HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/5/2018 - STAFF REPORTS (2)Ci(V Council Staff Report
DATE : September 5, 2018 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: 2018 CVAG TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF)
NEXUS STUDY, TUMF INCREASE, AND AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS REPEALING AND
REPLACING CHAPTER 8 .90 OF THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION
FEE
FROM : David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Marcus L . Fuller, Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
SUMMARY:
The City , as a member of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), has
collected a transportation uniform mitigation fee (TUMF) since 1989, consistent with
Measure A-the 20 year Y2 ¢sales tax measure to fund transportation projects approved
by voters of Riverside County in November 1988, and extended for 30 years by voters in
November 2002. The Measure A Program has funded billions of local and regional
transportation projects within Riverside County, and extends through 2039 .
A component of the Measure A Program is the funding of transportation projects on the
regional ro adway system attributed to new development. As development projects are
approved and constructed , the additional vehicle trips generated by these development
projects cause congestion on existing roadways. The Measure A Program implemented
the TUMF as a mechanism to mitigate this congestion and fund transportation projects
by CVAG that are due to growth occurring within the Coachella Valley.
Since 1989, CVAG has adopted various fee studies to determine the TUMF to be
collected by the City related to development projects approved and constructed within the
City , with the TUMF revenue distributed to CVAG for funding of regional transportation
projects within the Coachella Valley. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government
Code section 66000 et seq.) the City is required to legally adopt the TUMF to be collected
by the City and paid to CVAG pursuant to the Measure A Program .
In April 2018 , the CVAG Executive Committee approved and adopted the "Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule Update Nexus Report", (the "2018
Nexus Study"), and an increase to TUMF. This action will allow the Council to consider
and officially approve the increase to TUMF pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act , and to
ITEM NO._..;)_._c_._
2
City Council Staff Report
September 5, 2018 --Page 2
CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
adopt an Ordinance to repeal and replace the existing TUMF Ordinance with the current
CVAG model TUMF Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the Public Hearing and receive public testimony;
2. Adopt Resolution No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE TRANSPORTATION
UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE NEXUS
STUDY, THE UPDATED TUMF HANDBOOK, AND INCREASING THE
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE APPLICABLE TO ALL
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS;"
3. Waive the reading of the text in its entirety, read by title only, and introduce for first
reading Ordinance No. , "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REPLACING
CHAPTER 8.90 (TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEES) OF THE
PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE."
BACKGROUND:
In 1987, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1600, also known as the
"Mitigation Fee Act." The bill outlined the legal requirements in which a development
impact fee is charged by a local governmental agency to an applicant related to the
approval of a development project. The fee was intended to pay for all or a portion of the
costs of public facilities associated with that project.
Two years later, in 1989, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside drafted and
adopted Ordinance No. 673, which outlined the establishment of a Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program for the Coachella Valley. The fee would be imposed on
future residential, commercial and industrial development within the jurisdiction.
The TUMF program compliments the 20-year Measure A sales tax measure approved by
the voters of Riverside County in November 1988. To implement and administer Measure
A, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) adopted its Ordinance 88-1
establishing the Measure A Program through 2009. As Measure A was due to expire in
2009, an effort at its extension was commenced in 2000/2001, with voters approving a
30-year extension of Measure A in November 2002. As a result, RCTC adopted its
Ordinance 02-001 updating the Measure A Program and extending it to 2039.
At the time of its adoption, the intention was for the TUMF to generate at least the
equivalent of Measure A funding toward the Regional Arterial System. Today, TUMF
revenue provides less than its intended share of match toward Measure A funding. The
TUMF is required to be updated periodically. To accomplish this, a Nexus Study is
3
City Council Staff Report
September 5, 2018 --Page 3
CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
conducted to evaluate projected growth in the Coachella Valley to the current
Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) Program.
The TPPS Program is an engineering analysis prepared and approved by CVAG that
evaluates all of the transportation projects on the regional roadway system within the
Coachella Valley, and determines a priority ranking of those projects by which CVAG will
approve Regional Measure A funds. Only those projects with the highest priority ranking
are funded by CVAG and implemented by those cities carrying out those projects.
CVAG has utilized a five-year period for its TPPS Program updates, which includes a cost
analysis, TUMF nexus study, and a determination of whether the existing TUMF is
sufficient to fund the total cost of those transportation projects prioritized by the TPPS.
CVAG has consistently evaluated TUMF in ways to ensure it is maintained at a fair and
equitable level as conditions change.
In 2006, CVAG conducted a TUMF Nexus Study to update the fee, with relatively small
changes made. However, the fee was not fully implemented. In 2010, CVAG considered
another update, but elected not to move forward, given the economic downturn at that
time.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
CVAG commissioned a new TUMF Nexus Study in 2015. As part of the latest Nexus
Study, CVAG established a TUMF/Nexus Advisory Sub-Committee representative of both
CVAG's membership and community stakeholders.
Transportation Project Prioritization Study
It is CVAG's responsibility to prepare and adopt a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP} for
the Coachella Valley. This is accomplished through the creation of the TPPS, which
identifies and prioritizes the needs of transportation projects in the region.
The CVAG Executive Committee approved the most recent TPPS in June 2016. The
TPPS incorporated -regional Active Transportation Projects (ATP} such as CV Link,
consistent with the California Complete Streets Act (2008), and incorporated the Regional
Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) which established the cost of the Regional Transportation
System. Collectively, the TPPS, ATP and RACE create the summary of needs and
priorities for the ultimate regional transportation system used for the TUMF Nexus Study.
TUMF Nexus Study
The 2018 Nexus Study initiated in 2015 and approved in April 2018 by CVAG analyzes
the relationship between the ultimate regional transportation system and the travel
demand generated by future development. The result is a fee imposed onto new
development to pay for its proportional contribution towards the future transportation
4
City Council Staff Report
September 5, 2018 --Page 4
CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
system. With the TPPS and accompanying documents approved, CVAG's consultant
established the TUMF parameters and assumptions, which were presented and approved
by the CVAG TUMF/Nexus Advisory Sub-Committee.
With the maximum fee as a starting point, CVAG policy then determines what percentage
of maximum fee will actually be charged (based on economic and other considerations),
with local match and other funding sources making up the difference. CVAG's consultant
provided an initial calculation of the maximum fee based upon the initial assumptions.
The preliminary calculation of the maximum allowable fee was $751/trip, an increase of
nearly 400°/o over the current rate of $192/trip.
The Building Industry Association (BIA) and Desert Valley Builder's Association (DVBA)
had corresponded with CVAG suggesting the need to reevaluate whether the TPPS
projects being included in the TUMF would realistically be built in the next few decades.
In response, CVAG coordinated with individual jurisdictions to confirm which of their
regional transportation projects would be completed within the next 20 years, as a way to
eliminate projects from the 20-year horizon of the Nexus Study, thereby reducing the
overall cost of projects to be funded by TUMF.
CVAG and its consultant performed additional analysis to ensure the increased TUMF
was only as much as is necessary to fund these projects by monetizing external funding
assumptions and re-evaluating whether individual projects are feasible within a 15-25
year timeframe. CVAG's revised analysis in coordination with all of the cities eliminated
nearly $1 billion of transportation projects from TUMF consideration.
RCTC's Ordinance 88-1 which established Measure A, provided that "The Uniform Traffic
Mitigation Fee Schedule shall be established in order to generate at least the equivalent
of Measure A funding ... ". CVAG determined that further elimination of transportation
projects from the Nexus Study as a means to reduce TUMF could be inconsistent to this
provision of the Measure A Ordinance in ensuring TUMF is adequately generating
Measure A funding. Therefore, on the basis of its elimination of projects beyond a 20
year horizon, CVAG determined a revised calculation of the fee at $245/trip which is a
27°/o increase over the current fee of $192/trip.
It is important to note that the TUMF has not been increased from the rate of $192/trip
since 2006. By comparison, the TUMF charged by CVAG's companion agency -the
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) is approximately $989/trip, four
times the new rate approved by CVAG. CVAG also noted that the original preliminary
calculation of the maximum allowable TUMF of $751/trip would have been below the
$989/trip rate currently charged by WRCOG.
A copy of the 2018 Nexus Study is included as Attachment 1.
5
City Council Staff Report
September 5, 2018 --Page 5
CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
Streamlining TUMF
CVAG's TUMF program is based on a land use classification category with the daily trip
generation rate for that land use taken from the International Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation Manual. Originally, CVAG's TUMF Program had approximately 75 land
use categories, but it was later reduced to the current 37 land uses for simplification.
Based on the last TUMF update, CVAG has experienced a number of problems with some
land uses, particularly the shopping center category. Shopping centers are defined as a
development with three business establishments in one or more buildings with a minimum
total floor area of 10,000 sq. ft., and the largest building is not larger than 50°/o of the floor
area. Shopping centers are considered retail/services for the purpose of calculating
TUMF. If a business establishment other than a restaurant is specifically listed in the
TUMF formula and it's within a shopping center, TUMF is calculated as retail/services.
For restaurants, a shopping center may include up to 25°/o restaurant use with no
additional TUMF assessment. However, any restaurant use beyond the 25°/o is assessed
under the restaurant category (Low Turnover, High Turnover, Fast Food).
By meeting this definition, specific high trip generating land uses such as convenience
markets and fast food can pay at the general retail rate, which is approximately 1 0°/o of
the convenience/fast food TUMF rate which is $54,611.26 per 1 ,000 sq. ft. CVAG noted
that there are a number of problems with its administration of TUMF for "shopping
centers," including that CVAG staff do not know where all past shopping centers are
located. Currently, CVAG staff have had to evaluate small shopping centers that intend
to build convenience stores with gas pumps and then expand at some future point in time.
CVAG advised that tracking the timeline of these developments is difficult, and a high
TUMF payment at first can be a burden for developers.
On the basis of these challenges, CVAG recommended streamlining the administration
of TUMF where there is only one land-use category for retail development. The proposed
new retail rate is 5°/o of the current rate for convenience markets, resulting in a dramatic
reduction in the fee charged for that land use. Additional retail establishments on the
same development would all be charged at the same rate per 1,000 SF.
CVAG also approved changes to the TUMF administration whereby for convenience
markets with fuel dispensers, an additional fee will continue to be added for each fuel
dispenser. CVAG will distinguish between convenience stores where trip generation is
primarily driven by the retail store, and convenience stores where trip generation is driven
primarily by the fuel dispensers, and determine the TUMF calculation for the convenience
store and the fuel dispensers, with the final rate set by the larger of the two calculations.
While CVAG and WRCOG have different TUMF rates, this is the same methodology
utilized by WRCOG in their determination of TUMF for convenience markets with fuel
dispensers. The overall TUMF is greatly reduced for convenience stores with the new
CVAG methodology and rate structure.
6
City Council Staff Report
September 5, 2018 --Page 6
CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
As part of the current update, CVAG also consolidated land uses (industrial, office, retail)
to simplify the process by charging a fee on a stand-alone building based on square
footage. Other land uses including single-family and multi-family will be charged per unit
and hotels will be charged per room.
As a comparison, WRCOG does not have a "shopping center'' provision and also does
not have separate, higher TUMF for convenience markets and fast food. They are
considered retail uses and pay a flat rate.
At its June 25, 2018, meeting, the CVAG Executive Committee approved the 2018 TUMF
Handbook, that implements the TUMF streamlining described. Staff has explained
CVAG's changes to its administration of TUMF, as it is necessary for Council to officially
approve the updated TUMF Handbook which is used by developers within Palm Springs
to understand how the TUMF will be calculated for their projects, charged by the City and
paid to CVAG.
New TUMF Rates
The actual fees are determined by multiplying the $245 trip rate by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) factor for trips per land use. For example, ITE has
determined that a typical residential single-family dwelling unit generates, on average,
9.44 trips per day. Therefore, TUMF for a single-family dwelling unit is charged the rate
of $245 x 9.44 = $2,312.80 which has been rounded to $2,310.
CVAG has also consolidated the 70 land use categories that was in the current TUMF
Handbook into the following 12 land use categories:
Land-use Category
Residential
Single-Family Detached
Multi-Family, Mobile Home
Nursing/Congregate Care
Transit Oriented Development
Low-Income Housing
Non-Residential
Industrial
Office
Retail
Fuel-Gas
Fuel -Electric
Golf Course
Hotel
New Fee per Unit
$ 2,31 0 I dwelling unit
$ 1,790 I dwelling unit
$ 495 I dwelling unit
15°/o discount
Exempt from Fee
$ 1,220 I 1,000SF
$ 2,390 11,000SF
$ 6,01 0 I 1,000SF
$ 8,61 0 I dispenser
$ 91 I dispenser
$ 920 I acre
$ 3,510 I room
Current Fee per Unit
$ 1,837.44
$ 1,276.80
$ 412.80
None
Exempt from Fee
$ 1,031.56
Varies
Varies
$ 12,476.44
None
$745.92
$ 1,075.96
7
City Council Staff Report
September 5, 2018 --Page 7
CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
Exemptions
CVAG's current TUMF Program includes several exemptions:
1. Low and lower-income residential housing.
2. Public buildings (public schools and public facilities), unless they are primarily leased
for-profit enterprises.
3. Building used for religious purposes but excluding other commercial or residential
properties or businesses owned by a religious institution.
4. Solar facilities are not charged on arrays but buildings are charged specific rates
(Industrial for maintenance or storage buildings or Office Building for office space).
The CVAG Executive Committee considered whether to maintain or change these
exemptions, including whether to require payment of full TUMF, reduced TUMF, or a
waiver of TUMF for affordable housing projects. Ultimately, in its approval in April 2018,
the CVAG Executive Committee approved eliminating the exemptions for public buildings,
buildings used for religious purposes, and solar facilities. However, the CVAG Executive
Committee did retain the exemption in full for affordable housing projects; therefore, the
updated TUMF Ordinance reflects only one exemption as follows:
Low and lower-income residential housing, including single-family homes,
apartments and mobile homes built for those whose income is no more than eighty
percent of the median income in the San Bernardino-Riverside Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area and as determined and approved by the City Council
or its designee. The sales or rental price shall not exceed the affordability criteria
as established under HUD Section 8 guidelines.
Inflation
CVAG's current TUMF Program does not have an inflationary adjustment factor. As part
of the TUMF update, CVAG approved an annual inflationary adjustment to the final TUMF
fee utilizing the Consumer Price Index, similar to the inflation factor that was approved for
the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). In
discussions with stakeholders, representatives of both the BIA and DVBA expressed
support for a fee adjustment but are opposed to an automatic annual adjustment. CVAG
staff proposed the annual inflation factor since TUMF revenues have decreased
drastically over the last ten years. CVAG has noted that while the economy is not back to
its strength it was 1 0 years ago, the inflation adjustment will bring in some minimal
revenues that would help further offset the cost of regional improvements. Incorporating
an annual inflation adjustment may help to forestall the expensive necessity of a full TUMF
Nexus Study.
CVAG has agreed with the BIA/DVBA request for annual evaluation of TUMF increases,
and any inflation adjustment will be evaluated by the CVAG Executive Committee on an
annual basis to determine whether or not to apply the inflation factor to the TUMF
program. This is consistent with WRCOG's TUMF Program where the inflation factor is
8
City Council Staff Report
September 5, 2018 --Page 8
CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
not automatic, but is considered by its Executive Committee on an annual basis. This will
require the Council to consider and approve annual increases to TUMF, to the extent
CVAG evaluates and approves such an annual inflationary adjustment.
A copy of the 2018 TUMF Handbook is included as Attachment 2.
TUMF Increase
It is necessary for the Council to consider and adopt a Resolution in accordance with the
Mitigation Fee Act to implement the increase to TUMF that has been approved by CVAG.
Staff notes that in accordance with RCTC's Ordinance 02-001 in its administration of the
overall Measure A Program, the City is obligated to enact local ordinances and resolutions
to implement TUMF in accordance with CVAG's approval of changes to TUMF. To the
extent the Council did not approve the TUMF increase, or 2018 TUMF Handbook, the
City would be prevented from receiving its Measure A funding through RCTC and CVAG.
A resolution has been prepared in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act for Council's
consideration and adoption, included as Attachment 3. Notice of the public hearing has
been provided in accordance with law; a copy of the public hearing notice is included as
Attachment 4.
TUMF Ordinance
Following passage of Measure A in 1988, and RCTC's adoption of Ordinance 88-1
implementing the Measure A Program, on June 27, 1989, the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 1334 establishing the TUMF, providing for the City's legal authority to
charge and collect TUMF. Ordinance No. 1334 was not codified and incorporated into the
Palm Springs Municipal Code (PSMC).
On November 1, 2006, concurrently with the City Council's adoption of Resolution No.
21752 approving the last TUMF 2006 Nexus Study Report and the corresponding
increase to TUMF, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1704 adding Chapter 8.09
(Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee) to the PSMC, and repealed the uncodified
Ordinance No. 1334. However, Chapter 8.09 as adopted did not reflect the full CVAG
TUMF Model Ordinance, and it is necessary for Council to consider at this time an
Ordinance to repeal and restate the CVAG TUMF Model Ordinance to ensure consistency
with the City's administration of TUMF in accordance with the 2018 Nexus Study and
2018 TUMF Handbook.
An ordinance has been prepared for Council's consideration and adoption, included as
Attachment 5.
