HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 06-143RESOLUTION NO. 06-143
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT APPROVING THE
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
(TUMF) 2006 NEXUS STUDY REPORT AND
INCREASING THE TUMF AMOUNTS APPLICABLE
TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert ("City") is a Member
Agency of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments
("CVAG"), a joint powers agency consisting of the County of
Riverside ("County"), The Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Torres
Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the City of Blythe, and the
nine cities situated in the Coachella Valley (collectively,
"Member Agencies"); and
WHEREAS, acting in concert, the Member Agencies developed a
plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the
capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials within
CVAG's jurisdiction (the "Regional System") could be made up in
part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") imposed
on future residential, commercial and industrial development
within the jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government
Code, Section 66000 et seq.) establishes the criteria for
establishing a fee as a condition of approval of a development
project; and
WHEREAS, as a CVAG Member Agency, the City participated in
the preparation of the 1987 Coachella Valley Area Transportation
Study ("1987 Transportation Study") prepared pursuant to the
Mitigation Fee Act and based on the 1987 Transportation Study,
the City adopted and implemented Ordinance No. 573 authorizing
its participation in the imposition and collection of the TUMF;
and
WHEREAS, section 3.44.030 of Ordinance 573 provides that
the CVAG Executive Committee shall annually review and, if
necessary, amend the amount of the recommended TUMF to ensure
that it is a fair and equitable method of distributing the costs
1
RESOLUTION NO. 06-143
of the improvements necessary to accommodate traffic volumes
generated by future growth; and
WHEREAS, CVAG commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff to prepare
an updated TUMF study entitled "2006 Fee Schedule Update, Nexus
Study Report", and dated June 27, 2006 ("2006 Nexus Study") to
establish updated TUMF levels and program revenue collection
targets, which was approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on
July 31, 2006 and which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the 2006 Nexus Study revealed that there is a
projected shortfall in revenue to complete the Regional System
in the approximate amount of $1.2 billion, which must be
resolved from local resources, developer contributions and TUMF;
and
WHEREAS, based upon the findings of the 2006 Nexus Study
and the recommendations of the Executive Committee's TUMF Nexus
Advisory Committee, on July 31, 2006 the CVAG Executive
Committee approved an increase in the Fee Per Average Daily Trip
portion of the TUMF Fee Schedule to take effect January 1, 2007,
which is less than the TUMF proposed by the 2006 Nexus Study;
and
WHEREAS, section 3.44.030 of Ordinance 573 provides that
the amount of the TUMF shall be based on the trip generation
rate and as recommended by CVAG and that the City Council shall
adopt by resolution the fee amount recommended by CVAG or a
higher fee amount; and
WHEREAS, by notice duly given and posted, as described in
Exhibit "B", on October 31, 2006 the City Council conducted a
public hearing to consider approval of the 2006 Nexus Study and
adoption of the proposed TUMF increase; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place set for the hearing, the
City Council duly considered the data and information provided
by CVAG, City staff and the public relative to the cost of the
services for which the fees are proposed and all other comments,
whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of
the hearing; and
RESOLUTION NO. 06-143
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 2006 Nexus Study
provides the information required by Mitigation Fee Act as
justification for an increase in such fees; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of this Resolution increasing
existing development impact fees modifies a government funding
mechanism which is not a physical change in the environment and
therefore, is not a project under CEQA (14 Cal. Code of Regs. s
15378 (b) (4)) ; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to approve the 2006 Nexus Study
and to adopt the TUMF fee schedule recommended by the CVAG
Executive Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert as follows:
Section 1. Evidence.
The City Council has considered all of the evidence
submitted into the administrative record, which includes, but is
not limited to, the following:
(a) Chapter 3.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code;
(b) The City's General Plan, including updates;
(c) The "2006 Fee Schedule Update, Nexus Study Report",
prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, and dated June 27,
2006 ("2006 Nexus Study") and all underlying reports
and documents referenced therein;
(d) Letter from Allyn S. Waggle, CVAG Deputy Executive
Director, to Member Agencies dated August 25, 2006,
wherein CVAG requests Member Agencies prepare for the
proposed fee increase by amending their enabling
resolutions or ordinances; and
(e) The public comments, both written and oral, received
and/or submitted at, or prior to the City Council
public hearing supporting and/or opposing the staff
recommendation.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-143
Section 2. CEQA Findings.
