf� ,/ - L',
✓ f
Figure S-4
Studied Segments and Total Scores
S-27
16
T FIi`S lfrl _ .
,R' � Fri ptETfc"•�.,
G l •S'r ...........
.r
CVAG 2005 TPPS UF,Avc
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
Figure 3-1 Projects in the 2005 TPPS Update (page 5 of 6)
" r=..� ——=1•l�n ..^�L F- ;` ..0 T-P - j Not To
41'_^Y_I'�-', IJ I � � i ,I�i! � ` 5Ci• I ,'�S v i- i�GPRwIiI j
"WM '= _l: ? D i��+ w' - i -- I' :Y=fXi'Bs'•'i! - f' ` IY� i
n{{{ f( ^— .�"�..1 �'v✓irryI�I�-C�` [' ,frl _. �,-, 'iT':_ i. .l ,\`A /,
_ [T-
A' ` mac,{{ _�:'y�'1 v a'f? _. '
3. `r1 f D!h d'.• - fJ rl Z1. r�ny I•I= ki' ' uvn3•.
a C04C�.
��.
„K
i.-��_• j_FDunz�.Z}—
l�kF71' a 'c-
3,
c 3- n� �f51`'`.,J J .!T.11 � 3n_tl i '���.' �+';� "=!F.- ... _ ".1 y:.L"•�' .1�j� v` 5om
W Min
Sol
LEGEND- " 50N
c ��ir� t'� t�t���� ire�J�iII ��•
I] SO[ -if 3 Iso ri `YE-_ SUf._ _ SOG _SBR, _
Line/Symbol Score .A` .
6.0-7.9svt`\�`
_.... _ 8.0 9.9 .-' ? 52PSRC 510 33E 53F
. • f,1 12.P13.9 _� _ r_ l[l.sxla
140+
F ff "L'", - _ — MA
J,S4937
Figure S-5
Studied Segments and Total Scores
KR1z.G4LLSD�lLnudstes S'-,28
Ff--.f ,,a a 6•n .,.,r CVAG zoos TPPS Updrnr
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 77 June 27, 2006
M M
Figure 3-1 Projects in the 2005 TPPS Update (page 6 of 6)
Y_s9p
IN
;r'! +L a -_ �l�.lz
�i. 1 _ � `� � ✓-�� i� .� 56B r • sic . � I Sw • 56E _ __ . I_56F __ _. • .— _ � —_
i 59A J _ i ,fi86 53C j
��'•, it f—
I I
€ f
rc6]6-~1- `6 j� I�LEGEND: I' �L 43H— —J�62
sxn�
i1 I J I
I I I f
Line/Symbol Score
0.0 5-9
10.611.9
12.0.f3.9
�--- a 19.0+
'6�B
E I 1
iA9)37
Figure S-6
Studied Segments and Total Scores
S-29 CPAG 2005 TPPS Urdaic
grad Eagi eerimp
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Updole 18 June 27, 2006
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page l of 7)
CF_Cgh fra.'Cly, C0A=C0acWP3, AY3=fb wHo Wgs, INffi-hvl� rw--inn V.U'3, LG-f O1'nka
PO=pa6 07 a.?&,R?.Yn ,sovs. RY-Rw.c o6_.V.7 fM'C=f.6nncu7arde0, C-Ud T Os
- .-
;;At ii
', --i:
][:i;' r 1-
PIP 1s (!-f-d'._':al Sii'.-y, r Ali •li - .. -
�.�
.- � iLz -`.i ,i
's ..1+r1]1
UE 54
0524
WA
89U1,11,
I YAV 111 10 RII.11✓0 Ws L'1
100
$45.W.100
V4,64211W
NCNP•OE ST
B?b4
IND
33ckO113
Wma S I IDIG
16 0
MADISON ST
3046
IND
UNC
Ire. AY& W Frsd lVn,lnO fn lmisSN Intl
160
?317920al)
SM1325,760
HONTEAEV AVE
13-036
Ulm
1 101a Roman Rd
160
;31625A40
FIA 951,200
DATE PALM G9
MID
GG
1.1DO Vans [3icl reaFan and Of al Lenz Gym Chin)
15 0
$8117%eg0
F75,)2s,Bv
HIED WART KG UR
8S0
LO
U10
Owa F&ms 9dM.Ialfugen Si
15.0
13177F�421)
?73,E0],303
E PAW ;}N Dd
8240
CC
D319 "am!] P<.'n SNIN:WGalNwral C!r1 Llmlls
150
t72.077,c25
sw.97,725
INDIAN AVE
6.153
P9
esNWe
Otl Palm 3lxhys Clry Llmlf Io FA xn3 Prcl C' al WOfmFor Rs]
14.0
j202,1,)MED
$203,CG5,175
HIGHVIAV 111
13-aM
AV
DAL
R3:rA:ra
cmEl 10 E1d]raw p
140
37,nm3,2'D
529,4N.315
HIGHWAY 111
13 56
AV
SAL
Bsc Lrrn
Eb ai0 DI Ia Ailrs Ava
14 0
*81E432,100
SIJ,: ,G75
INA isaN sr
64R7
IND
Hwy 111 In Wfa AYs
140
".47E,,65D
S397,iE2,126
VAN BUFEf. aT
8.207
IND
UNG
In90 NYC] In Ave 40
14 0
$4,05was
S3I 1,P:c5,85il
GEh'_'ABFRYTRNL
13 ]2
PS
O.Cdc.
Wlulewnr R,T ST Yhy
130
5284,991,920
5676,617,?au
AVE 52
B 220
DOA
Bzawe
Hwr 11119 SR PBS (Ind Er ]
130
$13.090.071)
$682,617,A30
AVE62
8-336
DAL
Del8 m
AV a W I.R aB310
13.0
596,461301)
5519.515.780
OA VAU RD
B33B
OG
UNC
0-L,t a
Fwye Da V31 f-1010 (IG a RR €V ]
130
S42IM5,M0
5652,0W,g60
HIGINIAY 111
3354
AV
CAL
P.a:rtara)
Pa IT DONVI616'1'NAS C.4 ROD, W Cock Ef
13D
A,11C32,40D
aiu3,033,'s;0
HIGEPIAY I I
B331
IKD
CAL
MAtrrk
lacksw SI la Inda Blvd
13.0
$4,600,080
FFS7.69I.e;0
POP.TOLAAVE
13-373
Pll
Bah,Ncra
ru.V, PL116a Ave I. I D L^
130
W.630,MO
SM3.271,450
DATE PALM OR
B-09
CG
Vs'a G1�,0 01 10 (bd 1, 10 I: V OR 134 1
13.0
$110g090
$70.661 460
VISTACNR:O
H-CS4
GC
DaIB Palm Of ra Da Vail M"wssing Ink)
13.0
W.W6,520
5T23,0.57MR
PALM DYl4 DR
B 149
PS
Rc nm P.a m E PHm Cym DI
130
16143k320
5723,456,NO
MAJ)120:4 ST
13.208
N!D
FVIINe!.hoar, Sl l 10 IG(Irc1 Cu4r Rn)
130
t-0S,110,f@0
sm,-90,^-30
AVE 50
B 216
MA
'm Dian & 10 Hny I11
130
45,962,d10
577%%1,am
.AVE 54
B Yla
LOA
S)1vf 5L 10 HYy I 11
13.0
F%G39,4S0
57sR; OI,840
AVE62
aMO
uric
FISP]5 Si. )OSR.:TS
13.0
1V,Fi39,LC0
57U.T70.6S0
GRC�LEY RD 7 GCCF L LUB DR
0.3;9
FG
Fs]I, Rd q".Ie Ule Ava
130
F3,194,00
5790,%5,240
]ADSSLEY RD I GO'_F C LUB DR
1J0.3
P3
Lm Sar:as ME Pa'm C,n
130
$2.154240
5793,113,ag0
HAP-9150f45T
0,353
GO.A
Ave 54ID AvaW
13.0
ta.W,520
STr37n7,t00
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
200E Fee Schedule Update 19 June 27, 2006
Table 3-T Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page 2 of 7)
CG-CARr c lGly, COA--Cb;cift DfAS-fl W fiel,5h'.%% 1h'I IJh, R% frnYan 4Ah,, LQ-� C,'M.'a
PD-Palm LLxerf A.5•=.°3Sn SpiVg , %Vr LYfC.L M.XWMQd, G4 L-C.au
t•1�n111 "- -u .# Ff'ad �: '5.���:�
:�,� s�: _ .: � '
_ ,._ : -
. - ? r � ,, r, , :
4. _
is 'i A;1?' f -
1�..I_.Je
4 i,'
tiI�AP
•id ri;-.:, �:..- L� :•ilia Slrlail'.;: - .-.