9
City Council Staff Report
September 5 , 2018 --Page 9
CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fe e (TUM F )
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The requested City Council action is not a "Project" as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15378 (a), a "Project" means the
whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in
the environment , or a reasonably foreseeable indirect phys ic a l change in the
environment. According to Section 15378 (b) Project does not include: (5) Organizat ional
or administrative activities of governments that will not resu lt in direct or indirect physical
changes in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The increase to TUMF ensures that the City levies and collects a developer impact fee
that appropriately mitigates the cost of completing improvements to the regional roadway
system in the Coachella Valley attributed to new development projects. TUMF is charged
and collected by the City, but transmitted and paid to CVAG for its administration of the
Measure A Program within the Coachella Valley.
SUBMITTED:
--~--"::: ~~~ _/
Marcus L. Fulle r, MPA, P.E ., P.L.S . David H. Ready :ES~
Assistant City Manager/City Engineer City Manager
Attachments:
1. CVAG TUMF Nexus Study
2. CVAG TUMF Handbook
3. Resolution No. __
4. Notice of Public Hearing
5. Ordinance No.
10
Attachment 1
11
Et.Cf1{}r:1;( ~ PiJnnm;;; s~'5tt•m-. [n,
Onf• J<._t;•.r•r P!.i,•,; S.;,~r:> I.J l 11
www.epsys.com
Draft Nexus Report
Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule
Update
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:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
In Association with:
Michael Baker International
Fehr & Peers
Rodriguez Consulting Group
March 2018
EPS #144043
12
Table of Contents
1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS ................................................................................ 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
Summary of the TUMF Calculation ............................................................................. 3
2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND ........................................................................ 5
TUMF Boundary ....................................................................................................... 5
Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts ................................................................. 6
3. TUM F PROJECTS AND COSTS ..................................................................................... 8
TUMF Project Selection ............................................................................................ 8
TUMF Project Costs ................................................................................................. 9
4. TUMF COST ALLOCATION ....................................................................................... 11
Application of Transportation Demand Model. ............................................................ 11
TUMF Capacity Improvement Projects ...................................................................... 11
TUMF Operational, Safety, and ATP Projects .............................................................. 13
Summary of TUMF Cost Allocation ........................................................................... 13
5. OTHER FUNDING FOR TUMF PROJECTS ........................................................................ 15
Obligated Funds .................................................................................................... 15
Other External Funding .......................................................................................... 16
Developer Funded Improvements ............................................................................ 16
State and Federal Transportation Funding ................................................................. 16
Local Match .......................................................................................................... 17
Measure A ........................................................................................................... 17
Summary of Other Funding Sources ........................................................................ 18
6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION ..................................................................... 20
Overview of Nexus Findings .................................................................................... 20
The TUMF Calculation ............................................................................................ 21
7. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION .............................................................. 24
Elimination of Land Use Exemptions ......................................................................... 24
Simplification of Land Use Categories ....................................................................... 24
Application of Annual Inflation Adjustment ................................................................ 25
13
Appendices
APPENDIX A: TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF
Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates APPENDIX 8:
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Figure 1
Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation ................................................................ 3
Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories .............................. 4
Estimated Growth in Trip Ends in CVAG Region (2015 -2040) ............................... 7
Summary of TUMF Projects and Total Costs ....................................................... 10
TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies ..................................... 12
Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development ............................. 14
Summary of Obligated Funds Available to Off-set TUMF Costs .............................. 15
Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off-set TUMF Costs .......................... 18
Net TUMF Costs After Funding from Other Sources ............................................. 19
Calculation of TUMF per Average Daily Trip (ADT) .............................................. 21
CVAG TUMF Boundary ...................................................................................... 6
14
1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
Introduction
This Nexus Report provides the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and its
member jurisdictions with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of an
updated Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Impact fees are one-time charges on
new development approved and collected by jurisdictions to cover the cost of regional
transportation-related capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new growth.1
The fees are typically collected upon issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy.
Initially established in 1989, the CVAG TUMF is a one-time fee charged on all new development
occurring within the CVAG region designed to cover the "fair share" cost of regional serving
transportation projects and improvements needed to serve growth. The program relies on local
agencies (e.g., cities and the County) to collect TUMF as development occurs. The TUMF Nexus
Report establishes a nexus or reasonable relationship between the updated fee amount and the
proportion of transportation improvement costs attributable to new development.
This Nexus Report has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) with support from
a broader consultant team, led by Michael Baker International, that has been retained by the
CVAG to assist in developing key components of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The
analysis and methodology incorporate input from CVAG staff, it's member jurisdictions, the TUMF
Nexus Advisory Committee, and other stakeholders.
Institutional Context
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 originally approved by voters of Riverside
County in 1988 and given a 30-year extension in 2002. 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.
Other key components of the RTP that have been updated as part of this study process, and
used as critical inputs in the TUMF update, include:
1 New development includes any construction activity that requires a building permit and creates
additional impacts on a jurisdictions regional transportation infrastructure once completed (e.g.,
through additional travel demand or "trips").
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 P:\144000s\I44043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReportS.docx
15
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
• Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS): The TPPS identifies and prioritizes
the regional arterial transportation projects in the CVAG region.
• Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE): The RACE provides costs estimates for the
projects included in the TPPS.
• Active Transportation Plan (ATP): The Regional ATP defines the bicycle, pedestrian, and
low speed electric vehicle (LSEV) networks designed to provide a multimodal compliment
and/or alternative to automobiles. The Regional ATP projects are included in the TPPS.
The TPPS, RACE, and ATP were formally approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on June 27,
2016. Since the TPPS, RACE, and ATP provide the underlying basis for the TUMF program, these
updates have necessitated 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, fee land use
categories, exemptions, cost indexing, and other factors, as described further in Chapter 7.
Legal Context
A Nexus Report provides a legal basis and necessary technical analysis to support a schedule of
transportation impact fees consistent with Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code
Section 66000 et seq.). The Mitigation Fee Act allows jurisdictions to adopt, by resolution, the
Transportation Impact Fee consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings
provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments
of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling ordinance.
Impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of constructing capital and
infrastructure improvements required to serve new development and growth in the jurisdictions
in which it is charged. As such impact fees must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection,
between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. Impact
fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other
facilities and infrastructure. In addition, impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover
the cost of existing needs/ deficiencies in the transportation capital improvement network.
In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development
project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify how the fee is to be used;
3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of
development project for which the fee is being used;
4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development
project for which the fee is imposed; and
5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public
facility.
These statutory requirements have been followed in establishing this TUMF, as documented in
subsequent chapters. If the transportation impact fee is adopted, this Nexus Study and the
technical information it contains should be maintained and reviewed periodically by CVAG to
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 P: 1 144000s \144043CVAG\Deltverdbles \DrdftNexusReportS. docx
16
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
ensure accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of fu n d i ng sources. To the extent
that transportat ion improvement req uirements, costs, and developmen t potential changes over
time, the TUMF wi ll need to be updated. Furth e r information on the implementation and
admin istration of the T UMF is pr ovided i n Chapter 7.
Summary of the TUMF Calculation
Table 1 shows summarizes the TUMF ca lculation per trip consistent wi t h nexus requirements
and the associa ted analysis contained in this Technical Report. These transpor ta t ion impact fees
are designed to cover the cost of regional transportation improvements required to support new
development after existin g deficiencies and known othe r fund i ng sources ha ve been taken into
account. The fees app ly to all new residential and non-residentia l p r ojects, except those
exempted by State o r federa l law or other means .
Table 1 Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation
Net TUMF Cost See Table 9 =a $263,335,000
Growth in ADT (20 15 -2040) See Table 3 =b 1,074,520
Avg. TUMF / ADT =a/b $245
While per trip sets the basis for the T UMF, ind iv idual la nd use categories w i ll pay different fees
depend i ng on their trip rates per unit. Table 2 provides an illustr ati ve ca lculation of the fee leve l
for various land use categories. The actua l land use catego ri es and thei r specific application,
including various discou nts, will be included i n the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter 7 .
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 P: \J44000s\1440•1JCVA G \Dell vcrables \DrdftNex usReporcS. do ex
17
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 2 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories
Land Use Category
Residential
Single Family Detached
Multi-Family
Non-Residential
Industrial
Office
Retail 2
[1] Based on a TUMF of $245 per ADT.
Fee Per Unit1
$2,310 per dwelling
$1,790 per dwelling
$1,220 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$2,390 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$6,010 per 1,000 sq. ft.
[2) Includes a discount of 35% percent to account for pass-through trips.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 P:\l44000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraltNexusReportS.docx
18
2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND
This chapter documents the land use and travel demand assumptions and forecasts that underlie
the TUMF calculations. These factors drive the traffic generation and attraction in the CVAG
region and, in turn, are critical in determining how to allocate new transportation improvement
costs between existing and new development.
TUMF Boundary
The TUMF boundaries define the geography (i.e. cities and unincorporated areas) where new
development will be subject to the TUMF. In order to assure accurate and timely implementation
of the TUMF program, the applicable boundary should be easily identified and understood by
developers and jurisdictions responsible for fee collection. 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.
As part of an update to the TUMF in 2005 (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005), the CVAG TUMF
Boundary Determination established a roughly defined area within which there exists a
"reasonable relationship" between new development and traffic conditions on TUMF roadways.
Formal boundary lines were defined based on the results of the analysis in relation to easily
administered features. This boundary is illustrated in Figure 1 and includes the CVAG core, as
well as outlying areas along the I -10 east, SR74 south, SR86 south, and SR111 south corridors.
The boundary corresponds to several easily defined features:
• The Riverside County line to the north and south,
• Joshua Tree National Park to the northeast,
• Township line 10E-11E to the east, and
• The WRCOG/CVAG border to the west.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deftverables\DraftNexusReportS.docx
19
Figure 1 CVAG TUMF Boundary
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts
Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees must establish a reasonable
relationship, or nexus, between the cost o f new capital facilities and impr ovements a l located to
future development and the contribution of growth to the need for these facilities. For
transport ation impact fees, recently updated and adopted traffic models are generally used as a
key tool to estima t e the al location of costs of new transportat ion f acilities bet ween existing and
futu r e developme nt.
Based on direction from the CVAG Execu tive Commi ttee, th e Riverside County Tra ffic Ana lysis
Mode l (RIVTAM) has been used to ca lcu late the TUMF. Specifically, as part of this study process,
the RI VTAM model has been updated to reflect the latest 2040 socio-economic foreca sts and
r oadway network assumptio n s in the CVAG region consistent with SCAG's 2016 Regiona l
Transportat io n Plan (RTP). In addition to th e Federal Transportation Improvemen t Program
(FTIP) and projects id entified in the 2016 RTP, the TP PS projects were also added to the m odel
to estimate the dai ly trips generated in the CVAG region by Year 2040.2
Table 3 shows the estimated growth i n the number of dail y vehic le trip s ends in the CVAG
region between existing (2015) and 2040 based on the updated RIVTAM model. As shown, the
2 For transportation modeling pu r poses, even projects not includ ed in th e TUMF ca lculation but
included as part of the RT P or FTIP are considered to be part of the regional networ k in 2040.
Economic & Planning Sy stems, Inc. 6 P: \ I 44000s \ l-1·104JCVAG\Dellvcrables\DrdftNexvsReportS. do ex
20
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
existing 2015 vehicle trip ends were estimated to be 3,141,640 and the total growth was
estimated to be an additional 1,074,520 trip ends over the next 25 years, or by 2040.3 Based
on this projection, the future growth in trip ends will represents about 25 percent of total trips in
2040. In other words, future growth is expected to account for roughly 25 percent of total trips
ends within the CVAG region by 2040. This proportion is used to allocate a portion of the cost for
TUMF eligible projects to future growth, as described further in subsequent chapters.
Table 3 Estimated Growth in Trip Ends in CVAG Region (2015 -2040)
Total for CVAG Regional
Network
Source: F&P; RIVTAM
Avg. Daily Trip (ADT) Ends in Year:
2015 2040 (with TPPS)
3,141,640 4,216,160
2015 -2040 Growth in ADT
Total
1,074,520
Growth as% of
2040 total
25.5%
Average
Annual
1.2%
3 Trip ends are those that either start or end in the CVAG region. Through trips (i.e. those that pass
through but do not stop in the CVAG region), are excluded from this calculation as described further in
Chapter 4.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliver.Jbles\DraltNexusReport5.docx
21
3. TUMF PROJECTS AND COSTS
This chapter documents the transportation facilities included in the TUMF as well as their
estimated cost. Development impact fees are derived from a list of planned regional
transportation capital improvement projects and associated costs that are needed in part or in
full to accommodate new growth. Consequently, the capital improvements included in the fee
program need to be described in sufficient detail to generate cost estimates. 4
TUMF Project Selection
As noted in Chapter 1, the TPPS, as well as the RACE and ATP provide the core elements of the
TUMF calculation by providing the list of potentially eligible projects and their corresponding
costs. Updates to these documents were prepared by the consultant team, led by Michael Baker
International, and formally approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on June 27, 2016.
While the projects included in the TPPS represent the universe of transportation facilities and
improvements potentially eligible for funding through TUMF, not all of them need to be included
in the program. A key component of the TUMF study process is to identify which of these eligible
projects should be included in the TUMF based on both nexus and policy considerations.
Accordingly, as part of this study, CVAG obtained input from member jurisdictions and the TUMF
Nexus Committee to consider options for reducing the cost of the TUMF program.
The policy direction resulting from this consultation was to identify and remove projects from
TUMF consideration where there was uncertainty in the likelihood of that project moving forward
in the next 15-25 years. After meeting with each of the individual jurisdictions, CVAG found that
nearly all projects scoring below 7.5 points on the TPPS met the criteria and thus should be
"removed" from TUMF consideration. Jurisdictions pointed out that these projects may become
more certain in the future, when the TUMF Nexus study is repeated.
CVAG, with concurrence from its members and the TUMF Nexus Committee, determined that the
regional priority in the TPPS necessitated the inclusion of projects scoring above 7.5 points. By
removing TPPS projects scoring 7.5 points and lower, jurisdictions acknowledge that regional
funding will not be available for those projects until or unless the TUMF project list (those TPPS
projects scoring above 7.5 points) is amended.
The ATP includes a comprehensive listing of all active transportation projects within the
jurisdictions of the CVAG member agencies that were determined to have regional significance.
Specifically, it includes local and regional bike plans as well as pedestrian improvement to transit
hubs. In addition, the TPPS includes other regional transportation projects, such as CV Link, that
correspond to long-term planning efforts and cannot analyzed in the same way as traditional
TPPS projects. These projects were tested for regional significance based on factors that were
agreed upon as part of the RTP study process. Based on CVAG committee direction, ATP and
4 Impact fees programs do not, in themselves, represent actual approval of a City plan or capital
project (and as such do require clearance through the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReportS.docx
22
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
these regional planning projects were not ranked against one another but are simply listed as
part of the regional transportation system to be considered for funding.
In addition to this policy-based approach, TPPS projects focused on the resurfacing of existing
arterials have been removed from the TUMF calculation based on nexus considerations (i.e., the
costs of these projects are excluded from TUMF). These projects are needed to maintain the
current regional arterial network rather than help accommodate growth. Based on the
requirements of AB 1600, projects focused primarily on the operation and maintenance of
existing facilities should be excluded from development impact fee programs. It should be noted
that this is a relatively minor adjustment since total cost of these projects is only $940,000.
Based on the process and criteria described above, about 80 TPPS projects were removed from
TUMF consideration, or about 30 percent of the total.5 Eliminating these projects removed about
$605 million from TUMF consideration. A detailed list of the projects included and removed from
the TPPS is provided in Appendix A.
TUM F Project Costs
As described earlier, the Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) study provides a uniform
methodology to create planning-level cost estimates for transportation projects included in the
TPPS. As further described in the RACE, these costs estimates include construction, right-of-
way, and impact factors to cover other related project conditions. 6 The costs for CV Link and
Regional Signal Synchronization were estimated from other planning efforts and added to the
overall TPPS cost.
Table 4 provides cost estimates for TPPS projects after removing those that scored at or below
7.5 points. As shown, the total delivery cost for the projects included as part of the TUMF
calculations is estimated at approximately $2.809 billion, including the TPPS, ATP, and two other
regional projects. The cost estimates for each project are attached to this Report as Appendix
B (with further detail available in the RACE).
s This total excludes ATP and other Regional Projects such as CV Link.