That the City Council hereby finds that the City has
complied with the California Environmental Quality Act in the
approval of the subject fees. The adoption of this Resolution
increasing existing development impact fees modifies a
government funding mechanism, which is not a physical change in
the environment and therefore, is not a project under CEQA. (14
Cal. Code of Regulations § 15378(b)(4)) Further, this Resolution
is for the purpose of modifying fees, and is not intended to
approve a capital project for which separate review under CEQA
will be required at the time such project is considered for
approval by the City. (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15273(a))
Section 3. Mitigation Fee Act Findings.
In view of all of the foregoing evidence, the City Council
hereby finds and concludes as follows:
(a) That the 2006 Nexus Study presents an evaluation of
population and employment growth, future
transportation needs and the availability of
traditional transportation funding sources to
establish updated TUMF levels and program revenue
collection targets.
(b) That based on the results of the 2006 Nexus Study, it
is possible to determine a reasonable relationship
between the cumulative regional impacts of new land
development projects in the Coachella Valley on the
regional system of roads, streets and highways
("Regional System") and the need to mitigate these
transportation impacts using funds levied through the
TUMF program.
(c) That the 2006 Nexus Study establishes the purposes of
the TUMF, which may be summarized as a uniform
development impact fee to help fund construction of
the Regional System needed to accommodate growth in
the Coachella Valley to the year 2030.
(d) That the 2006 Nexus Study establishes that TUMF
pEoceeds will be used to help pay for the cofis .ruciion
4
RESOLUTION NO 06.143.
and acquisition of the Regional System improvements
identified in the 2006 Nexus Study. Such improvements
are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of
the residential and non-residential users of the
development projects on which the TUMF will be levied.
(e) That the 2006 Nexus Study establishes a reasonable and
rational relationship between the use of TUMF proceeds
and the type of development projects on which it is
imposed, which may be summarized as follows:
• New residential and nonresidential developments
contribute to the expected growth of the City and
the Coachella Valley.
• New residential and nonresidential developments
will benefit from the Regional System
improvements and the burden of such development
will be mitigated in part by the payment of the
TUMF.
• The amount of the TUMF is based directly on the
potential traffic generation of proposed land
uses and the projected need for additional
streets, interchanges, and intersection
improvements and the cost of these improvements
has been distributed to the various land use
categories in proportion to the traffic generated
from each land use category.
• The TUMF is a fair and equitable method of
distributing the cost of transportation
improvements among the developments that will
generate the increased traffic.
(f) That the 2006 Nexus Study establishes the reasonable
relationship between the impact of new development and
the need for the TUMF, which may be summarized as
follows:
• The continuing residential and nonresidential
growth of the City and Coachella Valley will
result in increasing congestion on the Regional
System due tc the impact of newly created trips
5
RESOLUTION NO. 06:143
and traffic demand and future Regional System
congestion is directly attributable to the
cumulative regional transportation impacts of
future development in the City and Coachella
Valley.
• Future residential and nonresidential development
within the City and the Coachella Valley to the
year 2030 will result in traffic volumes in
excess of capacity on the existing Regional
System.
• If the capacity of the Regional System is not
enlarged, substantial traffic congestion will
result in all parts of the City and Coachella
Valley and the City, with unacceptable Levels of
Service throughout the jurisdiction by 2030;
capacity improvements to the Regional System will
be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional
impacts of new residential and nonresidential
development; and the Regional System improvements
identified in the Transportation Project
Prioritization Study, which is incorporated by
reference into the 2006 Nexus Study, are arterial
roadway facilities that will provide additional
capacity to help mitigate the impacts of new
development and merit inclusion for funding
improvements through the TUMF program.
• The 2006 Nexus Study demonstrates the extent to
which the new development of land will generate
traffic volumes impacting the Regional System and
that the TUMF program establishes a fair and
equitable method for distributing the unfunded
costs of transportation improvements necessary to
accommodate the traffic volumes generated by such
development.
• Revenues from other established funding sources
and developer dedications will not be sufficient
to address all the Regional System improvements
needed to mitigate the impacts of new residential
and. nonresidential development; exactions from
d.evveloplllenu will ccnst.L uci: silly a poJ_ Lic i of
G
RESOLUTION NO. 06-.143
local and regional facilities and that. the TUMF
program will raise the additional revenues needed
to construct the improvements to accommodate
traffic that will be generated by development of
land within the City and within the Coachella
Valley and in the absence of the TUMF program,
which imposes a fair -share traffic fee upon new
development, existing and future sources of
revenue are inadequate to fund substantial
portions of the Regional System improvements
needed to avoid unacceptable levels of congestion
and related adverse impacts.