- L 17[_`_-
�lr-.. ,-.
._
_ _ r
PALM CYN 0,9
B449
PS
Avho Rd lD Ramin Rd
125
$B,W0,970
M,607,470
HIGHWAY 111
0.350
IND
CAL
Sl to Ia 6e. S'
120
SaMiAdo
$813,B49,4113
RAM014 RD
B 077
PS
iIrlw %VaY 10 E1';K- Ral
12.0
$7,856,374
S62i,7D5,784
AYE 4B
B402
COA
IIIO
Ja:A=_rn stI-van BAGA_q
120
E5,646,427
S9E7,354,211
CCQ(ST
6439
PD
Cmn1ry 610 to Wrl'ana sr erg
i20
$13,634,178
Wi,636,367
I NDLC4 GN14 DR
B-144
PS
R&OW Rd rD AIHo Rd
120
$$4B41060
$843,502.417
I,Y01AP4 CW4 OR
0445
PS
Awo Pb to ;a -Wm Cfi,'. Rd
120
$3,401,069
MI.9031486
VAP14ERFID
B fm
CC
UIHC
h}ahnNn Vs R110 Dala Palm❑r
120
S15,7A01$44
S667,629,63-D
AVE54
B-222
COLA
HeAlun Sl la TyW 51
12.0
$3.024,030
SB73,711,820
AV€62
"15
UNC
Fllfl Sl 10 FIRM Sl
12.1)
(b",Wkw
52e0,317,957
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
8247
GOA
AW 4&'➢1N:n Rd ID Ava TO
T20
EYA6,00D
$gd7,64%%7
M MEREY AVE
B-307
PO
P:d
;larcy Land to C,"I1 y OHb Or
120
$3,ES.WD
Ym1,234,057
M.ONTEFSYAVE
8869
PD
WA
Frr6Y SWIra Lr to Guald Fo'd of
120
E836,62S,452
KONTEREYAVE
813i0
PD
WA
QXWJ Fwd DI 10 Mnah$hcre Cl
12.0
37,421,210
M4,04dH2
RONTEREYAVE
B 571
PD
Ohm -5 UQ or la 1 10 Prr1 1 to r.; acd RR B,1
120
$T,CB,I'U
$905,672,962
RAI.:G\4 RD
8 059
CC
PS
BanUxoP Gr ndlry Tra: Id 4'111,1marDl R++ 11rc4 Or m VM!YN&lw Rk']
11 5
$9,631,286
$915,504 MO
RAMON RD
11 05B
PS
Pam CW1 (Jne xrnse V1ay 41ral Behsm 5.Drm Crr4 x31gj
115
$f0,271,906
$3:5,77&,156
INOIAN AVE
B454
FS
UIRD
201h AVD 0131N Avn 11W :nlE lbn of IMIa, A.W d 201h A+'a)
115
62,033,5M
59Y7,241,658
AVE M1AIRPMT BLVD
a IM
COA
UIfC
Bac tend Ave 68 SR W IG
i1 0
$35,172IM3
S%3,013,653
ANEW
3$17
CAL
B"Nbll6 .Ave 86 SR 60r
110
$36,RTgf['Fi
$LQ9,9I3,EE8
CROCSLEY RD 7 GCLF CLUB DR
B-332
PS
aCklMn,a Ava 3410 Las 5inlc� Fol er a1 Pam C-M CI All
11.P
$7163kiA4
$1,007,450,B62
GOLF CENTER PMA'Y
6346
IND
BackUna Goff 00W PNvl7I ID IG
if
SI{,WI=
V.02,36B,id2
H[G MAY it
8-359
Ilya
CAL
Barr4rra Nadsm S11014CR?3SI
It
$9,578,670
E1,03i.847,812
MA➢ISON ST
B 04 4
1 IND
LO
Ava 62 WD 4e 69
11-0
$41&4,BPO
$1,036,M612
VESTACHINO
B-053
CC
E Bark or ll'E,la br Br 10 1=1161.1 2IVd
11.0
$],x0,2W
$r,043,732,812
RAL'.ONRD
B 668
PS
E1 CIeb Ad ID Gana A. Iiy Trail
11.0
$B4O58,2C6
51,051,7i15,018
44EAB
Bim
L4D
HIvIn S110 F4[ldOa Sl
11.0
01637A54
ShOE4.M0,072
AVE46
13-i01
IND
MONDE, 1910 J"..srn 91
i1 ❑
$8,607,054
L1,D4,007 m
AVE52
BMe
ODA
WO OW
10'k 3r 10 Cm6MnN
Ira
`t3,1281760
$1,072,129,1)(M
AVE 52
6.110
DDA
UNG
34R 10 Frel9ck SI
11.0
$6531,540
41,077,661,448
E PALM CYN DR
8161
PS
Sff is9 Way 10 Farrel a
11.0
we%G Q
SF,OeTf,110,246
UTTLEMORIONG0 RD
B lei
DH$
Rdaw BNV u TM Yanh Pz1nn Tr
11.0
$5,B70,f2e
81,063,7&A3EG
DILLON RD
B469
PS
URC
9P.82 lomd an Asa (lurl. mlKsa- ren of blbn Ad B lntlan Are)
11.0
S12,522,00
$1,083,302,668
TWO ROW H PALM.SS TA
Bilk
MQG
rnlai Me ID 111116 muonp R, 1ItraWry IVAJ
MD
V.942,2E0
51,11y3,.4{,9.13"
CHASE SCHOOL RD
0-42
01G
I. iO to naval Pd im sslla] nral
k1.0
$i,9341400
EI,103,1 i5;.�S
VA.BNER RD 7 AVE 42
0228
IND
M•1agsaa 51104hJNed 21
[[0
S8,041,440
L1. 116,223,745
DATE PANT, DR
B 238
CC
DAM Share Or to Ramm PR
HA
sB,55o.m
E1,124,811,012
M CNOOEST
B-241
IND
Ava w for to IC
If
S9,72i'm
51,131,S:a,r%2
AVE82
6310
UNC
Ja[%:TI .IbVa12u2rI EI
11.0
SB,105,406
EI,142,637,408
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
200E Fee Schedule Update 20 June 27, 2006
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page 3 of 7)
CCd hw Cly, CCW-Lba�l'a, C,H3=00esa Irrl SpILW4 L,VD,1 T , lYl=trm7rn LW , LD=La
PD-PaYn Db n, PS=Pa.Yn .'9V"Vr, R.Nd7alo7olA_Va5's, L4VF3tra*,mlordsd, G1LCdrf r
.4
vS1:• rlF r: Vy '�� f
•.s
:7 _1'1,Y'F l..: 11
a
. - _..
- .- �._,_
s�•-
-
- .'.- :i.l•..--- -.
,...
AVEB_'
6a1,
1R.
-
it en Un'1-0 Hnl QVI• LA1c
'
t1D
$3,w1.44D
st.lws�,9xs
C-313
fC
Tye-4
1.D
57,833,796
$7,75gfi77,734
DA VALLAO
3337
Of, 014L
Am 3101 10J,.Bsing lMi
130
F4,7B9,5[0
$7,1d1,EG7,27-0
MCNTEREYAVE
3-w5
PD
ROMY 11110 RQJ Warng Of
11.0
$21184,WD
S7,IB.5,632,D7=
DAMON RD
B1s7
UFO
1.10b4d WrareyAvuilnd ln!s•Sarllmor R3rnm Hda Va'nv Rd{
ID.7
V.694,777
$1,17006,851
RAMON RD
C 18B
GINO
MWwny Ave lD Tas3tad Pa'ms Oyn Rd [ixR In1Fs"llin OT RN'nm Roa Mmleray
1D.5
F2217w,,939
41,192,043050
AY.)