6 Impact factors are multipliers applied to the project's construction cost to account for special
conditions likely add to its complexity in the construction process. These include project conditions like
the existence of utilities structures, nearby drainage facilities, and medians that add complexity and
costs.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deflver.Jbles\DraftNexusReportS.docx
23
Table 4 Summa r y of TUMF Projects and Total Costs
Buildable Projects $2,506,140,000
--Capacity I mprovement Projects $2,143,490,000
--Widening or Updating Cross-Sect ions $69,9 10,000
--Other Operational Im provements $292,570,000
--Resurface or Recons t ruction Only $170,000
TP Reg ional Projects $157,
--Reg ional Bicycle Projects
--Regional Pede strian I mprovements
Other Regional Transportation Projects
--CV Link
--Valley-wide Signal Sync~ronizat i on
Regional Traffic System Costs $2,809,940,000
89.2%
76 .3%
2.5%
10.4%
0.01%
5.6 %
5.3%
0 .3%
5.2%
3.5%
1.7%
100%
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
The bulk of the T UM F project costs, or approx imately 76.3 percent, are identified as "Capacity
Improvement Projects." These projects are so -named because they expand t h e capacity of the
regional transportation network by adding lanes or entirely new arterials and connections,
allowing the network to b etter accom modate growth. The projects r e fe r red t o as "Wid en ing or
Updating of Cross-Sections" and "Other Operational Improvements", which comb in e fo r about 13
percent of costs, provide a va riety of benefits to both new and existing commuters, but do not
expand the network cap acity i n a measurable way. ATP and other regiona l projects such as CV
Link and valley-wide signal synchronization, combine for sl ightly less than 1 1 percent of total
costs.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 P: \144000s \ J•M 043CVAG \Dellver<Jbfes \Dr aftNexusRcport S. do ex
24
4. TUMF COST ALLOCATION
This Chapter describes how the cost of TUMF eligible projects (described in Chapter 3) are
allocated to new development. Under the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees cannot
include the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to address "existing deficiencies". In
other words, the cost of new capital facilities and improvements needed solely to address the
needs of existing users must be excluded from the TUMF calculation.
Application of Transportation Demand Model
As noted in Chapter 2, the nexus calculations provided in this Report utilize RIVTAM projections
to allocate the cost of the TUMF eligible projects between new and existing development. The
RIVTAM model is a mathematical representation of travel demand in the CVAG region between
Base Year 2008 and Future Year 2040, updated by Fehr & Peers as part of this study effort. The
model uses socioeconomic data, such as number of jobs and households to estimate the
expected travel in, between, and through CVAG. Existing 2015 origin-destination (0-D) trip
table and daily volumes were developed using the interpolation between the Base Year 2008
Model and Future Year 2040 Model.
The traffic growth in CVAG was estimated using the change in origin-destination (0-D) trip tables
between existing 2015 Model and Future Year 2040 Model. In order to capture the trips only
associated with the Coachella Valley region, the external-to-external trips (meaning trips starting
from and ending at areas outside of the Coachella Valley) were excluded from traffic growth. For
external-to-internal or internal-to-~xternal trips (meaning trips having one end in CVAG and the
other end outside of CVAG), only half of those trips were included in the traffic growth
calculation.
For the purpose of the TUMF, the number of trip ends was used to calculate the fee which is
consistent with the 2005 TUMF study. Any internal-to-internal trip (meaning trips traveling
inside CVAG) is considered as two trip ends and any external-to-internal or internal-to-external
trip is considered to have one trip end in Coachella Valley.
The results from the traffic demand model are applied differently depending on the type of TUMF
project under consideration. Specifically, this nexus analysis employs different cost allocation
methodologies depending on whether the project is primarily designed to increases the overall
travel capacity within the CVAG region versus those that are primarily designed for other
purposes, such as safety or bicycle I pedestrian access. The cost allocation methodology for each
category of TUMF improvement is described separately below.
TUMF Capacity Improvement Projects
As described in Chapter 3, the TPPS identified a number of projects as "capacity
improvements." These projects are so-named because they expand the capacity of the regional
transportation network by adding lanes to existing facilities or adding entirely new arterials and
connections, allowing the network to accommodate growth. For these projects the RIVTAM
model was used to estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth. Specifically, the existing
2015 daily volumes were compared to capacity to develop the existing volume/capacity (v/c)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Oeliverables\DraftNexusReportS.docx
25
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
ratio to determine whether the project is experiencing an existing deficiency based on level of
service (LOS) criteria. Consistent with the 2005 TUMF study, LOS D or worse is considered to be
unacceptable LOS for arterial roadway network.
Any project's roadway segment with a v/c ratio exceeding 0.62 (LOS D or worse) were
considered to operate with existing deficiency, and a fair share calculation was then performed to
estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth for the project. The fair share percentage
was calculated by subtracting the existing volumes from future demand and then divided by the
future demand, and the percentage was applied to the project's total cost to estimate the portion
of costs attributable to growth. For projects with roadway segments operating at LOS C or better
(or v/c ratio of 0.62 or less), it is assumed 100 percent of the project's cost is attributable to
growth.
Table 5 shows the list of TUMF projects experiencing a v/c ratio above 0.62 and how the cost of
these projects has been allocated between new and existing development. Overall, out of the
190 TUMF projects (excluding ATP) 13 are estimated to operate with an existing deficiency. As
shown in Table 5, out of the $121.7 million in total cost estimated for these projects,
approximately $54.4 million is allocated to the TUMF. The remaining $67 million, or about 55
percent, is attributable to existing deficiencies.
Table 5 TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies
Cost Fair Cost
Existing Year Future Year Contributed
Segment Considered 20151 2040 w/ TPPS 1 Share to Future
Street Name # Segment Description
in TUMF Factor Growth
ADT V/C ADT VIC d = (c-b) a b c lc e =a "d
AVE48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy $22,011,480 21.120 0.85 49,420 0.48 0.57 $12,604,712 111/SPRR
AVE 50 50 A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC $55.222,500 20,260 0.82 37,930 0.35 0.47 $25,725,852
AVE 50 5012 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl. $3,356.880 20.150 0.72 38,870 0.37 0.48 $1,616,691 Br. at Whitewater Chnl)
Dillon Rd. DLN13 S side of Whitewater Br. to $4,062,858 19,440 0.71 46,870 0.43 0.59 $2,377,730 Hwy 111
Hwy. 74 Hwy.74A Highway 111 to El Paseo $450,240 38,960 0.63 39,080 0.34 0.00 $1,383
Hwy. 111 Hwy.111 F Cook St to Eldorado Dr $3,537,600 47.240 0.72 67,580 0.58 0.30 $1,064,735
Hwy. 111 Hwy.111 G Eldorado Or to Miles Ave $4.924,800 53.240 0.81 73.300 0.64 0.27 $1,347,769
Hwy. 111 H 111 H Miles Ave to Washington St
wy. {incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl) $7,573,400 46.430 0.70 62,300 0.43 0.25 $1,929,211
Indian Cyn Dr. INCN8 Gamet Ave to 20th Ave $165.000 20,370 0.68 37,920 0.56 0.46 $0
Indian Cyn Or. INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave $1,722.800 24.960 0.85 45,050 0.31 0.45 $768,281
Indian Cyn Or. INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd $7,379,840 21.780 0.78 39,410 0.26 0.45 $3,301,360
Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes
Indian Cyn Dr. INCN13 Blvd {Incl. Future Br. at $6,945,600 16,460 0.62 27,730 0.40 0.41 $2,822,824
Mission Cr.)
Palm Dr. PD1 1-10 IC to Varner Rd $4,024.416 28.340 0.85 35.290 0.24 0.20 ~792 567
Total $121.377.414 $54,353,115
(1] Data provided by Fehr & Peers based on updated RIVTAM.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 P: 1 144000s 1 14404JCVAGIDel•verables\DraftNexusReportS. docx
26
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
As noted, the bulk of the capacity improvement projects, in terms of both number and costs,
currently operate with a v/c ratio below 0.62. Consequently, these projects are assumed to be
entirely attributable to new development.
TUMF Operational, Safety, and ATP Projects
In addition to "capacity improvement projects", other regional projects are included in the TUMF
calculation because they improve the regional network for both existing and new users. While
these projects provide a variety of benefits to both new and existing commuters, they do not
expand the network capacity in a measurable way. The TUMF projects that fall into this category
include operational improvements such as reconfiguring intersections, adding turn lanes at
intersections, adding traffic signals, and ATP projects (e.g. bike I pedestrian facility and transit
station improvements, and CV Link).
Since these improvements and facilities associated with the project categories above are
designed to serve and benefit both existing and new development, the costs are allocated in
proportion to growth. Specifically, 25 percent of the cost of these projects are allocated to
growth reflecting the estimated share of new trip ends to total trip ends in 2040 (see Table 3 in
Chapter 2).
Summary of TUMF Cost Allocation
Table 6 summarizes the allocation of TUMF eligible project costs between new and existing
development based on the methodology described above. As shown, overall, about 80 percent of
the TUMF eligible project costs are allocated to new development. This amount includes 97
percent of the cost of "Capacity Improvement Projects" since the majority of these projects are
not currently needed given level of service standards assumed for this analysis (i.e. v/c ratios of
0.62 or less).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusRepot;tS.docx
27
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 6 Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development
Buildable Projects $2,505,970,000 $2,169,010,747
--Capacity Improvement Projects 1 $2,143,490,000 96.9% $2,076,630,000
--Widening or Updating Cross -Sections 2 $69,910,000 25.5% $17,817,088
--Other Operational l mprovements2 $292,570,000 25.5% $74,563,659
ATP Regional Project s $157,700,000 $40,191,028
--Reg ional Bicycle Proj ec t s2 $149,700,000 25.5% $38,152,168
--Regional Pedestrian l mprovements2 $8,000,000 25.5% $2,038,860
Other Regional Transportation Projects $146,100,000 $37,234,681
--CV Link 2 $99,400,000 25.5% $25,332,836
--Val ley-wide Signal Synchronization 2 S46 , 1oo,ooo 25.5% S11,901,845.28
~
Total $2,809,770,000 80% $2,246,436,456
[1] Cost allocation based on RIVTAM analysis. For proje cts with no existing defic iencies, 100 percent of costs
ar e allocated to gr owth.
[2 ] Cost al location based on new trips from 2015 -2040 divided by tot al tri ps in 2040, as shown i n Tabl e 3.
Economic & Planning Sys t ems, I n c. 14 P: \144000s\ J4404JCVAG \Dehverables \Dr dft.NexusR~porr 5. docx
28
5. OTHER FUNDING FOR TUMF PROJECTS
It is a common practice in ca lculation of a d evelopment impact fee to ded uct any ob li gated o r
p r ojected revenue from other funding sources from the tota l cost of planned cap ital faci lities and
improvements. Accordingly, this section identifies and quantifies the separate external revenue
or funding sources (other than the TUMF i tself) and deducts these amounts from the TUMF
calculation.
CVAG has programm ing authority for Measure A, State and Federa l formula funds. Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the regiona l transportation plann ing agency
r espons i ble for adm i nistration of funds throughout Riverside County. Due to the dive r se needs of
sub-regions throughout the County, programming decisions within Coache l la Valley are typically
delegated to CVAG. Competitive grant funding and programm ing is typ ically managed d i rectly by
RCTC or State and Federal sponsoring agencies.
Obligated Funds
TUMF project costs should exclude fund ing that has already been secured or is ob li gated f rom
oth er externa l sources . As of November, 2016, CVAG has approximately $232 mill ion a llocated to
TPPS projects from ava ila b le sources. Pr ogramming decisions are made per iod ica l ly and
ob l igation va l ues are updated as needed. A list of cu rrent projects and f und ing commitments is
summarized in Table 7.
Table 7 Summary of Obligated Funds Available to Off-set TUMF Costs
--Capacity Improvement Projects 76.3%
--Widening or Upd atin g Cr oss-Sections $69,910,000 2.5%
Other Ope rational Im provements $292,570,000 10.4%
$157,700,000 5.6%
Regional Bicycle Projects $1491700,000 5.3%
Regional Pedestrian Improvements $8,000,000 0.3%
Regional Transportation Projects $146,100,000 5 .2% $77,767,6
$99,400,000 3.5% $75,000,000
Va ll ey-wide Signal Synchronization 1.7% $2,767,625
Regional Traffic System Costs $2,809,770,000 100% $231,953,625
[1) Only includes portion of ob li gated funding applicable t o TUMF related cos t s.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 P: \ 144000s \ J 44043CVA G\Deliv erdbles\DraftNexusReportS. do ex
29
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Although a significant portion of obligated funds are under CVAG's control, competitive funding
from State and/or federal sources, such as Active Transportation Program {ATP) funding, is
determined by others. ATP projects in the CVAG region, including major infrastructure projects
such as CV Link, have received approximately $75 million in grants and funding allocations from
CMAQ and various other sources. The values are deducted from the TPPS and ATP gross
network.
Other External Funding
As part of the TUMF study effort, CVAG staff identified and estimated the level of non-TUMF
external funding assumptions inherent in each jurisdiction's ability to move specific TPPS projects
forward. These external funding assumptions have been removed from the TUMF obligation.
Specifically, CVAG staff have worked with member jurisdictions to identify and estimate the
additional, external (i.e. non-TUMF) funding assumptions associated with the all TPPS projects
rated above 7.5 points. The total external funding estimate from all the jurisdictions was
$328,032,689. Consequently, this amount has been removed from the TUMF calculation.
Developer Funded Improvements
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. In previous TUMF Nexus Studies, the estimated value of developer dedications has
been used to offset or reduce the TUMF collection target.
This reduction of the TUMF collection target provides an appropriate program 'credit' to
developers for completing actual improvements to the arterial system. While the value of
developer contributions is difficult to quantify, they are real and should be accounted for in the
TUMF. As part of the initial TUMF calculation in 1988 it was estimated that such dedications
represented 25 percent of the 'value of total TPPS (regional system) costs. This estimate was
affirmed in 2005. It is recommended that we retain the 25 percent estimate for the value of
developer dedications for the 2018 Nexus Study, excluding CV Link.
State and Federal Transportation Funding
CVAG receives transportation funding from a variety of State and federal sources, much of which
is allocated by formula or agreement through RCTC. This includes funding through the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding
(CMAQ), the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP), and other sources. While the funding
levels from State and Federal sources can vary significantly from year to year, for the purposes
of the TUMF analysis, CVAG projects that the region will receive about $172 million from these
sources over the next 25 years, or an average of about $6.86 million per year.7
7 Based on the last call for projects in 2013 for federal grant funds STP, CVAG received $21,458,175,
or about 33 percent of the total pot for Riverside County. For CMAQ funds, CVAG is averaging about
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNeltusReport5.docll
30
Local Match
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
The CVAG share of regional road system project costs has been set by the Executive Committee
at 75 percent of qualified project costs, has been applied after any external funding comes off
the top. Local jurisdictions are required to provide the remaining 25 percent of project costs, as
well as 100 percent of unqualified project costs. For the purposes of the TUMF, CVAG has
indicated that projects on the TPPS will be funded with 75 percent regional funds with a 25
percent local match requirement. Accordingly, this analysis assumes that the TUMF costs are
reduced by 25 percent to account for this local match.
Measure A
In accordance with RCTC Ordinance No.02-001, Riverside County Transportation Commission
Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax (Measure A), 50 percent of
the sales tax revenue generated by Measure A within the Coachella Valley is allocated to CVAG
for use on the Regional Arterial System. This sales tax was approved through 2038. CVAG uses
this revenue to complete projects included in the TPPS. 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, an average of actual revenues between 2007 and 2016
(adjusted for inflation) and projected growth in trips through 2040 was used. In addition, it is
assumed that 80 percent of the Measure A revenue would be used to off-set TUMF costs, with
the remaining available to cover future project costs not covered by TUMF (e.g., the amount
allocated to "existing deficiencies"). This methodology yields average annual Measure A revenues
available to off-set TUMF costs of about $22.8 million per year or $461 million over 25 years, as
shown in Table 8.
$6 million per year. These two sources would combine for about $171A58,175 over a 25-year period
($21,458,175 + $6 million times 25 years).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\OraftNexusReport5.docx
31
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 8 Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off-set TUMF Costs
Type of Projection
Based on 2007-16 Growth Rate In Measure A $s
Based on 2010-16 Growth Rate in Measure A $s
Based on SCAG Trip Growth (2017-2040)
Average of All Projections
25 Year Total
Allocation to TUMF Eligible Projects @ 80% [1]
Average Annual
Amount
$20,308,586
$26,270,481
$21.934.342
$22,837,803
Total Projected
Through 2040
$487,406,064
$630,491,536
$526,424,215
$548,107,272
$570,945,075
$456,475,736
[1] Equals to proportion of total TUMF costs allocated to growh, as shown in Table 6.