• Absent an increase in the amount of the TUMF
collected based on the 2006 Nexus Study, existing
and known future funding sources will be
inadequate to provide necessary improvements to
the Regional System, resulting in an unacceptably
high level of traffic congestion within and
around Coachella Valley and the City.
(g) That the cost estimates set forth in the 2006 Nexus
Study are reasonable cost estimates for the facilities
that comprise the Regional System.
(h) That TUMF program revenues to be generated by new
development will not exceed the total fair share of
these costs.
(i) That the projects and methodology identified in the
2006 Nexus Study for the collection of fees is
consistent with the goals, policies, objectives and
implementation measures of the City's General Plan.
(j) That the public improvements to be funded by the TUMF
are detailed in the most recent version of CVAG's
Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS),
which is on file with the City's Public Works
Department.
(k) That the proposed development fees comply with the
provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act.
RESOLUTION NO. 06443_
(1) That the City has complied with the California
Environmental Quality Act in the approval of the TUMF.
Section 4. Approval of 2006 Nexus Study.
That the City Council hereby approves the "2006 Fee
Schedule Update, Nexus Study Report", prepared by Parsons
Brinckerhoff and dated June 27, 2006, and attached hereto as
Exhibit "A".
Section 5. Adoption of TUMF Fee Schedule.
That the City Council hereby adopts the revised TUMF
Formula for Fees attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
Section 6. Effective Date.
That the increased fees in this Resolution shall become
effective as soon as permitted pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the California Government Code.
[THIS PORTION OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
8
RESOLUTION NO. U6i43
Section 7. Certification.
That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this
resolution and enter it into the boo}' of original resollit_ l nns .
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held
this 3lst day of October, 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: BENSON, KELLY, and SPIEGEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: FERGUSON
ATTEST:
L
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, C TY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAVID'J. R IN, CITY ATTORNEY
9
RESOLUTION NO. 06-143
TI-IIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESOLUTION NO. 06-.143
EXHIBIT "A"
2006 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE, NEXUS STUDY REPORT
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
2006 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
NEXUS STUDY REPORT
Prepared for:
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
In Association with:
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Indian Wells
City of Indio
City of La Quinta
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Rancho Mirage
County of Riverside
Prepared by:
Parsons Brinckerhoff
685 East Carnegie Drive, Suite 210
San Bernardino, California 92408
909-888-1106
vvv.jb•world. m
�� BR OFF
June 27, 2006
CABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1. TUMF Boundary Determination
1.2. Measure A and the CVAG TUMF Program 5
1.3. Mitigation Fee Act and Other Legal Requirements 6
2.0 Future Growth and the Need for TUMF 8
2.1. Future Growth Trends 8
2.2. Future Highway Traffic 8
2.3. The TUMF Concept 10
3.0 TPPS and RACE 12
3.1. Cost Estimation Methodology 12
3.2. Projects Included in the TPPS and RACE 26
4.0 Traffic Growth Attributable to New Development 28
4.1. Determining Traffic Growth 28
4.1.1. Background on CVATS Model 28
4.1.2. Determining Trip Growth Forecasted by the CVATS Model 29
4.1.3. Converting Model Forecasts to Project Level Forecasts 31
4.2. Fee Category Share of New Trips 31
5.0 TUMF Collection Target 35
5.1. Other Funding Sources 35
5.1.1. Measure A 36
5.1.2. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 37
5.1.3. Unfunded Share of RACE 37
5.2. Developer Dedications 39
5.3. TUMF Collection Target 39
6.0 Fee Calculation 40
7.0 Recommendations and Conclusion 42
7.1. Fee Adjustments and Program Updates 43
7.1.1. Annual Inflation Adjustment 43
7.1.2. Regular Program Review and Update 44
7.2. TUMF Ordinance Amendments 45
7.2.1. Horizon Year and CVATS 45
7.2.2. Trip Generation Rates 45
7.2.3. Applicability 46
7.2.4. Establishment of the Transportation Mitigation Fee 46
7.2.5. Share of Trips 46
7.2.6. Schedule of Fees 47
7.2.7. List of Projects on the Regional System 47
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 1 June 27, 2006
APPENDICES
Appendix A - SCAG 2004 RTP Model Network Plots 48
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Socio-Economic Data for CVAG TUMF Study Area (2000-2030) 8
Table 2-2 Regional Highway System Measures of Performance for CVAG TUMF
Study Area (2000-2030) 9
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project 19
Table 3-2 "Maintenance Only" Projects Included in the 2005 TPPS and RACE
Updates 27
Table 4-1 CVATS Model Trips 29
Table 4-2 Distribution of CVATS Model Internal -Internal Trips 32
Table 4-3 CVATS Model Trip Purposes by Fee Categories 33
Table 4-4 CVATS Model Refined Trip Purposes by Fee Categories 33
Table 4-5 CVATS Model Trip Purposes versus Fee Categories - Reassigned 34