VISTACNILO
C052
98
B4GIW9 GWW ALIQy Tra5104Vfalas'dar Rx(.rd. Br aWWL: sler Rt)
100
$95,461,03D
b425e,41M,450
JACKSON ST
B-M
IND
Back) m Jeckcm 511 10 IC
10-0
$161ce2r20D
$1 273,4B6,M50
wASNRsYiTOrI ST
6U28
W
Ava 5D In Ava 46
100
$0
$11273,405,6;A
'RASHINGWON ST
6027
LEI
Ave 46 m HWy 111
10.0
$0
$12-M.48610W
IAADISCXN ST
8 w3
LO
Ar"M Ave W (missng €*1
70.0
$7,03M, D)
SI,Ya3,493,210
6LADIMN ST
6045
ING
Ave 50 la AW 49 Lmisshg Cry
100
$6, w<i
£1,268,480,8{0
RAMON RD
!t 031
CC
Dale Pam Or 0 Da Wil Rd
10.0
$Bp271250
£[; tb,527,060
COONTRYCLUB DR
8W9
PO
M 'WQy Ave 10 Pa Ida Ava
100
$7,559,376
$1,304.DW.435
COUNTRYCLUB OR
S03D
PD
Pulda Ave IB OlU 51
100
$7,46,10
$1.311,792.5%
OWWRYCLUB OR
9092
PD
E," 6,Or*Oafs Clap Or
10.0
$9,470,E63
$1,353,263.2%
%VE52
8111
GOA
Fratl1ck 5110 R3fscxl Slprc.1 Irllrise:.Yun of Ar052 a.1d 5q-E6)
100
$2,428,622
y1,322,689,11-18
AVE 0IA MIP RT BLVD
B-118
COA LING
025 ci V7 C4 V3n &ten SI IQ H=lrlsm S1
700
S9,039,079
£U231,693,857
COOK ST
8.40
PD
101-a mler Pr m Fred%Varlog Or
700
$2,S33.595
SI;2X632,552
I NOWN CWl DR
B-14B
PS
Ra wl CI, b Rd W Otl Pan.Spings Glly H IIN
IOP
$6,S48,700
$1.1413,479,`e$2
E PALM CY If DR
8.15,
PS
Farrell Or" Germ lwlq Trwl
700
SB.946,E00
£1,852,425.W
VAF:lERRD
B-186
U140
01m99 b 63N Rd ID WMNnglmr 51
100
$3,33B,2[0
1U 55,762,062
MIMS AVE
B-202
ING
JaYa'sm Bt ID L'h916MIW RV
10.0
SSa76,683
V.161,2X?42
JEFFERSOH ST
8-235
Hill
AY%40 W Are 28
10.0
skit s
$1,365,38 ev
AVE FiE
3-221
00.A
'ten Baal 4 lO Harsaa SI
100
S4,5g WA
$1,363,950,547
VAFNER RD I AVE 42
B-225
IND
Jnljar-n 90 10 Madsm 91
100
Ss. 185.440
<_I.375,135367
DATE PALL.I DR
B237
CC
,Wald Frid Or W Dnh Srne Of
10.0
$7,+54,',100
$1,992,1300,267
E PALM CYN OR
C M
CC UNC
P1m5p1rr]&Q7 nAal C%IV Uanre 10 CalM1OAa1 qn R' {rrr.1 Mooring Br. al W
10.0
$7.336,,%0
$[,389.M.277
Daled'0 q} Co)
JACKSON ST
8246
IND
Ave 46 ra Are 46
10.0
VW7,091
£L,J97,243W
PORTOLAAr
6255
PD
Hwy 11110 Mag11�a Fe.s Or
10,0
C-021098
3090.145,456
AVE50
B032
GOA,
SR-M IQ W(nlesng lnL[
10.0
$231214199a
$,421,'YA,451
AVE 62
CA74
VNC
Pd45I ID Pln Ye SI
10.0
$3,B10r-02
$L.427,970,9W
SOB HOPE DR
8-322
UHC
pa -non Rom 110"I'Drig lla,{
10,0
£1,4213,693.896
G EMU)FOAD DA
8316
PD
Cc-* Sl la Fruk Sliall a Or
10.0
$0
$1.429.690.1%
HARRISON ST
0351
ODA
Grq [,J, Bsri ra Ave'2
1"
$S,FnD,w
$1,435,550,6913
tICf4TEREYAVE
MOO
FO FIM Wr
CaNry VW LY Vn-rank Snalra of
100
$50751280
$1.440,63,%376
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 21 June 27, 2006
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page 4 of 7)
CG-C hxtaf Cty, COA-aDadvlDHS, aswibr4,:}ys, IND=OXM AM1-WASn 55a.49, LO-fa Q*ra
PD=Pa A+ r6 P&P!,An SWus, R,N=RamhD Wage, fAVF-lhaYvtt'PorYaf CA--Cafr,rzs
5--_�. -
111.{I'1-'_iF ii' t=. "3�stF}f,�t.�)
--t-'..-s• +-^—r--ice'_ _ _
.--
`-•'j
p.t n r; T.n
- -
J!•Lr1u.(`
'.L„ .�.i 1'•.
-i ['i
_:�7 :1JJ
Sl.r n_l J'i'.a9'`I fY,lrih�il' _ ..
--I a.::..-.I-,••1:
- ;'i. -
AVF4B
0.403
irA
IrRD IJm,
h'm Eurcn Sl lo4;'nl Hv.}66 [fnl lmeuxr.m C:,hlo4a�go Hwy Faj
9.5
$3,1D5,510
£7,443,747,4?5
HACIENDAAVE
L1F9B
BHS
LHUo Mor.ljo na In Pahl Dr
0.5
SID1347,09D
51,151,12b,56d
JACKSONST
924f
INO
1101010 P:.a 4ti
95
572,1�,49B
51,463,327,087
AVE50
B-10
COA
Bn(11-10
FMW Ave 508R An IC
9.0
$"i5,930,L00
£h509,227061
AVE 65 FA RPORT BLVD
8.121
UHC
3r,l M,4
PIk Sl n, YIL Ind Grado S,rla&1%n adsr Huy I I I afid A lRJ
90
$6,317,0f0
$1,609.S .071
AVE52
B23D
GOA
;UCAL.nx
Gr66,a&p6ranm a' I MV 11 NSPRR
90
S4,Ll@,WD
$1.614„196,971
CCCK ST
B.52B
PD
Bachk,
R 9Whil walc.•um
9D
$12,128,16D
$1,52B,535,031
DILLON RD
B-3f0
GOA
PariU-o6
DI .n FU 11O IC
90
$141060,001)
ME41,376ASI
D ILLON RD
8-341
ODA
Hu'Vf-a
Dllm RAJ SR aE,9 C
9.0
SI4,W5,000
41.&W.10DASI
JIMHAW 111
B367
IW
LQ GAL
Ba.rr_ra
law AVe to, W�hhg-n Avo
9.0
$10,033,609
$L,51431243,631
HFGR'A'AY 1Fr
B3:8
IND
CAL
Bdr llo
.mPersul Sl 10 WJsan Sl
PO
$716'9,840
51,573,783,471
MADISaNST
6046
IND
026 ml d 01 Avo 4010 Rwi i t l fMI cols=lry lhs]
80
44,923,LOO
51,570170%,975
HASANRD
8030
CC
LSIceu BNtl 10 DYa Pdm Of
90
£8,279,630
SI, 536,896,531
FRANK R NATRA DR
B072
Rh1
Bob Hq» Cr 0 k1molay lr4a(Ind lnlN: l an of FeanKSmile 6 BCb Hope)
90
s1.t5S,594
V.5N!,142.IQS
FRANKSINATRA DR
8D73
PU
HM
A!w§r&yAva la Ra4i Ave
9.0
WMILV5
$1,E9',371,221
FRANKSINATBA OR
B074
PD
Panda Avo a GxC 81
90
$5,033,1150
£1,fi01,dW",O7F
COUNTRY CLUB Dn
B-078
RM
BaY li ]o Or 10 Valc{cy Ave
90
$1,03111i3
SI,602,484,679
AVE52
B-r07
IND
U^IO
Msrlsm Sl$a 4l.rr1.69r
9.0
0176%530
$1,61)9,242,209
AVE52
6-0OB
IND
UNC
I!. Olio Jr/dsm Sl
90
$6,903,270
$1,616,1W.479
AVE551AAPORT BLVD
9-in
WA
URG
(SPAR IO E sick of R 61 rm4WIH VU, Slum UN
9.0
$1,644,010
S1,6i7,794,499
NOII•YTAtIi VIEW
8-084
L'8C
IOi al Rd A Mill AVE
90
$8,N86,230
51,6E%Caoj19
THOLIAgD PALYB RD
B 163
LTNG
'R3 w R0 I'. Dsm Rd