Summary of Other Funding Sources
Table 9 summarizes the assumptions above to estimate the total revenue that is likely to be
available to off-set TUMF project costs over the next 25 years. As shown, the total TUMF Costs of
$2.176 billion (i.e., the TPPS costs attributable to growth) are reduced by an additional $1.934
billion to account for other funding sources, leaving a net TUMF cost of about $242.7 million.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 P: \1 44000s \1 44043CVA G\Deliverables \Dr aftNexusReportS. docx
32
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 9 Net TUMF Costs After Funding fro m Othe r So u r ces
~~--~?-,...,.~-,·-=-~:z:a-~~---.p,,,,. __ -. ----=-"~ ·'4 .·: ·. '''7 . ;.,. . · · .. --.. '-A t c ·N -•• , : -•• • • • • ,,., F I . . . : i . '·· I . __!!lQY!L ~:. ·. ,_._.,,ormua ,· .r·.-~
., .. "',~".,.':tl' .. { .. " · .. ' -~-· _~ .·.. . ..£>: (:o.;··~.:-:-rr·, ._;. -~ .., . r£~ ...... ·~-~~ ! .. ~-~Jt; ~~-~-"~---...1-....:._ ..... _..:.._. ... ·--------
TUMF Cost Allocation See Table 6 =a $2,24 6,436,000
-
Ob li gated Fu nding See Table 7 =b $231,953 ,625
Ex t er nal Funding CVAG Jurisdiction data =c $328,000,000
CV Li nk Costs All oca t ed t o Growth See Table 6 =d $25,332,836
Deve loper Funded Improvem ents CVAG Estimate e = 25 % * (a -d) $555,276,000
St at e and Fed era l Funding CVAG Estimate =f $171,458,000
Subtotal g =a -b-c-e-f $959,748,000
25% Local Match CVAG Policy h = g * 25 % $239,937,000
Measure A Fu ndin g to TU MF See Tabl e 8 =i ~456,476,0 00
Net TUMF Cost s j=g -h -i $263,335,000
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 P: \ 144000s\J4.f04 J CVAG \Dehverables\OrdftN ex usRepor rS. docx
33
6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION
This chapter summarizes the nexus findings presents in the previous chapters and calculates and
presents the final TUMF calculations.
Overview of Nexus Findings
A "nexus" or relationship between new development in the CVAG region and transportation
improvements and their costs must be established before incorporating transportation
improvement costs into a transportation impact fee calculation. To determine the appropriate
costs to include in the new transportation fee calculation, it is necessary to conduct a series of
steps:
• Identify Total Costs of Transportation Improvements. The identification of the
required transportation improvement projects and their associated costs is the first step (see
Chapter 3).
• Remove Existing Deficiencies. Next, it is necessary to evaluate whether there is an
existing deficiency at any of the project locations, and if so, the magnitude of that deficiency.
Existing deficiencies are accounted for by reducing the project cost that is included in the Fee
Program with funding required from other sources (see Chapter 4)
• Determine Proportionate Allocation to New Development. Once existing deficiencies
are identified, it is necessary to determine the proportion of the remaining project cost that is
attributable to new development in Cupertino, and therefore can be the subject of a fee
program (see Chapter 4).
• Account for Known Funding. To the extent there is dedicated funding for any of the
transportation improvements, this portion of costs should not be included in the
transportation fee calculation. For this TIF calculation, funding from external sources has
been excluded (see Chapter 5).
The technical calculations described above and further detailed in subsequent sections establish
the following nexus findings, consistent with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Purpose
The TUMF will help maintain adequate levels of transportation service in the CVAG region. It is
levied on all new development throughout the Coachella Valley to mitigate the cumulative
regional impacts on the transportation system.
Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to fund regional transportation improvements, including roadway,
intersection, interchange, and traffic signal improvements, ATP facilities and other regional
serving projects. The list of eligible transportation projects and costs are summarized in Chapter
3 and further detailed in the Appendix B and the TPPS.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 P: \ 144000s \ 144043CVA G\Deliver.Jbles \Dr.JftNexusReportS.docx
34
Relationship
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
N ew d evel opmen t in the CVAG region wi l l in crease demands for, and travel on, the region's
trans portation network. Transportation fee re ve nue wi ll be used to fund additional
tran sp ortation capa c ity n ecessa r y to accommodate this g ro wth. New developmen t wi l l ben efit
f ro m the increased transportation cap ac ity .
Need
Ea ch n ew development project w ill add to the i nc r e m e ntal need fo r tran sp ortation ca pa city and
improveme nts. Th e tran sp ortation _im proveme nts consid ered i n this Study have b ee n id entified
a nd are n e cessa ry to s upport th e future transportation needs in the CV AG r eg ion.
Proportionality
Th e f ee levels a r e tied t o fa ir s h a r e cost allocations to n ew d eve lo pm e nt ba sed on the RIVTAM
transportation model and adapted for t his study purpose. Recognizing th at some im p r ove m e nts
within th e Coachel la Val ley wi ll be com pl et e d b y developer d edication s or us ing alternate funding
sources, the TUMF progra m es tablis hes the s hare of un f und e d improvement costs i n rough
proportio na lity to the number of t rips genera ted by new development and ass ign s the fa ir-share
fee t o n ew deve lop ments o n this basis.
The TUMF Calculation
Th e data and analysis described above prov id e the core components of the TUMF calculation .
The final step in th e TUMF calcu la tio n is to estimate the fe e per trip and by land us e category
(i.e. differe nt types of residential ard non-residential develo pmen t ). These calculatio ns are
described below .
TUMF per Trip
Th e TUMF r ate p e r trip is ca lculated by d iv idi ng the net T UMF co st above by t he projected g r owth
in averag e dai ly tri ps (ADT) over from 2015 -2040. Specif ically, the fee per trip is calcu lated by
div id ing the ag g regate fee p rogram cos t of $263.3 millio n by th e t o tal number of trips generated
by n ew deve lopme nt, or 1.074,520, as shown i n Table 10. T he resu lt s in a TUMF of $245 per
ADT.
Table 10 Calculation of TUMF per Average Daily Trip {ADT}
Net TUMF Cos t See Table 9 =a
Growth in ADT (2015-2040) See Table 3 =b
Avg. TUMF / ADT =a/b $245
Economic & Planning Syst ems, I nc. 21 P: \ 14.:t 000s \I ··t404JCVAG\Deliverablcs \DraftNexusReporrS. docx
35
TUMF by Land Use
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
This average TUMF per trip amount will be used as the basis for calculating the actual TUMF
obligation for particular types of development based on ADT generation factors for specific land
use categories. Table 11 provides the ADT rates for generalized land use categories based on
the Institute of Transportation Engineers {ITE) Trip Generation Manual (lOth Edition released in
2017). The actual land use categories and their specific application, including various discounts,
will be included in the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter 7. In addition, CVAG may
update these rates and land use categories over time as conditions change and new data
becomes available.
Table 11 Trip Rate Assumptions for illustrative Land Use Categories
Land Use Category
Residential
Single Family Detached
Multi-Family
Non-Residential
Industrial
Office
Retail
ITE Daily Trip Rate/ Unit ITE Code
9.44 dwelling 210
7.32 dwelling 220
4.96 1000 sq. ft. 110
9.74 1000 sq. ft. 710
37.75 1000 sq. ft. 820
ITE Land Use Description
Single-Family Detached Housing
Multifamily Housing Low Rise
General Light Industrial
General Office Building
Shopping Center
Table 12 calculates the TUMF for each land use categories defined above based on the fee per
trip. It should be noted that, the TUMF per trip rate for retail is reduced by 35 percent to
account "linked" and pass-through trips, or trips that are part of multi-purpose commute (e.g.,
stopping at a retail store on the way to or from work). Typically, retail-based trips often involve
multiple stops. To recognize this traffic pattern, an adjustment for pass-through trips, or
percentage of new trip adjustment, takes into account vehicle trips using the adjacent roadway
that enter a site as an intermediate stop on the way to another destination. For example, some
drivers will stop for fuel on their way home from work. The pass-by adjustment reduces total
number of vehicle trips to account for the sharing of the one trip for two destinations (fuel and
then home).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 P: \ 144000s \ 144043CVAG\Deliverables \DraftNexusReportS. docx
36
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 12 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories
Land Use Category
Residential
Single Family Detached
Multi-Family
Non-Residential
Industrial
Office
Retail 2
[1] Based on a TUMF of $245 per ADT.
Fee Per Unie
$2,310 per dwelling
$1,790 per dwelling
$1,220 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$2,390 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$6,010 per 1,000 sq. ft.
[2] Includes a discount of 35% percent to account for pass-through trips.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 P:\l44000s\l44043CVAG\Dellverables\DraftNexusReportS.docx
37
7. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
This chapter summarizes the implementation and administrative issues and procedures
associated with the TUMF program. Implementation and administrative elements of this Updated
TUMF are specified in the CVAG TUMF Handbook as well as the CVAG TUMF model ordinance.
This TUMF update incorporates a number of modifications requested by CVAG's member
jurisdictions and other stakeholders. The key elements of these documents that are expected to
be modified as part of this update are described below.
Elimination of Land Use Exemptions
The 2012 TUMF policy handbook exempts a number of land use categories from paying the fee
(examples include affordable housing, public buildings, and some religious structures). It is
proposed that the new TUMF update will eliminate any TUMF land use exemptions except those
required by State or federal law (for example, public schools are statutorily exempt from AB
1600 impact fees). In other words, all new development that increases trips in the CVAG region
will be subject to the TUMF unless otherwise exempt due to State and I or federal law.
While the goal is to eliminate all exemptions, consistent with State or federal law, CVAG has also
proposed a TUMF discount for Transit Oriented Residential Development projects. With the new
Handbook, CVAG is also considering an exemption for Affordable housing (below 80°/o of the
ACI).
Regional fee programs approach affordable housing fees in a variety of ways; charge a full fee,
allow fee reductions of a stated percentage, and completely exempting fees. These are evenly
implemented throughout programs in California. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual does not include affordable housing as a land use. Programs that charge a fee
often simply define a reduction of 20°/o or 50°/o of the fee for affordable housing but don't
provide a methodology on how it was arrived at other than it was a policy decision.
Simplification of Land Use Categories
The current TUMF Manual defines over 35 separate land use categories, and numerous sub-
categories, each with different fee rates based upon trip generation. Concerns have been raised
by developers and CVAG member agencies that this structure is overly complicated and
confusing. Consequently, CVAG has simplified the land use categories which eliminate factors
that override the basic fee rate of a land use.
For example, under the current TUMF Program, the highest TUMF rates are for convenience
markets and fast food restaurants. When convenience stores are located within shopping
centers it can create confusion because under the current TUMF Manual, shopping centers are
defined as having at least three business establishments which may be housed in one or more
buildings; have a total building floor area of at least 10,000 square feet (sq. ft.), and that the
largest establishment not contain more than 50 percent of the floor area.
Under the new TUMF Program, it proposed that the land use categories be simplified and
consolidated. For example, convenience stores, restaurants and shopping centers are proposed
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReportS.docx
38
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
to be charged strictly as "retail" and charged one flat rate. Therefore, TUMF would apply to each
new building based on square footage without any additional factors.
Application of Annual Inflation Adjustment
It is common practice to include an annual adjustment factor so that the fee revenues keep pace
with inflation. By way of example, the Coachella Valley Local Development Mitigation Fee is
revised annually by means of an adjustment at the beginning of each fiscal year based on the
average percentage change over the previous calendar year set forth in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area. Accordingly, it is proposed that an
inflation adjustment for TUMF be reviewed by CVAG's Executive Committee on an annual basis.
Such inflation adjustment shall be the same as the Coachella Valley Local Development
Mitigation Fee.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 P: \l 44000s \l 44043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReportS.docx
39
APPENDIX A:
TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF
40
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment Segment Description Included in TUMF?
Number (Yes/No)
Yes No
20TH AVE 20A Worsley Rd to N Indian Canyon Dr No
20TH AVE 20B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (missing link) Yes
20TH AVE 20C Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr (missing link) Yes
20TH AVE 20D Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Yes
AVE44 44A Ave 44 Br./Low Water Xing Yes
AVE44 44B Monroe St to Low Water Xing Yes
AVE44 44C Low Water Xing to Dillon Rd Yes
AVE48 48B1 Jefferson St to Madison St No
AVE48 48B Madison St to W side of AII-Amer. Canal (Excl. Br. At No AII-Amer. Canal)
AVE48 48E Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes
AVE48 48F Van Buren St to W of SR-86 Yes
AVE48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR Yes
AVE 50 50 A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC Yes
AVE 50 50B1 Washington St toE side of Br. at Evac. Chnl (Incl. Br. at Yes Evac. Chnl)
AVE 50 50C Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. at AII-Amer. Canal) Yes
AVE 50 50D Madison St to Monroe St Yes
AVE 50 50E Monroe St to Jackson St Yes
AVE 50 50F Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes
AVE 50 50G Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes
AVE 50 5012 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes
AVE 50 50J Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR Yes
AVE 50 50K SR-86S to 1-1 0 IC Yes
AVE 50 50L Br. at AII-Amer. Canal (in 50K) Yes
AVE 50 50M Future Ave 50 1-10 IC Yes
AVE 52 52B Jefferson St to Madison St (Excl. Br. at AII-Amer. Yes Canal)
AVE 52 52D Monroe St to Jackson St Yes
AVE 52 52E Jackson St to Calhoun St Yes
AVE 52 52F1 Calhoun St to Van Buren St Yes
AVE 52 52F2 Van Buren St to Frederick St Yes
AVE 52 52G Frederick St to Harrison St Yes
AVE 52 52H Intersection of Ave 52 and SR-86 No
AVE 52 521A Harrison St to Shady Ln Yes
AVE 52 521B Shady Ln to Hwy 111 Yes
AVE 52 52K Future Ave 52 SR-86S IC Yes
AVE 52 52L Hwy 111 to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes
AVE 52 52M SR-86S to Pierce St Yes
AVE 54 54 A Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes
AVE 54 54B Harrison St to Tyler St Yes
AVE 54 54C Tyler St to Hwy 111 Yes
AVE 56/ AIRPORT BLVD 56B Monroe St to Jackson St No
AVE 56 I AIRPORT BLVD 56C Jackson St to 0.25 miles W of Van Buren St No
AVE 56/ AIRPORT BLVD 56D 0.25 mi. W of Van Buren St to Harrison St No
AVE 56/ AIRPORT BLVD 56E Harrison St to Tyler St No
AVE 56/ AIRPORT BLVD 56F Tyler St to Polk St No
AVE 56/ AIRPORT BLVD 56G Polk St to Highway 111 (Grapefruit Blvd) Yes
AVE 56/ AIRPORT BLVD 561 SPRR to SR-86 (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes
41
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment Segment Description Included in TUMF?
Number (Yes/No)
Yes No
58TH AVE 58A Jefferson St to Madison St No
58TH AVE 58B Madison St to Monroe St No
58TH AVE 58C Monroe St to Jackson St No
58TH AVE 58D Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes
58TH AVE 58E Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes
66TH AVE 66A Future 66th Ave SR-86 IC Yes
66TH AVE 66B 66th Ave Br./Low Water Xing Yes
66TH AVE 66C Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (Bridge) Yes
BOB HOPE DR BH1-6 Frank Sinatra Dr to Gerald Ford Dr No
BOB HOPE DR BH2-6 Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore Dr No
BOB HOPE DR BH3-6 Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd (southbound only) No
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN1 Terrace Rd toE Palm Canyon Dr No
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN2 E Palm Canyon Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. (Incl. Yes Cath Cyn Br.)
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN4 N side of Whitewater Br. to Dinah Shore Dr No
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN5 Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd No
COOK ST (formerly CHASE CHSC1 1-1 0 IC to Ramon Rd Yes SCHOOL RD)
COOKST CK4 Frank Sinatra Dr to Country Club Dr Yes
COOKST CK5 Country Club Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. Yes
COOKST CK6 S side of Whitewater Br. to Fred Waring Dr Yes
COOKST CK7 Br. at Whitewater Chnl No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC4 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC5 Portola Ave to Cook St Yes
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC6 Cook St to Eldorado Dr No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC7 Eldorado Dr to Oasis Club Dr No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC8 Oasis Club Dr to Washington St Yes
CROSSLEY RD I GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY1 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave/Dinah Shore Dr Yes
CROSSLEY RD I GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY2 Dinah Shore Or/Mesquite Ave to 34th Ave Yes
CROSSLEY RD I GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY3A Br. at Palm Cyn Chnl No
DA VALL DR DVALL1 Dinah Shore to Ramon Rd No
DA VALL DR DVALL2 Ramon Rd to McCallum Way No
DA VALL DR DVALL3 McCallum Way to 30th Ave No
DAVALL DR DVALL4 30th Ave to 1-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR) No
DA VALL DR DVALL5 Future Da Valll-10 IC Yes
DA VALL DR DVALL6 1-10 IC to Varner Rd (Incl. Br. at Long Cyn Chnl) Yes
DATE PALM DR DPLMOA Hwy 111 (E Palm Cyn Dr) to Gerald Ford Dr (Incl. at No Cath. Cyn Br., excludes WW Br.)