Table 5-1 Measure A Revenue Estimate for Coachella Valley 36
Table 5-2 STIP Funding Estimate for Coachella Valley 37
Table 5-3 CVAG RACE Inflated Cost Estimate 38
Table 5-4 Unfunded Share of RACE 2005 Update 38
Table 5-5 TUMF Collection Target 39
Table 6-1 CVAG TUMF Fee Calculation 41
Table 7-1 CVAG TUMF Schedule of Fees 42
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 CVAG TUMF Boundary 4
Figure 3-1 Projects in the 2005 TPPS Update 13
Figure 4-1 CVATS Model and TUMF Collection Areas 30
Figure 7-1 Construction Cost Index Comparison 44
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 11 June 27, 2006
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In July 1989, the agencies of the Coachella Valley adopted a landmark Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program to collect a uniform development impact fee
help fund construction of the regional system of roads, streets, and highways (excluding
state or federal highways) needed to accommodate growth in the region. During its
15+ years of existence, the TUMF has helped to fund numerous improvement projects
including arterial street construction, street widening, intersection capacity
enhancements, and freeway interchange improvements.
Throughout its existence the TUMF structure and policies have remained essentially
unchanged. However, many roadway improvements associated with the original TUMF
have been completed and plans for future development within the Coachella Valley
have evolved substantially. Furthermore, the reauthorization of Measure A in Riverside
County commits a significant future stream of funding to transportation improvements in
the Coachella Valley. Combined with other public sources of funds, the funding mix for
roadway projects in the Coachella Valley has changed substantially since the TUMF
was originally adopted.
To reflect the accomplishments of the original TUMF program and the continuing
changes in regional growth, transportation needs and available funding, CVAG has
recently completed an update of the Transportation Project Prioritization Study and the
Regional Arterial Cost Estimate. The Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) and
Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) each represent fundamental elements of
CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The TPPS identifies the
arterial roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the transportation impacts of
new development on the Coachella Valley and prioritizes the implementation of these
improvements. The RACE determines the cost associated with implementing the
roadway system improvements identified in the TPPS and therefore provides a core
variable in the formula for calculating the fee level for the TUMF program.
Changes in the TPPS and RACE documents that provide the underlying basis for the
TUMF program have necessitated the review and update of the TUMF program to
reaffirm the nexus between projected development and needed transportation system
improvements. The reevaluation of the TUMF nexus also provides the opportunity to
address important policy issues including consideration of a new horizon year of 2030
(based on the latest available socio-economic forecasts from the Southern California
Association of Governments) and the related traffic growth attributable to new
development in the Coachella Valley, and verification of the percentage ,)f
improvement costs to be funded by other funding sources and developer dedications.
This Nexus Study Report presents the evaluation of population and employment growth
future transportation needs and the availability of traditional transportation funding
sources to establish updated TUMF fee levels and program revenue collection targets
This study report is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code
Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Proiects (also known as
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Repo,
2006 Fee Schedule Update 1 June 27, 2006
,�ulitorrriu A sere ibly bill r 6Uu I oUU) of it le ivliligutior i Fee Hct) which goveros
irnposinu development impact fees in California.
Companion documents referenced in this report include the Transportation Project
Prioritization Study (Katz, Okitsu and Associates, 2006), the Regional Arterial Cost
Estimation (Katz, Okitsu and Associates, 2006) and the CVAG TUMF Boundary
Determination (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005). These documents that are directly related
to the 2006 Fee Schedule Update are available from CVAG.
The following sub -sections provide some background information on CVAG's TUMF
program including the results of the recent boundary determination and the provisions
of state legislation relating to mitigation fee programs. The remaining sections of the
TUMF 2006 Fee Schedule Update Nexus Study Report present the findings of the nexus
study data analysis and the revised TUMF fee schedule.
1.1. TUMF Boundary Determination
In cooperation with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), CVAG
has participated in efforts to determine an appropriate .boundary between the two
regions. The resultant changes in the CVAG jurisdictional boundary necessitates
consideration of expanding the TUMF collection area boundary to match the new
jurisdictional boundary and therefore a nexus must be established between
development in this area and transportation improvements in the Coachella Valley.