go
o'I B,Bf5,0]0
57,645,245,779
DILLON RD
B-f70
UNC,
Inom We I[. Palm Or pdr In;oScenm a D1161 R6E Pan: D;J
90
$12.W9,400
$1,658.275, 149
DILLON RD
13-174
UNG
TMU90W Pams C',n f1d m SUnnw Fn:k P,U
9.0
S25,072,500
LI,i33,347,619
DILLON HD
B-175
UNC
S-"y Ruh. Rtl IOAve W
90
W%475,000
$14712,822,C19
DILLON RD
B 179
Ut"
WBllewarar R la Ha; 111
90
$4140P,460
£1,717,2329,0
VARYERNO
U-180
CG
UNG
Palm Or to Mw'Ilz V•aw R.tl
30
S8,770,074
£1,726,010,153
VARNER RD
8182
CC
UNC
Dam Palm DI to Aami Rai
90
$C+8,015,025
£1,754,025,175
VAFNER RD
B183
U,YO
R.'run Atl In Sl[Ol6ray Aa,
9.0
$4,2101821
Sh7C8,255,789
M15510H LAKES BLVD
B-09l
D118
UNC
mdan A" m Mlle Mu, uo HO
9.0
S11r546,970
$1,7M304,699
HACIENDAAlE
B-113e
DHS
Pa'rn Dr lDi.•u:n+aln NVn ntl
90
$f0,7451B19
$1,777,SW,,UA
MILESAVE
a203
NrD
CInIm 81 ElvJ
90
$9,206,164
£f,76a,81S,503
AVEW
P-216
IND
15ad stt181 ID Limed La
40
$7,128,040
$1,793,949,543
AVEW
a
GOA
IND
Ja)SCA Si IO VJ b.-J.-+
90
$8,66B,120
$11800153g6&S
JACKSON ST
aN9
COA
114D
Alo 48 ra A,.W
90
36,467,91)
£1,8CG,W2,10a
PORTOLAAVE
0.217
fO
'.wnuy rle6 Ul m Fl s11. 9rall a Dr
90
W.B55,952
51,819,049,055
PORT01AAVE
B 258
PO
Rrak Sm113 R Io 3cta1N FmG ❑:
90
$B,SD3,600
57,6�0,552,655
AVE SO
0M3
GOA
Or 51 AllMnor Gar.-- (in OJKJ
90
S2,1031463
$1,822,6W,135
.AVE 44
B 3W
IND
I7nvnD 5110 P"M flu I.r I Lw WNW MPOI
90
526,199,330
V.S%,955,46$
BOB HOPE DR
B 321
RM
UNC
0,1 1 Cga In R,wx RAJ
90
$11,540,4)D
W.W3,995,869
CATHEDRAL CYN DR
B 323
CC
T611Wn Rtl 13 E Pdrn Gp1
90
V.68D,1`c8
A,671,975,833
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Repoif
2006 Fee Schedule Update 22 June 27, 2006
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project [page 5 of 7]
CC-"4G* IGAY, COAUCbaduna. ❑N6=191AW h'c4-"ag , WD-193Y:, lV1=Wvn V.4ns, 1-0-ra O*ra
PD=A*nOasert, PS�Pafm 5pkgs RS}RmoYoft!•3v, UMC pw�sd, CALCaSnns
a.
'1.Mn•Lwuslt'•'•wz-'raP"�:.'ll
�J,]PTP, ,I d d
.0 F'= x 4' id•3 ^
,
^-; ssrs•n vi+vf-- _-__: _ _ _- _
p `• . .._+1. -1,'1 :'�1..4[�[r1T r
- 'tI':1
T '=5.
- '; a'1 x. :%t'I,J>a�G. yr' -- -
�i
r.- _•3•;? •;i �'.
_
_ __
CATHEDRAL H Da
b
I: sm NVuuee err, w m D,r-- i n1.ro O
90
94,2.4e,704
GATHEDR4L CVN DR
R327
CC
UNAg Where Ca ID Rarno, Fd
90
$1.11 DAM
GRCSBLEY RD7GCU CLUB DA
B331
PS
IAsga le Ava *he 34
90
84 MXO
DA VALL RD
3326
CC R1.r UKC
WGaILn Way 10 Ave 33
9.0
S2,232,937
DA VALL RD
B339
CC UNC
110 rO Vaft r Rd (Inl R al Long Gyn CMI, rr1rg rrq
9.0
57.770,PCO
ORAPEFAUIT BLVD
8348
MA
kw W I. Aye
90
$5,955,2;0
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
83C9
GOA
Ava W ro Am 54
B0
$7,074,W0
MONTEREYAVE
8306
PD FAI
Frei Vialrg Dr IDClalc} La.1a
9 D
$3,220,377
P0.9TOLAAVE
8372
PD
Gv&Fc Dr 101 ID[missTg vkj
GA
$21909xo
DATE PAldh CEI B-2i6
AVE52
B-112
PA A CYN DR
0.147
AVE 60
B 264
AVE 54
0.2666
AVE 44
B 301
9111,0N RD
0342
PORTOLAAVE
Ba74
IEFFEJH ORST
0029
FRAN K SHAYPA DR
13,975
COUNTRYGLL3 DR
13-1063
AVE48
MG9
PALM DR
S-M
WARNIHGM4 ST
a-tr2
E PALM C141 DR
B-050
IIPDWAAVE
B•156
r9DUkRAVE
B 158
'HDIM AVE
8 M
:N DVN AVE
8-059
MCMAIN VIEW
B-106
DILLON RD
6472
DILLON ND
6 772
DILLCN RD
B 176
DRLO& DO
9-177
VAAN ER RD
6488
PIERSON BLVD
B 199
PIEAON BLVD
B 19D
%IILESAVE
9201
VAN BUREHST
8209
VAN GR BE ST
8271
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
CC
Bft.tOevw
I Part) Cyn 10 Gerald FOfQ(Incl er al N Canock;l On Clu11 ar 3WhllawaWr D,
W,Jmklgl
COA
Hwlsm 811 M-80 toPlvg111[ncl lmarsctllm at Ave 62=.V NW7111)
PS
NsIa CHM lO Nk[o Rtl
GOA UI.0
Backbana
A'va5D 11ULC
00A
Boa l,1110
Grade Sepxanm an Hwr II I7EPRR
IND
Backbone
Am 44 Ee R-Yw Wow Xing
COA IND
Backlelw
Grave Eipa'allm al HW 111f--PAR
PO
8ackbma
Bf at VWlswalef cm
IND
I10 C and& c'7nr R9
RD
Cook SI le Tan RI'sk NO-ROr (Vert missing Rnk)
ED
Oak* Garb Dr 1D%Y2aa,FrgICI SI
IND
Fa1.'ers So Io Al Arms, Canal
DFS
PS'am B10 M Msz[ Lffe. ena
UNG
mo oAVa3B
PS
Pam CW Or Io BJrrlse Way
PS UIJD
1Rh&'A W DIM Old
UNG
OHM Rd]. Big Ave
DNS
,^,errs&' MAr to MsSakes elm
OHS
hgsaleo Lakes Blvd l0 S R E2
CC, UNG
2011h A'.'a b Va,o-mr RO
UNG
Mwalan Vim to BarrrelL Rd
LR4C
Gun9,l Rd W TI-"avJ Palms C}n RJ
WA
A'ae 441011D
DOA
I IOID Y IG5 lw R
IND UIJG
'40SIANlm el *Adams 51
DNS
LA]a M1SeliI. Rd W P.m La
DH3
Pam Or 10 Ewun Tr mlrus rE Baran New An
LO
'WaSNrglcn 5110 Jallarsea 81
COAL UBC
Avg EO to Ave 52
COA UNG
AV, 64' 10 4vo SWA!rMl
23
IIA80103218E9
4[Aw.IA%?CG
51,8a5,236,758
$1,867,623,7E0
s1,8R5,240,65r1
$1,SU2,195,BEG
57,8rih269,g50
51,816.490,`lR
57,910.3 A,0El
65
S1B,79B,`c54
51,9RS.I ffI,:b]
65
a7,513,943
51,4l.,':,7i1,?23
65
�;5,515
(I,A37,4�,7?D
BO I
$70,ESD,D]0
s1,e7B,D�,733
80
$4,978,80D
31,903,C&5,5'.s3
80
52,0.Ci,563
41,985,E 79,09'i
8.0
54,374,000
$I,92914SG,0%
80
SMS51003
41.197. 4,093
80
V!312901720
S%014. V,8Ib
80
$2,222'450
52,016,361,228
80
07,75600