DATE PALM DR DPLMOB Gerald Ford Dr to Dinah Shore Dr No
DATE PALM DR DPLMOC Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd No
DATE PALM DR DPLM1 Ramon Rd to McCallum Way No
DATE PALM DR DPLM2 McCallum Way to 30th Ave No
DATE PALM DR DPLM3 30th Ave to Vista Chino No
DILLON RD DLN1 SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr Yes
DILLON RD DLN2 Intersection of Dillon Rd & N Indian Canyon Dr Yes
DILLON RD DLN3 N Indian Canyon Dr to Palm Dr (Incl. Future Br. at Yes Mission Cr.)
DILLON RD DLN4 Intersection of Dillon Rd & Palm Dr Yes
DILLON RD DLN5 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Yes
42
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment Segment Description Included in TUMF?
Number (Yes/No)
Yes No
DILLON RD DLN6 Mountain View Rd to Bennett Rd Yes
DILLON RD DLN7 Bennett Rd to Thousand Palms Cyn Rd (Incl. Br. At No Wide Cyn Chnl)
DILLON RD DLN8 Thousand Palms Cyn Rd to Sunny Rock Rd No
DILLON RD DLN9 Sunny Rock Rd to Ave 44 (Incl. Br. over AII-Amer. No Canal)
DILLON RD DLN10 Ave 44 to 1-10 IC Yes
DILLON RD DLN11 1-10 IC toN side of Whitewater Br. No
DILLON RD DLN12 Br. at Whitewater Chnl Yes
DILLON RD DLN13 S side of Whitewater Br. to Hwy 111 Yes
DILLON RD DLN14 Dillon Rd 1-1 0 IC Yes
DILLON RD DLN15 Dillon Rd SR-86S IC Yes
DUNE PALMS RD DUNEP1 Br. at Whitewater Chnl No
DUNE PALMS RD DUNEP2 Highway 111 to Blackhawk Way (formerly Westward No Ho)
E PALM CYN DR PLCN7 Palm Cyn Dr to Sunrise Way No
E PALM CYN DR PLCN8 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr Yes
E PALM CYN DR PLCN9 Farrell Dr to Gene Autry Trl (Incl. Br. at Palm Cyn Yes Wash)
E PALM CYN DR PLCN11A Cathedral Canyon Dr to Date Palm Dr Yes
E PALM CYN DR PLCN11B Date Palm Dr toE Cath. City limits Yes
FRANK SINATRA DR FS6 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave Yes
FRANK SINATRA DR FS7 Portola Ave to Cook St No
FRANK SINATRA DR FS8 Cook St to Eldorado Dr No
FRANK SINATRA DR FS9 Eldorado Dr to Tamarisk Row Dr No
FRED WARING DR FW1 Bridge at Whitewater River No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT1A Intersection of Gene Autry Trl and Mesquite Ave I No Dinah Shore Dr
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2A E Palm Cyn to Eagle Way Yes
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2B Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash Yes
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2C N of Palm Canyon Wash Bridge to 0.18 mi south of No Mesquite Ave
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2D 0.18 mi S of Mesquite Ave to Mesquite Ave No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2E Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd Yes
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2F Ramon to Escena Way No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2G Escena Way to Vista Chino No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT3 Future Whitewater Rvr Br. Yes
GERALD FORD DR GFD4 Cook St to Frank Sinatra Dr No
GERALD FORD DR GFD5 Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr and Bob Hope Dr Yes
GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY1 Golf Center Pkwy. 1-10 IC Yes
GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY4 Ave 45 to Hwy 111 Yes
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF1 Ave 48/Dillon Rd to Ave 50 Yes
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF2 Ave 50 to Ave 52 Yes
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF3 Ave 52 to Ave 54 Yes
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF4 Ave 54 to Ave 56 No
HACIENDA AVE (now RUBY DR & l HACOA SR62 to N Indian Canyon Dr Yes
HACIENDA AVE (currently 13TH AV HACOB N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd Yes
HACIENDA AVE HAC1A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr Yes
HACIENDA AVE HAC1B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr Yes
HACIENDA AVE HAC2 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd No
43
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment Segment Description Included in TUMF?
Number (Yes/No)
Yes No
HACIENDA AVE HAC3 Mountain View Rd to Dillon Rd (long Cyn Rd) No
HARRISON ST HARSN1 Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52 Yes
HARRISON ST HARSN2 Ave 52 to Ave 54 No
HARRISON ST HARSN3 Ave 54 to Ave 56 (Airport Blvd) Yes
HIGHWAY74 HWY74A Highway 111 to El Paseo Yes
HIGHWAY74 HWY74B El Paseo to Mesa View Dr No
HIGHWAY74 HWY74C Mesa View Dr to S Palm Desert City Limits No
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111F Cook St to Eldorado Dr Yes
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave Yes
HIGHWAY111 HWY111H Miles Ave to Washington St (incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Yes Chnl)
INDIAN CYN DR INCN1 Ramon Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Way Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN2 Tahquitz Cyn Way to Alejo Rd Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN3 Alejo Rd to Tachevah Dr Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN4 Tachevah Dr to Vista Chino Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN5 Vista Chino to Racquet Club Rd Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN6 Racquet Club Rd to Sunrise Pkwy No
INDIAN CYN DR INCN7 Sunrise Pkwy to Garnet Avenue Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN8 Garnet Ave to 20th Ave Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN11 Dillon Rd to 14th Ave Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN12 14th Ave to Pierson Blvd Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN13 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at Yes Mission Cr.)
INDIAN CYN DR INCN14 Mission Lakes Blvd to SR-62 No
INDIO BLVD INDIOO 1-10 Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 railroad Yes bridges)
INDIO BLVD INDI01 Jefferson St to Madison St (over AII-Amer. Canal) Yes
JACKSON ST JAC2A1 1-10 IC to 43rd Ave Yes
JACKSON ST JAC2A2 43rd Ave to Ave 44 Yes
JACKSON ST JAC4 Ave 48 to Ave 50 Yes
JACKSON ST JACS Ave 50 to Ave 52 Yes
JACKSON ST JAC6 Jackson St 1-10 IC Yes
JEFFERSON ST JEF1A Intersection of Jefferson St and Dunbar Dr No
JEFFERSON ST JEF2A 58th Ave to 62th Ave Yes
JEFFERSON ST JEF9A1 40th Ave to 0.27 mi S of Ave 39 Yes
JEFFERSON ST JEF9B Ave 39 to Ave 38 No
KEY LARGO AVE KL 1 Dinah Shore Dr. to Varner Rd (Incl. flyover at 1-10 and Yes RR)
LANDAU BLVD LAN1 Vista Chino to Verona Rd Yes
LANDAU BLVD LAN2 Verona Rd to 1-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR, missing link) Yes
LANDAU BLVD LAN3 Future Landau Blvd 1-10 IC (missing link) Yes
LANDAU BLVD LAN4 1-10 IC to Varner Rd (missing link) Yes
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM1 Mission Lakes Blvd to Pierson Blvd No
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM2 Pierson Blvd to Two Bunch Palms Trl Yes
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM3 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Dillon Rd (Incl. Future Br. at Yes Mission Cr.)
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM4 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave Yes
MADISON ST MADS Ave 52 to Ave 50 Yes
44
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment Segment Description Included in TUMF?
Number (Yes/No)
Yes No
MADISON ST MAD? A 0.25 miN of Ave 49 to Ave 48 Yes
MADISON ST MAD?B Ave 48 to Hwy 111 Yes
MADISON ST MAD9 Miles Ave to Fred Waring Dr (Incl. Br. over WW Chnl Yes and AII-Amer. Canal, missing link)
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLKO SR 62 to Indian Canyon Dr Yes
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd No
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr No
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK3 Palm Dr to Eastern Terminus at Verbena Dr No
MONROEST MON1 0.25 miN of Ave 42 to Ave 42 Yes
MONROEST MON6 Monroe St 1-1 0 IC Yes
MONROE ST MON7 Ave 54 to 58th Ave No
MONROEST MONBA 58th Ave to Ave 60 No
MONROEST MONBB Ave 60 to 62nd Ave No
MONROE ST MON9 1-10 Interchange to 900ft N of Oleander Yes
MONTEREY AVE MNT1-6 Highway 111 to Fred Waring Dr Yes
MONTEREY AVE MNT2-6 Fred Waring Dr to Clancy Lane (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Yes River)
MONTEREY AVE MNT3-6 Clancy Lane to Country Club Dr Yes
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTVO Pierson Blvd atE Terminus of Desert View Ave to No Hacienda Ave
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1A Hacienda Ave to Brunner Ln Yes
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1B Brunner Ln to Dillon Rd Yes
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV2 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave No
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV3 20th Ave to Varner Rd No
N PALM CYN DR PLCN1 Vista Chino to Tachevah Dr No
N PALM CYN DR PLCN2 Tachevah Dr to Alejo Rd No
N PALM CYN DR PLCN3 Alejo Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Rd Yes
N PALM CYN DR PLCN4 Tahquitz Cyn Rd to Ramon Rd Yes
N PALM CYN DR PLCN5 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave (Incl. Brat Tahquitz Crk.) Yes
N PALM CYN DR PLCN6 Mesquite Ave to E Palm Cyn Dr Yes
PALM DR PD1 1-10 IC to Varner.Rd Yes
PALM DR PD2 Varner Rd to 20th Ave No
PALM DR PD3 20th Ave to Dillon Rd Yes
PALM DR PD4 Dillon Rd to Two Bunch Palms Trl Yes
PALM DR PD5 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Hacienda Ave No
PALM DR PD6 Hacienda Ave to Pierson Blvd No
PALM DR PD? Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd Yes
PIERSON BLVD PRS1 SR-62 toN Indian Canyon Dr No
PIERSON BLVD PRS2 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (Incl. Br. at No Mission Cr.)
PIERSON BLVD PRS3A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr No
PIERSON BLVD PRS3B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr No
PIERSON BLVD PRS4A Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd No
PIERSON BLVD PRS4B Miracle Hill Rd to Eastern Terminus of Desert View Av. No
POLKST PLK1 Polk St from Ave 52 to Ave 48 Yes
PORTOLA AVE POR1 Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr Yes
PORTOLA AVE POR2 Magnesia Falls Dr to Country Club Dr (Excl. Br. at No Whitewater Chnl)
PORTOLA AVE POR3 Country Club Dr to Frank Sinatra Dr Yes
PORTOLA AVE POR4A Frank Sinatra Dr to Julie Ln Yes
45
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment Segment Description Included in TUMF?
Number (Yes/No)
Yes No
PORTOLA AVE POR5B Dinah Shore Dr to 1-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR) Yes
PORTOLA AVE POR6 Future Portola Ave 1-10 IC Yes
RAMON RD RAM1 S Palm Cyn Dr to S Indian Cyn Dr Yes
RAMON RD RAM2 S Indian Cyn to Sunrise Way (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl Yes Xing)
RAMON RD RAM3 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr Yes
RAMON RD RAM3A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Sunrise Way Yes
RAMON RD RAM4 Farrell Dr to El Cielo Rd Yes
RAMON RD RAM4A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Farrell Drive Yes
RAMON RD RAM5 El Cielo Rd to Gene Autry Trl Yes
RAMON RD RAM5A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Crossley Rd Yes
RAMON RD RAM7 Br. at Whitewater Rvr Yes
RAMON RD RAM15 Monterey Ave to Thousand Palms Cyn Rd No
S VALLEY PKWY I AVE 60 SV1 Monroe St to Jackson St Yes
S VALLEY PKWY I AVE 60 SV2 Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes
S VALLEY PKWY I AVE 60 SV3 Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes
S VALLEY PKWY SV4 Harrison St to Tyler St (missing link) Yes
S VALLEY PKWY SV5 Tyler St to Polk St (missing link) Yes
S VALLEY PKWY /62ND AVE SV6 Polk St to Fillmore St No
S VALLEY PKWY /62ND AVE SV7 Fillmore St to Pierce St (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) No
S VALLEY PKWY /62ND AVE SV8 Pierce St to SR-86 Yes
S VALLEY PKWY /62ND AVE SV9 Future Ave 62 SR-86 IC Yes
THOUSAND PALMS CYN RD THPL1 Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd Yes
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR /14TH TBP1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd Yes AVE
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr Yes
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP3 Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd Yes
TYLER ST TYL1 Ave 50 to 1-10 frontage road Yes
VAN BUREN ST VANB2 Ave 48 to Ave 50 Yes
VAN BUREN ST VANB3 Ave 50 to Ave 52 Yes
VAN BUREN ST VANB4 Ave 52 to Ave 54 No
VAN BUREN ST VANB5 Ave 54 to Ave 56/Airport Blvd Yes
VARNER RD VRNRO 20th Ave to Palm Dr Yes
VARNER RD VRNR1 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Yes
VARNER RD VRNR2 Mountain View Rd to Date Palm Dr Yes
VARNER RD VRNR3 Date Palm Dr to Ramon Rd Yes
VARNER RD VRNR6 Monterey Ave to Cook St No
VARNER RD VRNR7B Ave 38 to Washington St Yes
VARNER RD I AVE 42 VRNR9 Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. over AII-Amer. Yes Canal)
VARNER RD I AVE 42 VRNR10A Madison St to Clinton St No
VARNER RD I AVE 42 VRNR10B Clinton St to Monroe St Yes
VARNER RD I AVE 42 VRNR11 Monroe St to Gore St Yes
VISTA CHINO VC1 N Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise Way Yes
VISTA CHINO VC1A Intersection of Vista Chino and N Palm Canyon Dr Yes
VISTA CHINO VC2 Sunrise Way to Gene Autry Trl Yes
VISTA CHINO VC2AA Intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise Way Yes
VISTA CHINO VC2AB Intersection of Vista Chino and Farrell Drive Yes
VISTA CHINO VC2A Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trl Yes
VISTA CHINO VC3 Gene Autry Trl to W side of Whitewater Rvr Yes
46
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
WASHINGTON ST
WASHINGTON ST
WASHINGTON ST
WORSLEY RD
WORSLEY RD
WORSLEY RD
WORSLEY RD
Segment
Number
VC4
vcs
VC7
WSH9
WSH10A
WSH10B
WORS1
WORS2
WORS3
WORS4
Segment Description
Future Whitewater Rvr Br.
E side of Whitewater Rvr to Landau Blvd
Date Palm Dr to Da Vall Dr
1-10 IC to Ave 38
Ave 38 to Coyote Song Way
Coyote Song Way to Ramon Rd
20th Ave to Dillon Rd
Dillon Rd to 1 mile S of Pierson Blvd
1 mileS of Pierson Blvd to Pierson Blvd
Pierson Blvd toN Indian Canyon Dr
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Total 188 94
47
APPENDIX B:
Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates
48
Appendix 8
. List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment Segment Description Number Project Costs
20TH AVE 20B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (missing link) $11,208,000
20TH AVE 20C Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr (missing link) $15,974,400
20TH AVE 20D Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $7,036,800
AVE44 44A Ave 44 Br./Low Water Xing $14,313,000
AVE44 44B Monroe St to Low Water Xing $7,411,950
AVE44 44C Low Water Xing to Dillon Rd $12,083,250
AVE48 48E Jackson St to Van Buren St $5,315,970
AVE48 48F Van Buren St to W of SR-86 $2,275,088
AVE48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR $22,011,480
AVE 50 50 A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC $55,222,500
AVE 50 50B1 Washington St toE side of Br. at Evac. Chnl (Incl. Br. at $8,799,480 Evac. Chnl)
AVE 50 50C Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. at AII-Amer. Canal) $7,131,405
AVE 50 50D Madison St to Monroe St $4,977,480
AVE 50 50E Monroe St to Jackson St $2,304,030
AVE 50 50F Jackson St to Van Buren St $12,084,000
AVE 50 50G Van Buren St to Harrison St $14,301,582
AVE 50 5012 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $3,356,880
AVE 50 50J Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR $21,687,600
AVE 50 50K SR-86S to 1-10 IC $45,177,600
AVE 50 50L Br. at AII-Amer. Canal (in 50K) $3,952,320
AVE 50 50M Future Ave 50 1-10 IC $62,687,500
AVE 52 52B Jefferson St to Madison St (Excl. Br. at AII-Amer. Canal) $2,075,940
AVE 52 52D Monroe St to Jackson St $4,195,800
AVE 52 52E Jackson St to Calhoun St $2,660,400
AVE 52 52F1 Calhoun St to Van Buren St $2,699,400
AVE 52 52F2 Van Buren St to Frederick St $4,689,300
AVE 52 52G Frederick St to Harrison St $6,190,104
AVE 52 521A Harrison St to Shady Ln $13,286,328
AVE 52 521B Shady Ln to Hwy 111 $1,629,900
AVE 52 52K Future Ave 52 SR-86S IC $53,782,500
AVE 52 52L Hwy 111 to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $22,536,194
AVE 52 52M SR-86S to Pierce St $20,556,880
AVE 54 54 A Van Buren St to Harrison St $4,794,900
AVE 54 54B Harrison St to Tyler St $4,560,300
AVE 54 54C Tyler St to Hwy 111 $6,380,750
AVE 56/ AIRPORT BLVD 56G Polk St to Highway 111 (Grapefruit Blvd) $1,155,714
AVE 56/ AIRPORT BLVD 561 SPRR to SR-86 (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $13,329,000
58TH AVE 58D Jackson St to Van Buren St $4,583,040
58TH AVE 58E Van Buren St to Harrison St $4,583,040
66TH AVE 66A Future 66th Ave SR-86 IC $46,934,500
66TH AVE 66B 66th Ave Br./Low Water Xing $2,826,960
66TH AVE 66C Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (Bridge) $48,044,000
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN2 E Palm Canyon Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. (Incl. Cath $4,815,850
Cyn Br.)