The CVAG TUMF Boundary Determination (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005) established a
roughly defined area within which there exists a "reasonable relationship" between
new development and traffic conditions on TUMF roadways. In short, this area includes
the CVAG core, as well as outlying areas along the I-10 east, SR74 south, SR86 south,
and SR 1 1 1 south corridors. The roughly defined area was identified in three analysis
stages. The conclusions for each analysis stage are summarized below:
• Distribution of Trips:
The analysis of trip distribution based on the 1997 and 2020 origin -destination trip
tables of the Coachella Valley Transportation Study Model (CVATS) model
determined that areas outside the CVAG core have a relatively small contribution
(<l % of all trips) to traffic in the CVATS modeling area. It also found that areas within
the CVAG core were the primary contributor to trips within the core. Thus, the
analysis of trip distribution found a clear nexus between areas within the CVAG core
and traffic conditions on the TUMF roadways, most of which are located in the core
area. It did not, however, establish a clear nexus between new development in
outlying areas and traffic conditions on the TUMF roadways.
• Average Trip Length/Use of Arterial Streets:
The analysis of trip length and use of arterial streets supplemented the analysis of trip
distribution. Based on uniform distance buffers around city borders, as wel'
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Repor
2006 Fee Schedule Update 2 June 27, 2006
JeICI led iouie specifiL time- 'fools, 1easoriable Ielatiorlship was esrablis Ieu
between certain outlying areas and traffic conditions on TUMF roadways Four
points located roughly at the edge of where a "reasonable relationship" could be
established were identified. These four time point locations are as follows:
- Time point on the 1-10 east corridor: 1-10 Frontage Road ramps (near Cactus City
and the Rest Area)
- Time point on the SR74 south corridor: Ribbonwood (located along SR74 near the
SR371 junction)
- Time point on the SR 86 south corridor: Oasis (located on the west shore of the
Salton Sea)
- Time point on the SR 1 1 1 south corridor: Desert Beach (located on the east shore
of the Salton Sea)
• Limitations to Development:
Largely undeveloped areas exist between the time point locations identified in the
average trip length analysis stage. These areas are of limited relevance to the TUMF
program since development within them is either legally prohibited, exempt from
TUMF payment, or restricted by the terrain. For this reason, a more detailed analysis
of these areas was not pursued.
In order to assure accurate and timely implementation of the TUMF program, it is
desirable that the TUMF boundary be easily identified and understood by developers, as
well as by jurisdictions responsible for fee collection. Formal boundary lines were
defined based on the results of the analysis in relation to easily administered features.
Good boundary devices are easily identified, stay relatively constant over time, and
can be related to data collection or analysis zones in order to facilitate future analysis
updates. Roads, established rivers, lakes, parcels, township lines, county lines, city
borders, as well as national or state park borders are examples of easily identified
devices.
The rough boundary established in the nexus analysis was proximate to several easily
defined features:
• the Riverside County line to the north and south,
• Joshua Tree National Park to the northeast,
• township line 10E-11 E to the east, and
• the WRCOG/CVAG border to the west.
These features define the updated CVAG TUMF boundary which is depicted in Figure I
1. It should be noted that the jurisdictional border between WRCOG and CVAG is
subject to further negotiation and that the location shown is based on CVAG's currently
preferred option.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Rep,,
2006 Fee Schedule Update 3 June 27, 2006
CVAG TUMF Boundary
o o
z
8 2. >
co -.0 A..
LL
m 0 ai
0
-) a, 0
P LL ..
o m 2
w m cc
ci.) -
O c'
(o
G_ it -0
c
c o
lo ▪ Cl- U CD
...i I I
•
i
1—
o -J
• I
a
1
moRiverside County
Major Roads
la
•:t
z
g g
0 r.
g,
z
zw
8 5
3
z
7
(2
er
0
z
esl
ii should also be rioted That the portion of the boundary coincident with the Jushuu Tree
National Park border is defined as "the Joshua Tree National Park border". rather than
as a specific physical location. This section of the boundary is defined as such so that it
would shift to match any future revisions to the Joshua Tree National Park borders.
1.2. Measure A and the CVAG TUMF Program
The CVAG TUMF program is a component of Riverside County's Measure A. Measure A
is a one-half percent sales tax program that provides funding for a wide variety of
transportation projects and services throughout Riverside County. It was approved by
voters of Riverside County in November, 1988. Measure A was due to expire in 2009, but
on Election Day 2002 a thirty year extension of the one-half percent sales tax for
transportation was approved by 69.2 percent of Riverside County voters.