$2,G2411t7,428
8.D
$73,270,367
$2,03/,3871705
60
sD
$2,037.787,795
BO
M839,820
$21044,226,E%
BO
45,3BU90
$2,DEO,512,555
BO
$7,010.040
$2,067,622,595
00
KW41000
$2'wM6,E95
BO
$5,761,070
$2,074037,1565
50
$16,60B,7CD
W.DR4.546,365
A0
$71935,630
M096AI.9_5
BO
$7,453,370
52,O9T.91B,305
BO
$30,97vAD
$2,1'ld,831005
so
KBaSmD
$2,134,729,1305
BO
$4,E88,040
$21133,393,645
e0
$8:8,463
$2,14D,0B5,046
a0
57,9t0,N0
$2,149,OU5,045
60
$12,634,750
$2.IW.839,7A5
90
0
$2,1EU,8•s3,795
00
S8,0,9,640
$21167.SWAM
80
ro
$2,Iar7L5%'435
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page 6 of 7)
CC. Oha2af Cry, COA-Caadaya, 0143-Ms l S4idap, AVAbkdb, AY IhcUar lW4s, LL La a"a
P4kPaSn Oraa9,PxFahi sAiyx SAfa9araa`W7.NaJo, LClG-lfl9lm'A'+�arod GJ_-Cafralr
�Ly��n_ �' y X is
8F- ,Y 'ri -
Y, v-,�'..' ";''
1 a.r r.ie
_ISA 1._LLJ,,., -
". _t• -
u,71-I
.Y',
1�
--
-'
L
AVE56
3216
IITD
I'Suu1.S l,. laCl sal all
80
57,637,G0
$4175,145,95
VARN EBRO I AVE 42
8.227
JNO
I.W..& 1D Jaclsm 51
8.0
$dIB I340
S211BI,S14,915
IN DIO BLVD
B 264
IITD
lac6sm 51 m Hxy I l I
BO
$6
%2,181,314,915
oORTOLAAVE
a256
PO
:dagnesla Fals Dr ra, a fy OW Or IE,J Or Al JVXIu!wW OITR
BO
$111375,7s0
imm.190076
AVE48
13203
00A IND
Orada 04lam,irm al Hey I I11SPRR
so
F4,%5163D
42,t W,F29,275
AVE ED
1201
COA
Grad Sapuallm F7wy I r115FRR
8.0
$4,374,000
32,2M,5rA,275
WE58
B-3m
LNG
Moarm Sr 1D jmksw 51
3.0
$a,587,0.8
$2,203,oB7,3a
AVE62
B309
UNC
lk w 31 UJa:xsoa &
B.0
$0.772$16
V2.215.8 &,SW
AVE 82
"12
WX
Realism Sr lD TYW SI
90
$8,Gulu0
52,222,5:9,209
DOBHOPE OR
6 °...20
RFh
Gerald FW3ID DLreR Shme Or
Do
SB,2191904
52,2W,74a, 115
GGR410 FORD OR
B,B44
PD
Mwl.ray Ave lD PaIda A+e
8 D
$71'ii9,2p7
$2,'e26,G57,373
HARRISLpl ST
1332
COA
Ave 52 b Aca 5l
BD
$5,CBOX110
$2,263,948,113
AVE52
B-3i3
COA
Bael[cne False Avo 92 SR 86i1C
7.0
536,0.'+0,000
$2,279,484,1 13
DILLON RD
B-f78
UNC
13fh1:0ne Or u lVil'.aa'a'er C RV
70
L&,697,3•:9
S2,233,881,413
4VE 50
B-219
GOA
Bac>;mna Hw} I1110 OR 9B5 od Or a Wiruwara' cr Nq
70
561454,47B
$2+,, ',335,8B9
ADA1155T
B370
LQ
Backbone Or a14VN1exalw, Crrl
7❑
410106o,A0
$2,306,3%.009
CATHEDRAL GYM OR
OkWE
OC
6aCAL0,19 Br al V41,11aWeler OW
70
$11,943,472
F$315,YSJ,561
VIASHINOTON ST
O,W5
LO
Ave 521DA'!0 50 f111 Or It Le Owala Evac CAYI
7.0
$D
$2,315.259,567
1.1A➢IMN SF
8-04o
LO
Ave 53*Avo 54
EO
$7,652,240
L,323,091,901
MADISON ST
B40
IND
Frw WI,Ng Dr la lnde 9rs
70
$4,C271150
V,r27111a,95F
FRED WARING DP,
8-036
LO UNC
Waslang lam 51 m Lune Paths Bd
70
S7,N215+0
$2,331,931,471
4VE52
a We
LO
!Wlarmn[a FAWWD JIrd S at Al N.ar Canal)
70
$3,240,E69
$2,341,172,431
AVE 567AAPORT BLVD
2-118
WC
I.Im m 8 to Jackson Sl
7.0
$'S,401440
F$3Ca,573,an
AVE SB IARFORT BLVD
0H7
uric
Jackson SI 10025 m1ks W or Va'1 Baran 51
7.0
$31560mo
52p,130,911
AVE F" AIRPCFIT BLVD
B-1113
UNC
Hwla Sl In Ty:ar S1
70
$4,7481720
$2-164. 9. ,B31
PALM OR
aim
DI S
Tvu Rw» F41ms Tr ID Pr. m, Bh
70
so
:2,351,9FA,631
,NDJAN AVE
6-157
IAVC
I41a AV; to Ra sn aid
7 0
$5.718.240
$2,36D,.5,e,971
LITTLE MOaOLGO RD
8-162
DNS
TM Blench Pa: n it ID Droa Rd
7,D
$1210B,i60
$2.3721995,031
14OUNTAFIf VIE%V
B-0a3
9H5 DHC
11a m9a A':a ra Dlran RO
70
49,4691576
F2,3=J2,3B3,BD7
DILLON RD
11-171
Ur:C
P9Im Or re Mw1InL1 VS6'N
70 '
$B,°.A.6,COD
$2-,w.693,6a7
VARNER RD
B154
UNC
tM,,II'ay Ave 10 Chase 8c aol Ad
7.a
$5,235,52D
$2,3PA,R35,127
HAGENDAAVE
8.195
D1-S
I�9nrlin Wvv Ad to D'Ina Rd (Lang Cy, Bar
70
$2D,910,791)
$$4iD,ad51917
JEFFER5OW8T
B-204
IND
1-1013 Ave 40
7.11
s0
W.410,845,9F7
VAN BUP=N ST
11,2m
GOA
Avo"vQAoe 50
70
$6,608,640
5'2,417,514,557
AVE 93
A214
IND LO
J4lfarem SI ID 41a[Iscn Sl{Ea c1 Or a1 All :Amer Canal)
70
$B,977,24D
$_+,424,491,797
AVE Ee
D303
LO
Jelrmsm 510 IiRasn"l
7.0
S4,458163D
l2,423,P%,,357
AVE `.B
B 304
LO
FlaIII :p 8110 I.Yn'a. £1
70
$4,224IWO
S2,4311,24.W
AVE56
a wa
UNC
nck= QtO Val Dircn£I
1.0
$3,67C,%P
$$42j,66116SO
OAVALLRD
ena
CC R1A
Dal Shoc lDR nw Pal
7.1)
56,457,440
$2,445,341,P79
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
B-7517
COA
Ava 54%AYa 55
7.0
E$r52,006
E2,451,491,919
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 24 June 27, 2006
Table 3 -1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page 7 of 7)
CC-Cdft*X Cry, CQA-li.% BFA9-60s W 4�61 4V=.hd4l W1, LW, It',,
PD.FaY Da A PSsNSP hays, A?&R..h.Afi.1Qe, C%VC-UWMpwd, CAId'6Yl
Vy w- 1 ly %m-
MA -- mg�
F
AVE 66
&W9
ONO
B3CIIXfl3 Aga 6fl ET !Lw,' Wilu Ar4
D UNE PALMS RD
B-ImIj
to
610bu Br I Vrifive.awr Ltit
60
$13,279,164
$2.4 E6,81)1.OM
MADISON ST
0-040
to
;nG 80 VA -re SB
80
84,4R41M
8A.471,216,403
GERAID FORS OR
11-DED
PD
Fulda Ave ID UO. 81
60
S5177011131
S2476'01'fm
AYE52
B.105
LO
ViasVglm 91 lo:vni;rsan SE
50
$0
AVE To h-dRPORT BLVD
13-120
WIG
T)Iors; in Pd, a,
60
$4,740,720
S%4611788'223
FiEB5ON BLVD
B-107
1) 43.