COOK ST (formerly CHASE CHSC1 1-1 0 IC to Ramon Rd $25,501,600
SCHOOL RD)
COOK ST CK4 Frank Sinatra Dr to Country Club Dr $3,997,488
COOK ST CK5 Country Club Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. $6,228,320
49
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment Segment Description Number Project Costs
COOK ST CK6 S side of Whitewater Br. to Fred Waring Dr $1,212,030
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC5 Portola Ave to Cook St $3,714,480
COUNTRY CLUB DR cc8 Oasis Club Dr to Washington St $3,812,300
CROSSLEY RD I GOLF CROSLY1 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave/Dinah Shore Dr $2,283,600 CLUB DR
CROSSLEY RD I GOLF CROSLY2 Dinah Shore Or/Mesquite Ave to 34th Ave $2,928,100 CLUB DR
DA VALL DR DVALL5 Future Da Valll-10 IC $71,647,500
DA VALL DR DVALL6 1-10 IC to Varner Rd (Incl. Br. at Long Cyn Chnl) $24,753,600
DILLON RD DLN1 SR-62 toN Indian Canyon Dr $29,522,800
DILLON RD DLN2 Intersection of Dillon Rd & N Indian Canyon Dr $956,500
DILLON RD DLN3 N Indian Canyon Dr to Palm Dr (Incl. Future Br. at Mission $12,887,680 Cr.)
DILLON RD DLN4 Intersection of Dillon Rd & Palm Dr $956,500
DILLON RD DLN5 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $5,353,920
DILLON RD DLN6 Mountain View Rd to Bennett Rd $11,495,760
DILLON RD DLN10 Ave 44 to 1-10 IC $9,427,480
DILLON RD DLN12 Br. at Whitewater Chnl $1,487,125
DILLON RD DLN13 S side of Whitewater Br. to Hwy 111 $4,062,858
DILLON RD DLN14 Dillon Rd 1-1 0 IC $18,150,000
DILLON RD DLN15 Dillon Rd SR-86S IC $15,360,000
E PALM CYN DR PLCN8 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr $1,531,200
E PALM CYN DR PLCN9 Farrell Dr to Gene Autry Trl (Incl. Br. at Palm Cyn Wash) $7,725,600
E PALM CYN DR PLCN11A Cathedral Canyon Dr to Date Palm Dr $2,166,000
E PALM CYN DR PLCN11B Date Palm Dr toE Cath. City limits $2,483,800
FRANK SINATRA DR FS6 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave $4,750,434
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2A E Palm Cyn to Eagle Way $631,450
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2B Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash $6,655,700
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2E Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd $957,600
GENE AUTRY TR GAT3 Future Whitewater Rvr Br. $233,900,000
GERALD FORD DR GFD5 Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr and Bob Hope Dr $1,099,332
GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY1 Golf Center Pkwy. 1-10 IC $19,481 '100
GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY4 Ave 45 to Hwy 111 $2,725,800
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF1 Ave 48/Dillon Rd to Ave 50 $4,978,000
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF2 Ave 50 to Ave 52 $12,157,200
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF3 Ave 52 to Ave 54 $12,772,500
HACIENDA AVE (now RUBY HACOA SR62 toN Indian Canyon Dr $34,336,000 DR and ESTRADA AVE)
HACIENDA AVE (now 13TH HACOB N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd $12,503,040
AVE)
HACIENDA AVE HAC1A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr $7,793,280
HACIENDA AVE HAC1B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr $2,653,200
HARRISON ST HARSN1 Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52 $3,677,200
HARRISON ST HARSN3 Ave 54 to Ave 56 (Airport Blvd) $9,694,080
HIGHWAY74 HWY74A Highway 111 to El Paseo $450,240
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111F Cook St to Eldorado Dr $3,537,600
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave $4,924,800
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111H Miles Ave to Washington St (incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl) $7,573,400
INDIAN CYN DR INCN1 Ramon Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Way $5,847,600
INDIAN CYN DR INCN2 Tahquitz Cyn Way to Alejo Rd $2,123,550
INDIAN CYN DR INCN3 Alejo Rd to T achevah Dr $2,383,200
50
AppendixB
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment Segment Description Number Project Costs
INDIAN CYN DR INCN4 Tachevah Dr to Vista Chino $1,463,550
INDIAN CYN DR INCN5 Vista Chino to Racquet Club Rd $1,440,900
INDIAN CYN DR INCN7 Sunrise Pkwy to Garnet Avenue $204,099,790
INDIAN CYN DR INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave $1,722,800
INDIAN CYN DR INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd $7,379,840
INDIAN CYN DR INCN11 Dillon Rd to 14th Ave $5,510,000
INDIAN CYN DR INCN12 14th Ave to Pierson Blvd $4,903,440
INDIAN CYN DR INCN13 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd {Incl. Future Br. at $6,945,600 Mission Cr.)
INDIO BLVD INDIOO 1-10 Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 railroad bridges) $21,888,720
INDIO BLVD INDI01 Jefferson St to Madison St {over AII-Amer. Canal) $2,920,195
JACKSON ST JAC2A1 1-10 IC to 43rd Ave $17,915,106
JACKSON ST JAC2A2 43rd Ave to Ave 44 $10,967,500
JACKSON ST JAC4 Ave 48 to Ave 50 $5,615,280
JACKSON ST JAC5 Ave 50 to Ave 52 $2,047,650
JACKSON ST JAC6 Jackson St 1-10 IC $19,826,100
JEFFERSON ST JEF2A 58th Ave to 62th Ave $13,518,000
JEFFERSON ST JEF9A1 40th Ave to 0.27 mi S of Ave 39 $1,011,840
KEY LARGO AVE KL 1 Dinah Shore Dr. to Varner Rd (Incl. flyover at 1-10 and RR) $23,868,000
LANDAU BLVD LAN1 Vista Chino to Verona Rd $832,000
LANDAU BLVD LAN2 Verona Rd to 1-10 IC {Incl. Br. over RR, missing link) $19,280,000
LANDAU BLVD LAN3 Future Landau Blvd 1-10 IC (missing link) $71,647,500
LANDAU BLVD LAN4 1-10 IC to Varner Rd (missing link) $22,614,400
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM2 Pierson Blvd to Two Bunch Palms Trl $4,506,240
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM3 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Dillon Rd (Incl. Future Br. at Mission $14,539,120 Cr.)
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM4 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave $19,768,320
MADISON ST MAD5 Ave 52 to Ave 50 $6,608,460
MADISON ST MAD7A 0.25 mi N of Ave 49 to Ave 48 $898,920
MADISON ST MAD7B Ave 48 to Hwy 111 $1,450,140
MADISON ST MAD9 Miles Ave to Fred Waring Dr (ln_cl. Br. over WW Chnl and All-$18,607,200 Amer. Canal, missing link)
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLKO SR 62 to Indian Canyon Dr $29,315,840
MONROE ST MON1 0.25 mi N of Ave 42 to Ave 42 $1,754,280
MONROE ST MONS Monroe St 1-1 0 IC $2,400,000
MONROE ST MON9 1-1 0 Interchange to 900 ft N of Oleander $15,467,750
MONTEREY AVE MNT1-6 Highway 111 to Fred Waring Dr $1,240,800
MONTEREY AVE MNT2-6 Fred Waring Dr to Clancy Lane (Incl. Br. at Whitewater River) $13,247,266
MONTEREY AVE MNT3-6 Clancy Lane to Country Club Dr $3,557,376
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1A Hacienda Ave to Brunner Ln $4,016,160
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1B Brunner Ln to Dillon Rd $3,315,840
N PALM CYN DR PLCN3 Alejo Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Rd $1,182,150
N PALM CYN DR PLCN4 Tahquitz Cyn Rd to Ramon Rd $1,310,850
N PALM CYN DR PLCN5 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave (Incl. Brat Tahquitz Creek) $6,437,440
N PALM CYN DR PLCN6 Mesquite Ave toE Palm Cyn Dr $1,436,200
PALM DR PD1 1-10 IC to Varner Rd $4,024,416
PALM DR PD3 20th Ave to Dillon Rd $7,736,256
PALM DR PD4 Dillon Rd to Two Bunch Palms Trl $5,359,464
51
Appendix 8
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment Segment Description Number Project Costs
PALM DR PD7 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd $4,241,952
POLK ST PLK1 Polk St from Ave 52 to Ave 48 $19,754,280
PORTOLA AVE POR1 Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr $5,638,410
PORTOLA AVE POR3 Country Club Dr to Frank Sinatra Dr $4,180,000
PORTOLA AVE POR4A Frank Sinatra Dr to Julie Ln $2,606,400
PORTOLA AVE PORSB Dinah Shore Dr to 1-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR) $23,026,500
PORTOLA AVE POR6 Future Portola Ave 1-10 IC $71,647,500
RAMON RD RAM1 S Palm Cyn Dr to S Indian Cyn Dr $372,240
RAMON RD RAM2 S Indian Cyn to Sunrise Way (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl Xing) $4,279,950
RAMON RD RAM3 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr $2,574,880
RAMON RD RAM3A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Sunrise Way $1,051,947
RAMON RD RAM4 Farrell Dr to El Cielo Rd $1,717,600
RAMON RD RAM4A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Farrell Drive $957,177
RAMON RD RAMS El Cielo Rd to Gene Autry Trl $8,367,900
RAMON RD RAM SA Intersection of Ramon Rd and Crossley Rd $1,051,947
RAMON RD RAM? Br. at Whitewater Rvr $24,864,323
S VALLEY PKWY I AVE 60 SV1 Monroe St to Jackson St $4,494,240
S VALLEY PKWY I AVE 60 SV2 Jackson St to Van Buren St $4,741,440
S VALLEY PKWY I AVE 60 SV3 Van Buren St to Harrison St $5,269,440
S VALLEY PKWY SV4 Harrison St to Tyler St (missing link) $9,583,600
S VALLEY PKWY svs Tyler St to Polk St (missing link) $10,562,080
S VALLEY PKWY 162ND SV8 Pierce St to SR-86 $3,892,200 AVE
S VALLEY PKWY 162ND SV9 Future Ave 62 SR-86 IC $46,550,500 AVE
THOUSAND PALMS CYN THPL1 Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd $17,252,840 RD
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR I TBP1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd $12,522,240 14TH AVE
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr $5,422,560
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP3 Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd $4,278,787
TYLER ST TYL1 Ave 50 to 1-10 frontage road $11,854,020
VAN BUREN ST VANB2 Ave 48 to Ave 50 $3,519,200
VAN BUREN ST VANB3 Ave 50 to Ave 52 $4,690,800
VAN BUREN ST VANBS Ave 54 to Ave 56/Airport Blvd $5,332,536
VARNER RD VRNRO 20th Ave to Palm Dr $20,249,600
VARNER RD VRNR1 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $6,295,000
VARNER RD VRNR2 Mountain View Rd to Date Palm Dr $12,505,200
VARNER RD VRNR3 Date Palm Dr to Ramon Rd $4 7,489,880
VARNER RD VRNR7B Ave 38 to Washington St $11,293,450
VARNER RD I AVE 42 VRNR9 Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. over AII-Amer. Canal) $9,872,400
VARNER RD I AVE 42 VRNR10B Clinton St to Monroe St $4,952,640
VARNER RD I AVE 42 VRNR11 Monroe St to Gore St $2,327,424
VISTA CHINO VC1 N Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise Way $5,288,420
VISTA CHINO VC1A Intersection of Vista Chino and N Palm Canyon Dr $984,150
VISTA CHINO VC2 Sunrise Way to Gene Autry Trl $5,668,080
VISTA CHINO VC2AA Intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise Way $1,073,547
VISTA CHINO VC2AB Intersection of Vista Chino and Farrell Drive $967,677
VISTA CHINO VC2A Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trl $1,014,039
VISTA CHINO VC3 Gene Autry Trl to W side of Whitewater Rvr $1,185,600
52
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
WASHINGTON ST
WORSLEYRD
Segment
Number
VC4
VC7
WSH9
WORS4
Segment Description
Future Whitewater Rvr Br.
Date Palm Dr to Da Vall Dr
1-10 IC to Ave 38
Pierson Blvd to N Indian Canyon Dr
Project Costs
$94,701,810
$20,625,000
$3,055,200
$11,646,600
Total $2,505,969,566
53
· Attachment 2
54
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM
MITIGATION FEE (TUMF)
HANDBOOK
Effective November 01, 2018
55
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction and Purpose ..................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Standard Fee Calculations .................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Standard Residential Fee Calculations .......................................................................... 6
2.2 Standard Non-Residential Fee Calculations ................................................................. 6
3.0 Detailed Methodology for Residential Defined Use Types ................................................... 10
3.1 Single-Family, Detached ... .-............................................................................................ 10
3.2 Multi-Family/Mobile Home Parks ...................................................................... 10
3.3 Nursing Home/Congregate Care ...................................................................... 10
3.4 Transit-Oriented Development. ........................................................................ 1 0
3.5 Low Income Housing ...................................................................................................... 11
4.0 Detailed Methodology for Non-Residential Defined Use Types ............................................. 12
4.1 Industrial ...................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Office .......................................................................................................... 12
4.3 Retail .......................................................................................................... 12
4.3.1 Fuel Filling Stations-Gasoline .......................................................................... 12
4.3.2 Fuel Filling Stations-Electric .................................................................. 13
4.4 Multiple Land Uses on same development .................................................................. 13
4.5 Golf Courses ............................................................................................. ~ ...................... 13
4.6 Hotel ............................................................................................................ 13
5.0 Exemptions .......................................................................................................... 14
1
56
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
PREFACE
In 1987, the California Legislature passed a groundbreaking bill titled Assembly Bill 1600, also known as the
"Mitigation Fee Act." The bill outlined the legal requirements in which a development impact fee is charged by a
local governmental agency to an applicant related to the approval of a development project. The fee was intended
to pay for all or a portion of the costs of public facilities associated with that project.
Two years later, in 1989, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside drafted and adopted Ordinance
No. 673, which outlines the establishment of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program for the
Coachella Valley. The fee would be imposed on future residential, commercial and industrial development within
the jurisdiction.
The TUMF program compliments the 20-year Measure A sales tax measure approved by the voters of Riverside
County in November of 1988. Measure A was due to expire in 2009, but the Riverside County Transportation
Commission adopted Ordinance 02-001 following a 30-year extension by the voters in 2002. Measure A is
currently slated to expire in 2039.
At the time of its adoption, the intention was for the TUMF to generate at least the equivalent of Measure A
funding toward the Regional Arterial System. Today, TUMF revenue provides less than its intended share of
match toward Measure A funding. The TUMF is required to be updated periodically. To accomplish this, a Nexus
Study is conducted to lawfully link projected growth in the Coachella Valley to the current Transportation Project
Prioritization Study (TPPS) Program. CVAG has utilized a five-year period for its updates, seeking to maintain
the fee level at a fair and equitable level as conditions change.
On June 27, 2005, CVAG's General Assembly approved a modification of the CVAG boundaries as well as the
TUMF collection boundary. CVAG updated the Transportation Project Prioritization Study in 2016 and conducted
a Fee Schedule Nexus Study that was approved in April of 2018. Based on those documents, the Executive
Committee approved the new $245 Fee Per Average Daily Trip for implementation on April 30, 2018.
Subsequently, the TUMF collecting jurisdictions amended their TUMF ordinances and fee setting resolutions to
reflect the new fees effective November 1, 2018, 30 days after adoption.
The following provisions from the TUMF Handbook are provided as background information:
• The provisions of this TUMF Handbook shall apply only to new development yet to receive final
discretionary approval and or issuance of a building permit or other development right and to any
reconstruction or new use of existing buildings that results in a change of use and generates additional
vehicular trips.
• No tract map, parcel map, conditional use permit, land use permit or other entitlement shall be approved
unless payment of the mitigation fee is a condition of approval for any such entitlement. The mitigation
fee shall be paid to the applicable jurisdiction.
• No building or similar permit, certificate of occupancy or business license reflecting a change of use shall
be issued unless the applicant has paid the mitigation fee.
• No building or similar permit, shall be issued unless the applicant has paid the mitigation fee.
2
57
• Mitigation fees shall be imposed and collected by the applicable jurisdiction at building permit issuance
and shall be transmitted to CVAG to be placed in the Coachella Valley Transportation Mitigation Trust
Fund. All interest or other earnings of the Fund shall be credited to the Fund.