Funds are allocated to the Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley
areas proportionate to the Measure A funds generated within those areas. The
Coachella Valley area and the City of Blythe, located within the Palo Verde Valley
area, are part of CVAG.
The Coachella Valley area is defined by Measure A as located in the central part of
Riverside County and including the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot
Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage. It
also includes the unincorporated areas, and the tribal lands of the Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, and the Torres Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians.
The Palo Verde Valley area is defined by Measure A as located in the far eastern part
of Riverside County and as being geographically separated from the Western and
Coachella Valley areas. It contains the City of Blythe and unincorporated portions of
Riverside County.
Measure A requires a TUMF program be administered for the Coachella Valley area,
but not for the Palo Verde Valley area. Measure A defines TUMF as a fee that is
charged on new development by local governments to assist with the building and
improvement of regional arterials.
Cities and the county in the Coachella Valley must participate in the TUMF program to
assist in the financing of the priority regional arterial system in order to receive local
Measure A funds. If a city or the county chooses not to levy the TUMF, the funds they
would otherwise receive from Measure A for local streets and roads is added to the
Measure A funds for the Regional Arterial Program. A portion of the Measure A
revenues for the Coachella Valley area is returned to the cities and the county in the
Coachella Valley to assist with the funding of local street and road improvements.
These funds supplement existing federal, state, and local funds. Local street
improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments are typically
paid for by the developers.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 5 June 27, 2006
,-dtlwugh rvleasure r. Ihcos beers tcuutlsoil-zsd with expiation now extended to 2039, the
evaluation for the TUMF Nexus Study uses a horizon year of 2030. The use of a 2030
horizon year for the TUMF Nexus Study is primarily linked to the availability of socio-
economic and travel demand forecast data needed to support the analysis. As
described in Section 2.1, the most recent forecast information available for the
Coachella Valley was published by the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) as part of the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update using a horizon
year of 2030. To reflect the available data and for consistency with other regional
transportation planning initiatives, the 2030 horizon year was also used as the basis for
the TUMF nexus determination. Where future Measure A revenues are described in
Section 5.1.1, the revenue estimates have been developed for the period through 2030
to remain consistent with other elements of the TUMF analysis. Measure A revenues to
be generated in the period from 2030 to 2039 were not included as part of the TUMF
nexus determination for this program update.
1.3. Mitigation Fee Act and Other Legal Requirements
The Mitigation Fee Act, also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or
California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq., governs imposing development
impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in
California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow some basic principles
when instituting impact fees as a condition of new development. These principles are
as follows:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee. (Government Code Section 66001(a) (1) )
2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. (Government Code Section
66001(a)(2))
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the
type of development on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code
Section 66001(a)(3))
4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facility and the type of development project on which the fee is to be imposed.
(Government Code Section 66001 (a)(4))
5. Discuss how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and
the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the
development on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section
66001(b))
These principles closely emulate two landmark US Supreme Court rulings that each
provide guidance on the application of impact fees. The first case, Nollan v. California
Coastal Commission (1987) 107 S.Ct. 3141, established that local governments are not
prohibited from imposing impact fees or dedications as conditions of project approval
provided the local government establishes the existence of a "nexus" or link between
the exaction and the state interest being advanced by that exaction. The Nollan ruling
clarifies that once the adverse impacts of development have been quantified, the
local government must Theis document the relationship between the project and the
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 6 June 27, 2006
ie.ed rug ii le cui iditioi is Hiat mitigate those impacts. The ruling further clarifies trial an
exaction may be imposed on a development even if the development project itself will
not benefit provided the exaction is necessitated by the project's impacts on
identifiable public resources.
The second case, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 1 14S.Ct. 2309, held that in addition to
the Nollan standard of an essential nexus, there must be a "rough proportionality"
between proposed exactions and the project impacts that the exactions are intended
to allay. As part of the Dolan ruling, the US Supreme Court advised that "a term such as
'rough proportionality' best encapsulates what we hold to be the requirements of the
Fifth Amendment. No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city (or
other local government) must make some sort of individualized determination that the
required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed
development."
The combined effect of both rulings is the requirement that public exactions must be
carefully documented and supported. This requirement is reiterated by the provisions of
the State of California Mitigation Fee Act and subsequent rulings in the California
Supreme Court (Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 C4th 854) and the California
Court of Appeals (Loyola Marymount University v. Los Angeles Unified School District 45
(1996) Cal.App.4th 1256).