UNC
_ZR 82 m Jz, Av.,
9.0
913.699.600
12,405;1U.923
F$EFk,GN BLVD
8-16B
MIS
J140
lrffn ke o ma Moreno Rd
4.0
S514111940
S2.5w'7521763
VAN BUREN ST
B-210
DOA
UKC
Aw 521. Alas
B a
(q
425w,752.763
GOOKST
Bffit
PD
FTak SMarra Or la Owaid Fad Dr
go
$215431640
$4503J99 403
FRANK 9 HATPA DR
[W33
AM
TINY DF
60
Sf5,a7$154
52,5$9,7741557
INDIOBLVD
B 25t
IND
jBffsrsM SA 1010 MA4%*n 5l
6J3
9Y
$2.519.774.557
AVE 58
B 307
0.140
Vm Raw SI 10 Hvisam8l S811, 20)
60
$612631832
$2,526,041,160
BOB HOK DR
B 31 D
AM
FWFI, Sna?. Or 10 Q"ald FNt Dr
GO
IS51222120
COCK ST
B-329
IW
FxW %YapV is Hnj I I I
B a
5448,100
52,530I5121423
IfIDIOBLVD
B4S82
IND
HKy 11110 Aw AR [was H%Tfl I iAy
SLO
$8,791,200
62.SSOXW.629
WA811NOTO14ST
B-iQ
UqC1
Awn 26 ID 19a.m Rol
55
V,431,861)
P.544.D26.430
LITTLE MOFIONGO RD
B.iGD
DM
MAW LAW ?Vd 10 PLVGW 01W
150
U12741720
12,5491910,En
TWO BUNOH PAUkS IR
B-101
DRS
HIIIQ P)ffmgo No! In `Wn Di
5.0
S9IE85,160
$2.556R96.1169
TWO ELFKOH PALMS TO
69911
DFIS
PAM Ono M"Clo HII Ad
60
laimm
".587.159.679
AVE60
3.2%
to
waslingim 81 LO jaffD'snn SI
so
so
V'19671$691573
VAPNE R RD I AVE 42
IS 22B
IND
jv'sm & 10 Go I Cmla Fav
66
$511:137,12D
JACKSON ST
8 24B
IND
Ave 4010 F 1G' C
6.0
9,311'230
JAC KSON ST
61250
IND
UNG
Ave ED 1. Avn 52
6.0
$4,684,697
$2,6S5j749,666
INDIO BLVD
0.263
IND
M"Qa SI 10 jeck'sm SI
5.0
$0
$2,E�51744,655
DAVALLRD
B35
cc
RN
MMSD Rd In MCONlim WHY
50
$2.371'7713
5$EE8,1211422
VADISOH ST
U-041
i
to
Ava 63 0 AID W 1AYWI PJVD)
in
V,'14dMO
'80
$21642154512
AVE 661 Al RPORT PAVD
a 04
to
Madsm 51 w 1h 0051
40
82.5D2.535,512
MISSION Ujols ELVO
B L92
"
JJ1O
LrA 1'"mo 3 Rd w Easm Tiwmhius 9L V*bw of
4.0
81O,473,740
$21VMA2620
HDIDDVVD
ft452
IND
Macksm Sr ID qw'C 81
4 4)
so
52.602.933.252
TOTAL I I
CVAG TUMf Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 25 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
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
the Level of Improvement Standards (LOIS) used to develop construction cost estimates
in the RACE. The following LOIS appear to be purely maintenance related:
• R52:
Resurface existing 24' (2 lanes)
• RC2-A:
Reconstruct existing 24' (2 lanes).
• RC2-AA:
Reconstruct existing 24' (2 lanes)
10,000.
• RS3:
Resurface existing 36' (3 lanes)
• RC3-A:
Reconstruct existing 36' (3 lanes).
• RC3-AA:
Reconstruct existing 36' (3 lanes)
10,000.
• RS4:
Resurface existing 48' (4 lanes)
• RC4-A:
Reconstruct existing 48' (4 lanes).
• RC4-AA:
Reconstruct existing 48' (4 lanes)
10,000.
• RS6:
Resurface existing 72' (6 lanes)
• RC6-A:
Reconstruct existing 72' (6 lanes).
• RC6-AA:
Reconstruct existing 72' (6 lanes)
10,000.
Average daily traffic less than 10,000.
, Average daily traffic greater than
Average daily traffic less than I0,000.
Average daily traffic greater than
Average daily traffic less than 10,000.