The TUMF Handbook is the guiding document that jurisdictions and developers use to determine the TUMF
costs of development. Based on the trip rate set by the Nexus Study, the actual fees to be charged to developers
by land use category can be determined. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is an organization of
transportation professionals including transportation engineers, transportation planners, consultants, educators,
technologists, and researchers. ITE has exhaustively analyzed different land uses with respect to trip-generation
and publishes the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The ITE manual is the accepted industry standard with respect
to trip generation data. CVAG has utilized the 10th Edition, published in 2017, for TUMF calculations.
This handbook establishes the TUMF that shall apply to all land uses listed. It is possible that certain
developments may not be listed in the land use categories defined in the fee schedule. In cases where such
ambiguity exists, an authorized representative from CVAG will make a determination as to the applicable fee(s).
An applicant who disputes any fee may file a written notice of appeal
For a TUMF appeal, the applicant must pay the fee and then file an appeal letter with CVAG within 90 days.
There is a fee of $500 that must be submitted with the appeal. The applicant shall pay the fee as determined
and then submit a letter to CVAG stating the reason for the appeal, a copy of the City receipt for the fee payment,
and a check for $500 made out to CVAG. After CVAG receives the appeal letter, a hearing will be scheduled at
a meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). CVAG will notify the applicant of the time and date of
the hearing. TAC will make a recommendation on granting or denying the appeal. The TAC recommendation
will then go to the CVAG Executive Committee for final action. The Executive Committee shall hear the appeal
within 90 days from original receipt of the appeal letter at CVAG, or soon thereafter, and make a decision. The
decision of the Executive Committee is final. If the decision is in the applicant's favor, the $500 fee will be
refunded.
TUMF DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Handbook, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively
ascribed to them as follows:
"Change of use" means any change in the use of an existing building that results in the increase of vehicular
trips.
"Coachella Valley Association of Governments," hereinafter CVAG, means the legal entity which will manage
and administer the transportation uniform mitigation fee in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
"Development" means any activity which requires discretionary or ministerial action by the City resulting in the
issuance of grading, building, plumbing, mechanical or electrical permits, or certificates of occupancy issued by
the City to construct, or change the use of, a building or property. Where "development" applies to an
enlargement of an existing building, or a change of use of an existing building that results in increased vehicle
trips, the average weekday trips shall be only the additional trips in excess of those associated with the existing
use.
"Fee Study" means the TUMF Nexus Study prepared and approved by CVAG and adopted by the City Council,
which supports the fee established by this chapter, and includes all the underlying reports and documents
referenced therein.
3
58
"Mitigation Fee Acf' means the law set forth in the California Government Code (Government Code Section
66000 et seq.) that establishes the criteria for establishing a fee as a condition of approval of a development
project.
"Regional System .. means the regional system of roads, streets and highways identified by CVAG in its
Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) needed to accommodate growth in the Coachella Valley to
the year 2040.
"Trip generation rate" means the number of average weekday trips generated by a particular land use. The trip
generation rate for each of the following land use categories shall be the rate published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), 10th edition, or as revised, calculated upon the measurement herein specified.
Trip generation rates shall be calculated based upon the following measurements:
1. Residential. Single-family, multifamily, mobile homes and nursing/congregate care uses shall be
calculated per dwelling unit. Transit Oriented Developments (TOO) shall receive a 15% discount on the
calculated fee. Low Income housing is exempt from this fee.
2. Non-Residential. Industrial, office and retail uses shall be calculated per 1,000 square feet.
3. Fuel Dispensers for gas and electric. Fuel dispensers for gas and electric vehicles shall be calculated per
dispensing unit.
4. Golf Courses. Golf courses shall be calculated per acre.
5. Hotel. Hotels shall be calculated per room.
"TUMF" means the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee established by the TUMF Nexus Study, approved by
CVAG's Executive Committee on April 30, 2018.
"TUMF area" means the CVAG TUMF boundary as established by the CVAG General Assembly and illustrated
in Exhibit A of this Handbook.
4
59
Exhibit A
5
60
2.0 STANDARD FEE CALCULATIONS
A standard methodology will be applied for calculating all TUMF obligations based on the rates for various land
use categories. Fees associated with new residential development are to be calculated based on the prescribed
TUMF rate and the total number of dwelling units associated with a new development. Similarly, fees for all new
nonresidential developments are to be calculated based on the prescribed TUMF rate and the gross floor area,
or as otherwise indicated.
2.1 Standard Residential Fee Calculations
For calculating the TUMF obligation, residential dwelling units are defined as a building or portion, which is
designed primarily for residential occupancy. Residential dwelling units may include, but are not limited to,
detached houses, apartment homes, condominiums and mobile homes. Residential dwelling units do not include
hotel and motel rooms.
Residential TUMF obligations are calculated by multiplying the net increase in the total number of dwelling units
associated with a new development by the appropriate residential land use category fee rate. Residential land
use categories include single-family residential dwelling units, multi-family dwelling units, mobile homes and
nursing/congregate care, as defined in the respective Handbook Sections.
2.2 Standard Non-Residential Fee Calculations
For calculating the TUMF obligation, non-residential development is defined as retail, commercial and industrial
development which is designed primarily for use as a business and is not intended for residential occupancy or
dwelling use. The applicable non-residential land use category for a non-residential development is determined
based on the predominate use of the building or structure associated with the new development and may be
related to the underlying land use zoning of the new development site, as prescribed in the respective Handbook
Sections. The TUMF non-residential land use categories were defined with reference to the socioeconomic data
obtained from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and used as the basis for completing
this Nexus Study analysis. The SCAG employment data is provided for employment sectors consistent with the
California Employment Development Department (EDD) Major Groups, as shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2.1 provides a table detailing the EDD Major Groups and corresponding North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each CVAG non-residential sector type. Table 2.1
should be used as a guide to determine the applicable non-residential TUMF land use category based on the
predominate use of the buildings associated with the new development.
Non-residential TUMF obligation are calculated by multiplying the net increase in the gross floor area of the
buildings or structures associated with a new development by the appropriate non-residential land use category
(or as otherwise indicated). The gross floor area of non-residential developments is defined as the sum,
measured in square feet, of the area at each floor level, including cellars, basements, mezzanines, penthouses,
corridors, lobbies, stores, and offices, that are included within the principal outside faces of the exterior wall of
the building or structure, not including architectural setbacks or projections. Included are all stories or areas that
have floor surfaces with clear standing head room (at least 6 feet, 6 inches) regardless of their use. Where a
ground level area, or part thereof, within the principal outside faces of the exterior walls of the building or structure
is left un-roofed, the gross floor area of the un-roofed portion will be added to the overall square footage of the
building for the non-residential fee calculation unless the unroofed area is solely provided for architectural or
aesthetic purposes.
6
61
TABLE 2.1
CVAGTUMF
INDUSTRIAL Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
and Utilities
SIC Code and Description
01 Agricultural-crops
02 Agricultural-livestock
07 Agricultural services
08 Forestry
09 Fishing, hunting and trapping
10 Metal mining
12 Coal Mining
13 Oil and gas extraction
14 Non-metallic minerals, except fuels
15 General building contractors
16 Heavy construction contracting
17 Special trade contractors
20 Food and kindred products
21 Tobacco manufacturers
22 Textile mill products
23 Apparel and other textile products
24 Lumber and wood products
25 Furniture and fixtures
26 Paper and allied products
27 Printing and publishing
28 Chemicals and allied products
29 Petroleum and coal products
30 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
31 Leather and leather products
32 Stone, clay, glass and concrete products
33 Primary metal industries
34 Fabricated metal products
35 Industrial machinery and equipment
36 Electrical and electronic equipment
37 Transportation equipment
38 Instruments and related products
39 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
40 Railroads
41 Local and interurban passenger transit
42 Motor freight transportation and warehousing
43 US Posta I Service
44 Water Transportation
45 Transportation by air
46 Pipelines except natural gas
47 Transportation services
7
62
48 Communications
49 Electric, gas and sanitary services
Wholesale so Wholesale trade-durable goods
51 Wholesale trade-nondurable goods
RETAIL Retail 52 Building materials, hardware and garden supply
53 General merchandise stores
54 Food stores
55 Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations
56 Apparel and accessory stores
57 Furniture, home furnishings and equipment stores
58 Eating and drinking places
78 Motion pictures
79 Amusement and recreational services
59 Miscellaneous retail
HOTELS 70 Hotels, rooming houses, camps and lodging places
OFFICE Finance 60 Depository institutions
61 Non-depository credit institutions
62 Security, commodity brokers and services
63 Insurance carriers
64 Insurance agents, brokers and services
65 Real estate
67 Holding and other investment offices
Service 72 Personal services
73 Business services
75 Automotive repair, services and parking
80 Health services
81 Legal services
82 Educational services
83 Social services
84 Museums, art galleries, botanical and zoological garden
86 Membership organization
87 Engineering and management services
88 Private households
89 Miscellaneous services
Government 91 Executive, legislative and general government
92 Justice, public sector and safety
93 Finance, taxation, and monetary policy
94 Administration of human resources
95 Environmental quality and housing
96 Administration of economic programs
97 National security and international affairs
8
63
For certain non-residential land use types that have been explicitly defined in this handbook (herein referred to
as 'defined use') un-enclosed un-roofed areas and un-enclosed roofed spaces that are integral to the
performance of the principal business of the site will be added to the overall square footage of any buildings or
structures associated with a new development for the purpose of fee calculation. Defined land use categories
are listed in Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2
Land Use Category
Residential
Single Family Detached
Multi-Family/Mobile Home Park
Nursing/Congregate Care
Non-Residential
Industrial
Office
Retail2
Fuel Dispensers -Gas
Fuel Dispensers -Electric
Multiple Land Uses
Golf Courses
Hotel
Fee Per Unitl
$2,31 0/dwelling unit
$1 ,330/dwelling unit
$ 495/dwelling unit
$1,215/1000 sq. ft.
$2,390/1000 sq. ft.
$6,010/1000 sq. ft.
$8,61 0/dispensing unit
$ 91 /dispensing unit
See Section 5.0
$ 920/acre
$3,51 0/room
1-Derived by multiplying the ITE trip rate by fee/trip of $245/trip.
2-Retail TUMF is reduced by 35% percent to account for linked and pass-through trips.
9
64
3.0 DETAILED METHODOLOGY·FOR RESIDENTIAL DEFINED USE TYPES
As mentioned in Section 1.0, the ITE manual is the accepted industry standard with respect to trip
generation data. CVAG has utilized the ITE Trip Generation Manual (1Oth Edition), published in 2017,
as the methodology for calculating trip generation in the TUMF calculations. It should be noted that any
additions and/or improvements to an existing dwelling unit will not be subject to implementation of the TUMF
unless, the addition/improvement creates an additional dwelling unit.
The following defines each of the residential land use types and the trip generation rates for calculating the TUMF
for each.
3.1 Single-Family Detached
Single-Family detached is a home on an individual lot, including subdivisions with public streets, or dwelling units
within planned unit development. This also includes mobile homes not in a mobile home park. The TUMF
obligation for this category and for mobile homes to be located on individually owned lots will be considered
single-family dwelling units will be calculated using the ITE Manual Trip Generation rate of 9.44 on a per dwelling
unit basis.
3.2 Multi-Family and Mobile Home Parks
Includes all multiple-family dwelling units. Typical uses include, but are not limited to, high-rise and low-rise
apartments, high-rise and low-rise condominium, and mobile home parks. The TUMF obligation for this category
will be calculated using the ITE Manual Trip Generation rate of 5.44 on a per dwelling unit basis.
A mobile home park is a planned development designed to accommodate mobile homes for recreational vehicles
on individual pad sites, for lease or rent. The TUMF will be required to be paid in full by the mobile home park
developer at the time of building permit, with the TUMF obligation at the Multi-Family detached rate of 5.44.
3.3 Nursing/Congregate Care
Nursing/Congregate Care uses include, but are not limited to, nursing homes, group homes, correctional
facilities, mental hospitals, college dormitories, military barracks, missions and shelters. Nursing/Congregate
Care uses typically provide a group of rooms with shared living quarters for unrelated persons. Occupants of
Nursing/Congregate Care uses live and eat together with other persons in the building sharing at a minimum
communal kitchen, dining and living facilities.
All Nursing/Congregate Care uses will be considered residential service use types. The TUMF obligation for this
category will be calculated using the ITE Manual Trip Generation rate of 2.02 on a per dwelling unit basis.
3.4 Transit-Oriented Development
A Transit Oriented Development (TOO), is a development project consisting of residential use or mixed use
where not less than 50 percent of the floorspace is for residential use ... if located within % mile of a transit station
and with direct walking access to the station, within % mile of convenience retail uses including a store that sells
food, and with a maximum number of parking spaces as required by state statute or local ordinance. Consistent
10
65
with California Government Code 66005.1, a reduction in any transportation related fee for residential
developments must be provided. For calculating the TUMF obligation, a 15°/o factor reflecting the reduction in
automobile trip generation associated with residential TOO will be applied to the standard residential TUMF
obligation. This is based on a California study (Effects of TOO on housing parking, and travel; R. Cervera et al.;
TCRP report 128; 2008). The discount will only be given to residential development projects that pay TUMF.
Documentation will be submitted with the development application as the basis for determining the eligibility of
the residential land use as a TOO and will include a validation of a transit hub (California Government Code
65460.1) by Sun line Transit Agency. Documentation will include a site plan indicating that at least SOo/o of the
floorspace of the development is dedicated to residential use and the required number of parking spaces
associated with the subject development. Documentation will also include a map showing the location of the
subject development circled with a % mile radius, as well as the location of a transit station(s), the location of
diverse uses and direct walking routes of% mile or less between the subject development and the listed uses to
justify that the development satisfies the characteristics of TOO.
3.5 Low Income Housing
Low and lower-income residential housing includes single-family homes, apartments, and mobile homes built for
those whose income is no more than 80% of the median income in the San Bernardino-Riverside Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area and as determined and approved by the applicable legislative body or its designee.
Exemptions granted for Low Income housing must be reported in the jurisdiction's monthly TUMF report.
Low Income Housing is EXEMPT from paying TUMF obligations.
For rental housing, the units shall be made available, rented and restricted to low-income households (as defined
in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 and Section 50053) at an affordable rent for a period of at least fifty-
five (55) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new residential development. A restricted
covenant shall be recorded with the County and shall run with the land for the term of fifty-fi_ve (55) years to
qualify for the exemption.
For "for-sale" housing units, the units shall be sold to persons or families of low income (as defined in Health and
Safety Code Section 50093) at a purchase price that will not cause the purchaser's monthly housing cost to
exceed affordable housing cost (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5). Affordable units that
are "for-sale" housing units shall be restricted to ownership by persons and families of low income for at least
forty-five (45) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residential development. A
restricted covenant shall be recorded with the County and shall run with the land for the term of forty-five (45)
years to qualify for the exemption.
11
66
4.0 DETAILED METHODOLOGY FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE TYPES
The following defines each of the non-residential land use types and the trip generation rates for calculating the
TUMF for each.
Additions of less than 1,000 square feet to non-residential development will not be subject to imposition of the
TUMF.
4.1 Industrial
Industrial land-uses include all light manufacturing, industrial parks, warehousing, mini-warehousing,
greenhouses and utilities. The TUMF obligation for this category will be calculated using the ITE Manual Trip
Generation rate of 4.96 on a per 1 ,OOOSF basis. For greenhouses, the square footage of the facility dedicated
to growing crops will not be subject to the TUMF obligation.
4.2 Office
The office building category includes all office-related uses. This category includes, but is not limited to, general
office buildings, corporate headquarters, public facilities, medical office buildings, research centers, office parks,
business parks, insurance offices, trade schools and other training centers. The TUMF obligation for this
category will be calculated using the ITE Manual Trip Generation rate of 9. 7 4 on a per 1 ,OOOSF basis.
4.3 Retail
The retail category includes all sales tax producing retail related uses. This category includes, but is not limited
to, retail, general merchandise, specialty retail centers, discount stores, hardware/paint stores, beauty salons,
supermarkets, wholesale markets, apparel stores, furniture stores, and automotive parts/supply stores. The cost
per trip of $245 established in the 2018 TUMF Nexus Study is reduced by 35o/o to $159.25 for Retail land uses
to account for linked and pass-through trips. The TUMF obligation for this category will be calculated using the
ITE Manual Trip Generation rate of 37.75 on a per 1,000SF basis. The rate of 37.75 represents an average for
all Retail land-use categories.
4.3.1 Fuel Dispensers (Gasoline)
For calculating the TUMF obligation, all types of fuel filling stations or facilities with fuel filling positions
will be considered retail use types. The methodology described as follows will be applied to determine
the gross floor area for calculating the TUMF obligation for all types of gasoline fuel filling stations or
facilities with fuel filling positions (for the example calculation assume a fuel filling station with 12 fuel
filling positions and a building area of 3,000 square feet). The total number of fuel dispensers is equal to
the maximum number of vehicles that could be supplied with fuel at the same time.