This Nexus Study report is intended to satisfy the requirements of the State of California
Mitigation Fee Act. Specifically, this Nexus Study report will outline the purpose and use
of the TUMF, the relationship between new development and impacts on the
transportation system, the estimated cost to complete necessary improvements to the
arterial street system within the Coachella Valley, and the 'rough proportionality' or
`fair -share' fee for differing development types.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 7 June 27, 2006
2.0 FUTURE GROWTH AND THE NEED FOR TUMF
2.1. Future Growth Trends
The most recently available demographic projections for the Coachella Valley were
developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to support
the preparation of the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RIP) titled Destination 2030.
Adopted by the SCAG Regional Council on April 2004, Destination 2030 is "a multi -
modal Plan representing (SCAG's) vision for a better transportation system, integrated
with the best possible growth pattern for the Region over the Plan horizon of 2030."'
The SCAG demographic projections are typically used by sub -regional agencies in
Southern California as a basis for developing their own demographic forecasts. Based
on the SCAG regional growth forecasts, the population of Coachella Valley is projected
to increase by 366,509 in the period between 2000 and 2030, a compounded rate of
approximately 2.6% annually. During the same period, employment in Coachella
Valley is anticipated to grow by 128,274 or 2.4% annually. Table 2-1 summarizes the
SCAG 2004 RTP socio-economic data for the Coachella Valley.
Table 2-1 Socio-Economic Data for CVAG TUMF Study Area (2000-2030)
2000 2030 Change % Change % Annual
Population 320,081 686,590 366,509 115% 2.6%
Households 117,539 260,373 142,834 122% 2.7%
Employment 127,322 255,596 128,274 101% 2.4%
Source:
SCAG 2004 RTP, Destination 2030, Year 2000 and Year 2030 Plan data
2.2. Future Highway Traffic
To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on
the transportation system in Western Riverside County, existing (2000) and future (2030)
traffic data were derived from the SCAG 2004 RTP Model. The SCAG years 2000 and
2030 trip tables and network files were obtained for the purpose of evaluating future
traffic growth (and trip distribution) in the Coachella Valley. To quantify traffic growth
impacts, traffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for each of the two
scenarios. The CVAG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional SCAG
model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Coachella Valley only.
Measures for the CVAG TUMF study area included total vehicle daily miles of travel
(VMT) and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS D or worse).
These results were tabulated in Table 2-2. Plots of the Network Extents and evaluation
results are presented in Appendix A.
Southern California Association of Governments, Destination 2030 - Executive Summary, April
2004
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 8 June 27, 2006
Total arterial VMT and LOS D Threshold VMT were calculated to include all arteri(:l)
roadways included in the SCAG model. These roadways in the SCAG model
encompass the projects included in the TPPS. Regional values for each threshold were
also calculated for a total of all facilities including arterial roadways and freeways.
Table 2-2 Regional Highway System Measures of Performance for CVAG TUMF Study
Area (2000-2030)
Measure of Performance (Dolly) I 2000 2030 Change % Change % Annual
VMT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 5,692,310 10,474,430 4,782,120 84% 2.1%
VMT - FREEWAY 2,287,250 4,184,330 1,897,080 83% 2.0%
TOTAL ARTERIAL VMT 3,405,060 6,290,100 2,885,040 85% 2.1%
VMT IF LOS D OR WORSE - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 498,468 5,829,620 5.331,152 1070% 8.5%
VMT IF LOS D OR WORSE - FREEWAYS 0 2,940,430 2.940,430 n/a 1 n/a
TOTAL ARTERIAL VMT (IF D OR WORSE) + 6.0
498,468 2,889,190 2,390,722 480% %
%OF ARTERIAL VMT WITH LOS D OR WORSE I+ 15% 46% 31%
NOTES:
Based on SCAG 2004 RTP, Destination 2030, Year 2000 and Year 2030 Baseline Network Scenarios.
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system)
LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios)
The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values:
VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume
VMT LOS D or worse = VMT (on arterial links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.62 or
freeway links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.71)
Notes: Arterial volume to capacity (v/c) ratio threshold for LOS D is based on the Transportation Research Board
2000 Edition of the Hiahwav Caoacitv Manual (HCM 2000) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane
Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 21-2, Chapter 21, Page 21-3).