Average daily traffic greater than
Average daily traffic less than 10,000-
, Average daily traffic greater than
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 Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 26 June 27, 2006
Table 3-2 "Maintenance Only" Projects Included in the 2005 TPPS and RACE Updates
Street Name
Segment Number
LOIS
Construction Cost)
IAVE 44
448
RC4-A
s8.G1q,0001
jAVE 52
52H
RC4-AA
$122,1001
IAVE 52
_
521
RS4
$790,5001
IAVE 52
52J
RC4,AA
$111,0001
ICATHEDRAL CYN DR
CTHCN2
RC4-AA
S3 676,3201
(CATHEDRAL CYN DR
CTHCN4
RC4-AA
$4102,5601
(CATHEDRAL CYN DR
CTHCNS
R84
$903,5501
COOK ST
CKB
RS4
$448,8001
COUNTRY CLUB DR
I CC3
R84
S897,6001
CROSLY3
RC4-A
IZ097,1201
ICROSSLEYRD
CROSSLEY RD
I CRO8LY4
RC -A
52.154.2401
1D1440N RD
I DLN1
1 RC2-A
$12,375,0001
IDILLON RD
I DLNG
I RS2
S1,436.3101
IDILLON RD
I DLN7
I RC2-A
$30916,5001
IDILLON RD
I DLN8
I RC2-A
$25,072,5001
IDILLON RD
I DLN9
I RC2•A
$294750001
IE PALM CYN DR
I PLCN7
I RC4-AA +
$5,860,8001
IE PALM CYN DR
I PLCN8
I RS4 I
$448,8001
IE PALM CYN DR
I PLCN9
I RC4-AA 1
$8,946,6001
IE PALM CYN DR
I PLCN10
I RC4-AAI
$71335,9901
IE PALM CYN OR
I PLCN11
I RC,!-AAI
$1,748,25GI
[FRANK SINATRA DR
I FS4
I RS4 1
$532.1001
I FRANK SINATRA DR
I FS5
I R84 I
5326,4001
IFRANK SINATRA DR
I FS6
I RC4-AA 1
S6 857,5801
(FRANK SINATRA DR
I FS7
IRC4-AAI
$5,033,8501
IFRANK SINATRA DR
I F58
I RS4 1
$895,9001
IFRANK SINATRA DR
I FS9
I RC4-A 1
$1,300,5001
FRANK SINATRA DR
I F811
I RC4-AA 1
$13$2001
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
I GRPF1
IRC4-AA1
$7,326.0001
HARRISON ST
I HARSNI
IRC4-AA1
$5,860,8001
HARRISON ST
I HARSN2
I RC4-AA 1
$51860,800(
INDIAN CYN DR
I INCN1
I RC4-AA 1
S$90812001
INDIAN CYN DR
I INCN2
I R$4 1
$450,5001
INDIAN CYN OR
I INCNB
I RS4 1
$438,7701
INDIAN CYN DR
I INCN4
I RS4 I
$442,0001
INDIAN CYN DR
I INCN5
I R$4 I
S442,000I
INDIAN CYN OR
I INCNG
I RC4-AA1
$8.846.7001
IINDIO BLVD
I INDIO5
I RC4-AA 1
$8.791,2001
1JEFFERSON ST
I JEF9
I RC2-A 1
$4,0012501
IMILESAVE
I MIL3A
IRC4-AAI
$4.395,6001
IMILESAVE
I MIL4
I FICA -A I
$2,692A00I
IPALM CYN DR
I PLCN2
I RS4 I
$448,8DO
(PALM CYN DR
I PLCN3
I RC3-AA I
$2,613,6001
[PALM CYN DR
I PLCN4
I RC3-AA 1
$2 61$.6001
]PALM CYN DR
1 PLCN5
I RC4-AA I
$3,207,9001
(PALM CYN DR
I PLCN6
I RC4-AA1
$2,375,400I
IPIERSON BLVD
1 PPS38
1 PC4-A +
$4,039200
IPIER50N BLVD
PRS4
I RCA -A
$9,435,0001
IPORTOLAAVE
I PORT
ij
I RS4
S897,6001
IRAMON RD
I RAMS
I RC6•AAI
$7,892,7601
IRAMON RD
I RAM8
1 RC6-AAI
$7,738,0001
IRAMON RD
I RAM13
1 RC4-AA I
$4260,1801
IRAMON RD
I RAM14
I RCA -AA
$111.0001
ITHOUSAND PALMS RC
I THPL1
I RC2-A
S18,615,11001
[VARNER RD
I VRNR4
I F1C4-AA
$196,5301
IVARNER RD
I VRNR5
I RC2-A
$3.818,2501
(VARNER RD
I VRNR6
I RS2
$1,235,5201
IVARNER RD
I VRNR7
I RS2
$1,755,9001
IVARNER RD
I VRNRBA
I RS3
$686,4001
VARNER RO/AVE 42
I VRNR9
I RC2-A 1
$4 680,0001
WASHINGTON$T
I WSH10A
I RS4 1
$1,615.0001
WASHINGTON ST
j WSH10B
I RS2 1
$1,092.6001
(TOTAL
I
8293,250,330I
ITOTAL AS PERCENT OF
RACE
I
11 I
CV,AG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
27
Nexus Study Report ,
June 27. 2006
( 4.0 TRAFFIC GROWTH ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT
Troffic 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
7 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
Nexus 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 info 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
8 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
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 I
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 lotal 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 Share of Trips I'
Intemal I Internal External External Internal Internal I External External
to to to to Total to to to to Total
Internal I External Internal External Internal External I Internal External
Year2000
1,015,746
I 35,804 35,630
I 21,768 1,108,948 92% 3ia
I 3 0 2%
I 100%
Year203O 13,159,362
91,955 91,783
1125,453 3,468.553 917 3%
I 3% 4%
I lone
Growf02030)
2,143,616
56,151 56,153
103,685 2,359,605 90.8i 2-4%
2.4% 4.47
100%
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
Sa n B wnarorno N h
Re rplie r P"
Lawlcr Codrrty Park
i
Sap B ema of r
Figure 4-1 CVATS Model and TUMF Collection Areas
Legend
COUNTY y _ TUMF Col leclionArea (2005 Update)
LIN E=n Big NaronJo ReBloaal Pork ' CVATS Model Area
® CVAG Clties
r Jl% a ' 'JOSHUATREE
�b NATIONAL PARTS
Joshua Tree NP
—I
' A>L:gBcire po pas ea[ S1a1c Park
COUNTY r
LINE
Cleveland NF_—
'alomarAln5lalePark ° Qcrchnd Nr
1
l
Anna. Barrage Beserl Slat=Par k
TOWNSHIP
LINE
('I O E-11 E)
Sallon Sao State Park )`
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 30 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
located in 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" Irips. 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 Instilute 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
developmeni 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 Flotel
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 31 June 27. 2006
I
7 The fee 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 trip'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-Sh000ina (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).
ry 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 (NHB): 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
s
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 HBSho HBSch HBO NHB Total
�Year 2000 13% 13% 10% 29% 35% 100%
�Year 2030 10% I 16% I 87. 34% 32% 100%
Growth 9% 18% 6%
(2000 to 2030) 37% 30% 100%
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 can 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
Table 4-3
CVATS Model
Trip Purposes by Fee Categories
HBW
HBSho
HBSch
HBO
NHB ,
Residential
4.5%
9%
37,
18.5%
Retail
4.5%
9%
30%
Non -Retail & Hotel
3%
18.5%
Total
9%
18%
67,
37%
30%,
To establish the distribution of trips between the three fee rate categories, the model
trip 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
HBSch
HBO
NHB
Total
Residential
Retail
4.5%
1.5%
9%
9%
3%
18.5%
10.57.
35%
21%
Non -Retail & Hotel
3%
3%
18.5%
19.5 0
447.
Total
9%
187.
67.
37%
307,
100%
General policy number 7 of the original Uniform Transportation Mitigation 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 Reoort #187 Quick Resoonse Urban Travel Estimation Techniaues
and Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978), which
details operational travel estimation techniques that are universally used for the travel
demand modeling. Chapter 2 of [his report states that "HBW (Home Based Work) and
HBNW (Home Based Non Work) trips are generated of 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 NHB
Total
Residential
6%
78%
3%
18.5%
45.5%
Retail
0%
057. M10.5%
10.5%
Non -Retail & Hotel
3%
7 3%
18.5%
19.5%
44%
Total
9%
18%
6%
37%
30%
100%
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
34
Nexus Study Report
June 27, 2006
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
W
-t 5.1.1. 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
Measure A Total Revenue for Coachella Valley
FY 1990 Revenue in millions (u $10.1
j FY 2005 Revenue in millions $33.7 1
1 Annual Revenue Growth since 1990 8.34 0 1
Estimated Revenue 2007 to 2030 in millions $2,764.0 1
(I I Source: Riverside county Transportation Commission, March 3. 2006
Measure A Allocation for Coachella Valley Regional Arterials
Estimated Revenue 2007 to 2030 in millions $2,764.0
Regional Arterial Allocation through FY 2008 (2) I 40 0
Regional Arterial Allocation FY 2009-2030 (3) 50% 1
Estimated Allocation 2007 to 2030 in millions $1,373.8 1
(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 '/," to supplement Federal and Stale funds for specified State
highway projects. By formula 15% of revenues is provided for this purpose with the
balance (40%of total revenues) allocated to regional arterials.
(3) Ordinance 02-001 defines that 50% of Measure A revenues will be used "for state
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. 8y projecting the actual 2005 revenues at the historic 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
-t
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% annually. By inflating the approximate annual CVAG STIP funding '
share by the combined funding growth rate, it is estimated that approximately $112.9
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
FY 2007-2011 Estimated New Capacity Funding in millions III
$16.9
FY 2007 Proportionate Annual Share in millions
$3.4
Forecast STIP Annual Revenue Growth FY 2005 - FY 2011 (z)
2-74%
Estimated STIP Allocation 2007 to 2030 in millions
$112.9
ri Source: Riverside County Transportation Commission, March 9, 2006
fzl Source: Caltrans 2006 STIP FE Assumptions Book, May 26, 2005
5.1.3. Unfunded Share of RACE
To determine the other funding share of the RACE, if 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
7
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 these 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) $2,28_6
Annual Change in Construction Cost since 1990 3.07 0 1
Inflated Construction Cost Estimate 2007-2030 $3,372.9 1
RACE Total ROW Cost in 2005 (in millions) $317
t Annual Change in Housing Cost since 1990 6.71 %
Inflated ROW Cost Estimate 2007-2030 $806.9
RACE Total Cost Estimate in 2005 (in millions) $2,603.0
Inflated 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
64.47o 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
Estimated Measure A Allocation 2007 to 2030 (in millions(
$1,373.8
32,9 o
Estimated STIP Allocation 2007 to 2030 (in millions)
$112.9
2.7%
Subtotal Other Available Revenue Sources
$1,486.6
35.6%
Unfunded Share of RACE Inflated Cost Estimate
$2,693.2
64.47.