1. Multiply the total number of fuel filling positions by 1 ,403.8 square feet. The 1,403.8 SF number
was derived from national ITE data for service stations.
(i.e. for the example station it is 12 x 1.403.8 = 16.846 square feet)
2. Determine the total floor area of buildings on the site noting that the canopy area is not included
as part of the gross floor area of the buildings on the site.
(i.e. for the example station it is 3.000 square feet)
12
67
3. Compare the results for steps 1 and 2 and use the greater of the two values as the gross floor
area to calculate the TUMF obligation calculations. (i.e. 16.846 > 3.000; for the example station
TUMF would be calculated for 16. 846 square feet)
TUMF Obligation for example= 16,84611,000 x 37.75 x $159.25 = $101,273
4.3.2 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Charging Stations
For calculating the TUMF obligation, stand-alone businesses with the primary purpose of providing
publicly accessible Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) are designated as EVSE charging stations
and will be considered retail use types. The methodology described as follows will be applied to determine
the gross floor area for calculating the TUMF obligation for all types of EVSE charging stations.
Multiply the total number of EVSE charging units by 14.9 SF. The 14.9 SF number was derived from
national data for Electric Vehicle Supply stations (The EV Project). The total number of EVSE charging
units is equal to the maximum number of vehicles that could be connected for charging at the same time.
EVSE located within a residential or non-residential use type, where the residential or non-residential use
is the primary use of the site, and the EVSE is for the sole and exclusive use of residents, employees
and/or customers of the same premises, are ancillary to the primary residential or non-residential use of
the site. There is no additional TUMF obligation for EVSE located within a residential or nonresidential
use type for the sole and exclusive use of residents, employees and/or customers of the same premises.
4.4 Multiple Land Uses on Same Development
For determining the TUMF obligation, developments with multiple land uses on the same project are split into
separate categories (retail, industrial, office). TUMF obligation for these projects will be calculated based on the
separate gross floor areas of all uses associated with the project, calculated at their respective rates. For
example, an automobile dealership TUMF obligations would be calculated based upon vehicle sales floor area
(retail), auto service bay areas (industrial) and administrative offices (office). The TUMF will be paid at their
respective rates.
4.5. Golf Courses
For calculating the TUMF obligation, all public and private golf courses are considered to be their own land use
type. The methodology will be applied to determine the acreage area and other buildings (i.e., clubhouse, pro
shop, restaurants, office) for calculating the fee obligation for all public and private golf courses. The TUMF
obligation for this category will be calculated using the ITE Manual Trip Generation rate of 3. 7 4 on a per acre
basis for the golf course, and the applicable ITE Manual Trip Generation rate for additional land uses
incorporated into the development, similar to Section 5.4 for multiple land uses on the same development.
4.6 Hotel
A hotel is a place of lodging that provides sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as restaurants,
cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities, limited recreational facilities and/or other
retail and service shops. For the sake of calculating the TUMF, all of the ancillary uses are considered as one
use under the Hotel category. The Hotel land-use category includes all hotels and motels, including all-suite and
resort hotels. The TUMF obligation for this category will be calculated using the ITE Manual Trip Generation rate
of 14.34 on a per room basis.
13
68
5.0 Exemptions
Low Income Housing is EXEMPT from paying TUMF obligations.
14
69
Attachment 3
70
RESOLUTION NO. __ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
(TUMF) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE NEXUS STUDY, THE
UPDATED (TUMF) HANDBOOK, AND INCREASING
THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
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 (Desert Hot Springs, Palm
Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta,
Indio and Coachella) 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 new development within the jurisdiction; 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 (Government
Code section 66000 et seq.) and based on the 1987 Transportation Study, the City
adopted and collects this fee; and
WHEREAS, CVAG commissioned the preparation of various studies ("Fee
Studies") which evaluate 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; and
WHEREAS, the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, make it possible to
determine a reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional impacts of
new land development projects in the Coachella Valley on the Regional System
and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through
the TUMF program; and
WHEREAS, the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, establish the
purposes of the TUMF, which may be summarized as a uniform development
71
Resolution No.
Page2
impact fee to help fund construction of the Regional System needed to
accommodate growth in the Coachella Valley to the year 2040; and
WHEREAS, CVAG commissioned Michael Baker International, Inc., to
prepare an updated TUMF study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule Update Nexus Report," dated March 2018 (the "2018
Nexus Study") to establish updated TUMF levels and program revenue collection
targets, which was approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on April 30, 2018;
and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Nexus Study revealed the need to revise the
provisions of the TUMF ordinance to reflect changes in the Mitigation Fee Act
which governs the adoption and implementation of development impact fees, and
to reflect the findings of the 2018 Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, the updated TUMF Handbook accurately reflects increased
rates established for the TUMF in accordance with the 2018 Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to accurately collect TUMF along with
the other participating jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley as requested by the
CVAG General Assembly; and
WHEREAS, this adjustment to the TUMF modifies a development impact
fee· that is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, codified at California Government
Code (CGC) §66000 et seq., and more specifically in accordance with CGC
§66016, §66013, or §66014, and the City, in considering this adjustment to the
TUMF, is adhereing to the procedures of CGC §66016(a);
WHEREAS, by notice duly given and posted, on September 5, 2018, the
City Council conducted a public hearing to consider approval of the TUMF
increase; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered any verbal and/or written
testimony, and has reviewed and considered the information in the study and
supporting data, and information provided at the public hhearing by staff and the
public.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
HEREBY RESOLVES, DETERMINES, AND APPROVES AS FOLLOWS:
A. The true and correct recitials above are incorporated by this
reference herein as the basis and foundation for the City's adoption of this
Resolution.
72
Resolution No.
Page 3
B. The new fee subject and pursuant to California Government Code
Section 66000 et seq. shall be effective not earlier than sixty (60) days after the
adoption of this resolution.
C. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to
incorporate said increased TUMF into the development fees collected by the City.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY
COUNCIL THIS 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018.
DAVID H. READY, CITY MANAGER
ATTEST:
ANTHONY J. MEJIA, MMC, CITY CLERK
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS)
I, ANTHONY MEJIA, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on July 18, 2018,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Anthony Mejia, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California
73
Attachment 4
74
Date :
Subject:
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
August 22 , 2018
PHN
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Fees
to be reviewed by Council on 9/5/18
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Terri Milton , Executive Administrative Assistant , Office of the City Clerk , of the C ity of Palm
Springs , Cal ifornia , do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice was posted at City
Hall , 3200 E . Tahquitz Canyon Drive , on the e xterior legal notice posting board , and in the
Office of the City Clerk on or before August 22 , 2018 .
I declare und l penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
~·;~
Terri Milton , Executive Administrative Assistant
Office of the City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I, Terri Milton , Executive Administrative Assistant, Office of the City Clerk , of the City of
Palm Springs , California , do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice was delivered
to the U.S . Postal Service for ma iling on August 22 , 2018 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Jau ·A~
Terri Milton , Executive Administrative Assistant
Office of the City Clerk
75
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm S,
public hearing at its meeting of September 5, 2018 at 6 :00p.m., or as sc
may be heard , in the Council Chamber at City Hall , 3200 East Tahquitz C.
CA.
The purpose of this meeting is relative to a resolution updating fees relating to new development in
the City to provide necessary funds for the regional transportation system . The resolution will update
the following fee : Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
REVIEW OF INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this are
available for public review at City Hall commencing at 5:00p .m. on Thursday, August 23, 2018, and
on each City Hall business day thereafter, i .e ., Monday through Thursday, during the hours of 8 :00
a .m. to 11 :00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m . to 6 :00 p.m . Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at
(760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents.
COMMENTS : Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing
before the meeting . Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter (for mail or hand
delivery) to:
Anthony J . Mejia , MMC , City Clerk
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Any challenge of the proposed Cannabis Related Business and Activities Permit and Regulatory
Fees in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in
this notice , or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.
(Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)).
An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard . Questions
regarding this public hearing may be directed to Edward Z . Kotkin, City Attorney , at (760) 323-8205.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66016 and 66018, this Notice shall be published
at least ten (1 0) days prior to the public hearing, on at least two (2) occasions with at least five (5)
days intervening between publ ications .
Si necesita ayuda con este aviso, por favor !lame a Ia Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con
Anthony Mejia , Secretario Municipal, telefono (760) 323-8206.
76
Clint Lorimore
Director of Government Affairs
BIA Riverside County Chapter
3891 11th St.
Riverside, CA 92501
Doug Todd Welmas
Tribal Chairman
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
84-245 Indio Springs Pkway
Indio, CA 92203
Gretchen Gutierrez
Chief Executive Officer
DVBA
75100 Mediterranean
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Darrell Mike, Tribal Chairman
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission
Indians
46-200 Harrison Place
Coachella, CA 92236
Deborah McGarrey
Public Affairs Manager
So. California Gas Company
75095 Mayfair Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92211-5102
77
Attachment 5
78
ORDINANCE NO. __
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 8.90
(TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEES)
OF THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE
City Attorney's Summary
This Ordinance repeals and replaces the City's
current Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
Ordinance, Title 8, Chapter 8.90 to be consistent with
the Coachella Valley Association of Governments
rucVAG") TUMF Model Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs Finds and Ordains:
SECTION 1. Title 8, Chapter 8.90 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code
addressing the "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee" is hereby repealed in its
entirety and replaced to read as follows:
Chapter 8.90
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Section 8.90.010 Purpose, use and findings.
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. The City is a Member Agency of the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments ("CVAG"), a joint powers agency consisting of public agencies
situated in the Coachella Valley (collectively, "Member Agencies").
B. 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.
C. That CVAG commissioned the preparation of various studies ("Fee
Studies") which evaluate 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.
79
Ordinance No.
Page 2
D. That the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, make it possible to
determine a reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional impacts of
new land development projects in the Coachella Valley on the Regional System
and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through
the TUMF program.
E. That the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, establish 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 future
growth in the Coachella Valley for a period of time extending at least 20 years
beyond the date of the Fee Studies.
F. That the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, establish that the TUMF
proceeds will be used to help pay for the engineering, construction and
acquisition of the Regional System improvements identified therein. 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.
G. That the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, establish a reasonable and
rational relationship between the use of the TUMF proceeds and the type of
development projects on which the TUMF is imposed.
H. That the Fee Studies, as periodically updated, establish the reasonable
relationship between the impact of new development and the need for the TUMF.
I. That the TUMF program revenues to be generated by new development
will not exceed the total fair share of these costs.
J. That the projects and methodology identified in the Fee Studies, as
periodically updated, for the collection of fees is consistent with the goals,
policies, objectives and implementation measures of the City's General Plan.
K. That the TUMF program complies with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee
Act.
Section 8.90.020 Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the
meanings respectively ascribed to them as follows:
"Change of use" means any change in the use of an existing building that results
in the increase of vehicular trips.
80
Ordinance No.
Page3
"Coachella Valley" means those combined boundaries of the Palm Springs
Unified School District, Desert Sands Unified School District and that part of the
Coachella Unified School District within Riside.
"Coachella Valley Association of Governments," hereinafter CVAG, means the
legal entity which will manage and administer the Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
"Development" means any activity which requires discretionary or ministerial
action by the City resulting in the issuance of grading, building, plumbing,
mechanical or electrical permits, or certificates of occupancy issued by the City to
construct, or change the use of, a building or property. Where "development"
applies to an enlargement of an existing building, or a change of use of an
existing building that results in increased vehicle trips, the average weekday trips
shall be only the additional trips in excess of those associated with the existing
use.
"Fee Study" means the studies prepared by CVAG and adopted by the City
Council, which supports the fee established by this chapter, and includes all the
underlying reports and documents referenced therein.
"Impact Fee Schedule" means the schedule of development impact fees
approved by resolution of the City Council.
"Mitigation Fee Act" means the law set forth in the California Government Code
(Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) that establishes the criteria for
establishing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project.
"Regional System" means the regional system of roads, streets and highways
identified by CVAG as identified in its latest adopted Transportation Project
Prioritization Study (TPPS) to accommodate growth in the Coachella Valley for a
period of time extending at least 20 years beyond the date of the TPPS. Only
those projects with a minimum score as established by CVAG in its adoption of
the TPPS are included for TUMF consideration.
"Transportation Mitigation Trust Fund" means the fund established pursuant to
this chapter.
"Trip generation rate" means the number of average weekday trips generated by
a particular land use. The trip generation rate for each of the following land use
categories shall be the rate published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE), 1Oth edition, or as revised, calculated upon the measurement herein
specified. Trip generation rates shall be calculated based upon the following
measurement:
1. Residential. Single-family, multifamily, mobile homes and nursing/congregate
care uses shall be calculated per dwelling unit. Transit Oriented
81
Ordinance No.
Page4
Developments (TOO) shall receive a 15°/o discount on the calculated fee. Low
Income housing is exempt from this fee.
2. Non-Residential. Industrial, mini-warehouse, office and retail uses shall be
calculated per 1,000 square feet.
3. Fuel Dispensers for gas and electric. Dispensers for.g?s and electric shall be
calculated per dispensing unit.
4. Golf Courses. Golf courses shall be calculated per acre.
5. Hotel. Hotels shall be calculated per room.
"TUMF area" means the CVAG and TUMF boundary as established by the
CVAG General Assembly.
"TUMF" means the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee established by this
chapter.
Section 8.90.030 Fee Established
A. There is established a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF"),
which shall apply to new development yet to receive final discretionary approval
and/or issuance of a building permit or other development right and to any
reconstruction or new use of existing buildings that results in change of use and
generates additional vehicular trips.
B. The facilities to be funded by the TUMF are detailed in the Fee Study,
which is on file with the City Clerk.
C. The TUMF is in addition to the requirements imposed by other City laws,
policies or regulations relating to the construction or the financing of the
construction of public improvements within subdivisions or developments.
Section 8.90.040 Fund Established
A. There is established a Transportation Mitigation Trust Fund ("Trust Fund")
into which TUMF proceeds shall be deposited.
B. TUMF proceeds shall be imposed and collected by the City and shall be
transmitted to CVAG to be placed in the Trust Fund. All interest or other
earnings of the Trust Fund shall be credited to the Trust Fund.
C. CVAG shall administer the Trust Fund in accordance with the Mitigation
Fee Act.
82
Ordinance No.
Page 5
Section 8.90.050 Calculation and Collection of the TUMF
A. The method of calculating the TUMF shall be described in CVAG's
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Handbook, a copy of which is on file with
the City Clerk.
B. The amount of the fees due shall be the amount set forth in the applicable
Impact Fee Schedule in effect at the time each fee is due. The TUMF shall be
collected pursuant to the City's established procedures for the collection of
development impact fees.
Section 8.90.060 Use Restrictions
TUMF proceeds shall be solely used for the engineering, construction and
acquisition of the Regional System improvements identified in the Fee Study and
any other purpose consistent with this chapter. TUMF proceeds shall not be used
for Regional System maintenance.
Section 8.90.070 Exemptions
The following developments are exempted from payment of the fee required by
this chapter:
1. Low and lower-income residential housing, including single-family homes,
apartments and mobile homes built for those whose income is no more than
eighty percent of the median income in the San Bernardino-Riverside
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and as determined and approved by
the City Council or its designee. The sales or rental price shall not exceed the
affordability criteria as established under HUD Section 8 guidelines.
Section 8.90.080 Appeal Procedures
A. Any developer, who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a
development project, contends that application of the TUMF is unconstitutional or
unrelated to mitigation of the burdens of the development, may file a written
appeal with CVAG within ninety days after imposition of the TUMF as a condition
of approval or as otherwise provided by the Mitigation Fee Act.
B. The appeal shall be heard by the CVAG Executive Committee in
accordance with CVAG's established policies and procedures for conducting
such matters. The decision of the Executive Committee .shall be final.
Section 8.90.090 Administrative Fee
A. The City may impose an administrative fee in amount computed to cover
the average cost to the City of processing the TUMF. The City shall establish
83
Ordinance No.
Page 6
such fee in accordance with the City's procedures for establishing service-related
fees, unrelated to CVAG's TUMF.
B. The administrative fee authorized by this section shall be in addition to the
fee imposed under Section 8.90.030. The administrative fee, when collected,
shall be retained by the City to recover its costs.
SECTION 2. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or
contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections
and/or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby
declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or
provision hereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or
provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via
legislation.
SECTION 3. Neither introduction nor adoption of this Ordinance represents a
"project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as that
term is defined by CEQA guidelines (Guidelines) section 15378, because this
Ordinance is an organization or administrative activity that will not result in a
direct or indirect physical change in the environment, per section 15378(b)(5) of
the Guidelines.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage
and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary
thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of applicable law;
this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the
passage of this Ordinance, and to cause the same or a summary thereof or a
display advertisement, duly prepared accordingly to law, to be published in
accordance with law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF _____ , 2018.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Rob Moon, Mayor
84
Ordinance No. __
Page 7
ATTEST:
Anthony Mejia, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Edward Z. Kotkin, City Attorney