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
1 1 % 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 forget. 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
Value
Inflated RACE Total Cost Estimate 2007-2030 (in millions)
$4,179.8
Estimated Available Measure A/STIP Revenues
I $1,486.6
Estimated Customary Developer Dedications
$1,045.0
Remaining Balance (Inflated TUMF Collection Target) 1 $1,648.2
I
Share
100.D % 1
35.6%
25.0%
39.4%
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 39 June 27. 2006
r1
.1
1
6.0 FEE CALCULATION
The fee amounts that will need to be collected to mitigate the cumulative regional
impacts of new development on the orterial 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 trips 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 equalion 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_
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 40 June 27, 2006
Table 6-1 CVAG TUMF Fee Calculation
ITEM DESCRIPTION I
VALUE
I SOURCE R
I
'
I
FORMULA
I
PART I: TUMF COLLECTION TARGET
A
Total SysTem Cost
$2,602,939,252
Tobl3-1
i
i (RACE ooe Updotel
I B Share of Cost to be Funded by Other Sources I
35.6%
Table 5-5 I
C
Portion of Cost to be Funded by Other Sources I
$926,646,374
C=A"B
I I I
D Share of Cost Attributable to Developer Dedications I
25.0%
I
I Table 5-5
E IPortion of Cost Attributable to Customary Developer I
$650,734,813
I E=A`D
Dedications
F I TUMF Collection Target
I
$1,025,558,065
I F=A-C-E
I
I PART It: NEW PROJECT LEVEL TRIPS
T ay
G I Total New Average Weekday Trip Ends
4,399,536
Section 4.1.3
11CVATS
III
2005 Uodotel
I!
1.►1eska�iattr�F°its. �� 1„n4",,x.nM.
'e. '%'iV
r•'f� e 1 Wlf.�i�fuY�
_
1
I I
I !
K I
I
New Average Weekday Residential Trip Ends I
1,539,838
K=G"H I
L I New Average Weekday Retail/Commercial Trip Ends I
923,903
I L=G*I
M I New Average Weekday Non -Retail .& Hotel Trip Ends I
I
1,935,796
I M=G*J I
I
PART III: COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO LAND USE CATEGORY
N Share of Cost Attributable to Residenliol
45.5%
Q Share of Cost Attributable to Retail/Commercial
10.5%
Table 4 4
P Share of Cost Attributable to Non -Retail & Hotel
4476
I
Q Portion of Cost Attributable to Residential
$466,628,920
I
Q=F*N
R Portion of Cost Attributable to Retail/Commercial
$107,683,597
R=F-O
S Portion of Cost Attributable to Non -Retail & Hotel
I
5451,245,549
S=F*P
I
PART IV: FEE PER TRIP
T I Residential Fee per Trip
$303
T Q/K
U I Retail/Commercial Fee per Trip
$117
U=R/L
V I Non -Retail & Hotel Fee per Trip
$233
I V=S/M
I
NOTE: Shaded rows are inputs or policy assumptions.
I I
I
CVAG TUMF
Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 41
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 1
Residential
Retail/Commercial
Non -Retail & Hotel
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update 42
Fee per Trip
$303
$117
$233
Nexus Study Report
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 to 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 right-of-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.
I
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 43 June 27, 2006
Figure 7-1 compares the ENR CCI with the Calfrans 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
I 0 ENR CCI --� Coltrans CCI - - FHWA PTCI - Linear (ENR CCI) Linear (Caltrans CC])
---- .------ 300
7.000 I -- — -- _ ._
/( 250
I1
zoo
5,000
a 4.000 I - _ __ — — _ 150
W 3'WO
2.000
1.000 50
1985 1986 19871988 1989 1990 1991 19921993 1994 19951996 19971996 1999 2WO 20a1 20022003 2004 2D05
Year
sorxaa:
ENR CCJ-Engn ingNsms P=rdCorattlrrryon Costlirp History
Cdtrac CCI.51Oteof CtllforrnoDeputmunofTrr pantlon HIOvWCONtruotlon COsf Irk
FHWAPTC1,Foclbird HlgngAd'ddsndnOn PrlwTra Composltelre
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
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.
7.2.2. 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 mode 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
omplement the regional system improvements. The 507. 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 STIP. 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 mode during the
initial TUMF Nexus Study and ordinance development process. To better quantify the
influence of residential land uses on retail trip generafion, 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.
I
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
1
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 46 June 27, 2006
I
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 fees needs to be
amended to reflect the revised schedule of fees presented in Table 7-1 _
7.2.7. 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 Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 47 June 27, 2006
Cl
APPENDIX A - SCAG 2004 RTP Model Network Plots
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
48
Nexus Study Report
June 27. 2006
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2000 SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
NUMBER OF LANES PER DIRECTION
Number of Lanes Per Direcfion
1 lane perdirection
2 lanes per direction
3 or more lanes per direction
m
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 512412006
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2000 SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
BY DAILY VOLUME
Daily Volume
Daily Volume < 10,000
Daily Volume >= 10,000 and Daily Volume < 20,000
Daily Volume>= 2 0, 00 0 and Daily Volume < 30,000 !
,i Daily Volume >= 3 0, 00 0 and Daily Volume < 40,000
❑ally Volume >= 40,000 and Daily Volume <50,000
Daily Volume >= 50,000
1
M -
I �; 9 •.. •{: f'_ � ..I' , I ail � !� ..
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 512412006
® 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
r
Daily Volume ?=20,000
Daily Volume < 20.000
Daily Volume >= 20,000
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 5/2412006
: 14-1 11. aai
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNEMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2000 SLAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
BY DAILY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
Daily Level of Service (LOS)
LOS A, B, or C (Arterial: VIC<0.621 or Freeway: V/C<.711)
LOS D (Arterial: 0.621 <= VIC<0.821 or Freeway: 0.711 <= V1C<0.891)
LOS E (Arterial: 0.821 <=VIC<1.000 or Freeway: 0.891<= VIC<1.000)
LOS F (VIC>=1.000)
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 5124I2006
ri .•c'w-u uii :!
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
i
Daily Lee! of Service
LOS A, B, or C
LOS D, E, or F
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 512512006
viper
i
Daily Lee! of Service
LOS A, B, or C
LOS D, E, or F
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 512512006
viper
IYw" bow °iwi' ��' L�� tV� ►�� ire i�� L� 1L� L� !__ L C L-_
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2030 BASELINE SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
BY DAILY VOLUME
t
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 Dally Volume < 50,000
Daily Volume >= 50,000
viper
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 5124I2008
.1: is
i
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2030 BASELINE SCAGNETWORK- CVAG AREA ONLY
DAILY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) D, E & F
i Daily Level of Service
LOS A, B, or C
LOS D, E, or F
Based on SCAG 2404 RTP
Printed 5/25/2406
asp I
I
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNEMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2030 BASELINE SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
BY DAILY LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
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)
LOSE (Arterial: 0.821 <=VIC< 1.000 or Freeway: 0.891<= VI0<1.000)
LOS F (VIC>=1.000) _
0
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 512412006
iG Fill �idc lid 1.Aa°:.:I:• .i . 11.
Number of Lanes Per Direction
1 lane per direction
2 lanes per direction
3 or more lanes per direction
i
I
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2030 BASELINE SCAG NETWORK- CVAG AREA ONLY
NUMBER OF LANES PER DIRECTION
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 5I2412006
r-
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
Daily Volume >=20,000
Daily Volume < 20,000
Daily Volume >= 20,000
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP
Printed 51241200E
viper