Freeway v/c ratio threshold for LOS D is based on the HCM 2000 LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Basic
Freeway Segments with 65 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 23-2. Chapter 23, Page 23-4)
The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2000 and
2030, and the average annual change between 2000 and 2030. As can be seen from
the SCAG 2004 RTP Model outputs summarized in Table 2-2, the additional traffic
generated by new development in the Coachella Valley will cause congestion on the
arterial roadway system to increase in the absence of additional highway infrastructure
investments. Many facilities will experience a significant deterioration in LOS to
unacceptable levels as a result of new development and the associated growth in
traffic. According to the Hiahwav Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board,
2000), LOS C or D are required to "ensure an acceptable operating service for facility
users."
The need to mitigate the impact of new development is shown by the adverse impact
that new development will have on arterial roadways in the Coachella Valley. As a
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 9 June 27, 2006
i esult of the ileW developiv 6.11 i ai g'. i owih in populafioi arid ei ftplivyl i irAl i
in the Coachella Valley, additional pressure will be placed on arterial roadways with
the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimated to increase by 85% or 2.1%
compounded annually.
As shown in Table 2-2, the VMT on arterial facilities experiencing LOS D or worse will
increase by 480% or 6.0% compounded annually in the Coachella Valley in the period
between 2000 and 2030. By 2030, almost one half of the total VMT on the regional
arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS D
or worse without substantial improvements to the arterial street system. The combined
influences of increased travel and worsened LOS that manifest themselves in
congestion highlight the continuing need to complete the improvements
recommended in the TPPS to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new
development.
The SCAG 2004 RTP Model outputs summarized in Table 2-2 clearly demonstrate that
the additional trips generated by future new development in the Coachella Valley will
lead to increasing levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The
need to implement the TPPS to improve these roadways and relieve future congestion is
therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the additional trips.
2.3. The TUMF Concept
All new development has some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a
community, city or county due to an increase in the total number of trips. Increasing
usage of the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing
congestion and decreasing the level of service. In order to meet the increased travel
demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become
necessary to sustain pre -development traffic conditions.
The projected growth in Coachella Valley can be expected to increase congestion
and degrade mobility if further investments are not made in the transportation
infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways that carry a
significant number of the trips between cities, since traditional sources of transportation
improvement funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be
nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to serve new development.
Developer dedications generally provide only a portion of the improvements with
improvements confined to the area immediately adjacent to the respective
development, and the broad -based county -level funding sources (i.e., Measure A l
designates only partial revenues for arterial roadway improvements.
The TUMF program establishes a uniform development impact fee to generate the
revenues necessary to fully fund the implementation of the TPPS resulting in construction
of the regional system of roads, streets, and highways (excluding state or federal
highways) needed to accommodate growth in the region. Recognizing that some
improvements within the Coachella Valley will be completed by developer dedications
or using alternate funding sours &s. the TUMF program establishes the share of unfunded
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 10 June 27, 2006
ipicivecnerri C St; iri iougl; proporiloi aliiy +o the number of trips generated by rev
development and assigns the fair -share fee to new developments on this basis.
A sizable percentage of trip -making for any given local community extends beyond the
bounds of the individual community as residents pursue employment, education,
shopping and entertainment opportunities elsewhere. As new development occurs
within a particular local community, this migration of trips of all purposes by new
residents contributes to the need for transportation improvements within their
community and in the other communities of Coachella Valley. The idea behind the
TUMF program is to have new development throughout the Coachella Valley
contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve
these trips within and between communities. For this reason, the TUMF revenues are
used to improve transportation facilities that primarily serve trips within and between
communities in Coachella Valley (primarily arterial roadways).
Much, but not all, of the new trip -making in a given area is generated by residential
development (i.e. when people move into new homes, they create new trips on the
transportation system as they (ravel to work, school, shopping or entertainment). Some
of the new trips are generated simply by activities associated with new businesses (i.e.
new businesses will create new trips through the delivery of goods and services, etc.).
With the exception of commute trips by local residents coming to and from work, and
the trips of local residents coming to and from new businesses to get goods and
services, the travel demands of new businesses are not directly attributable to
residential development. The TUMF program considers the relative impacts of different
sources of new trip generation by assessing both residential and non-residential
development for their related transportation impacts.
In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following:
• A uniform fee is levied on new development throughout the Coachella Valley to
mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of trips generated by new development.
• The fee is assessed with rough proportionality on new residential and non-residential
development based on the relative impact of each new use on the transportation
system.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 11 June 27, 2006
3.0 TPPS AND RACE
The Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) and Regional Arterial Cost Estimate
(RACE) each represent fundamental elements of CVAG's Transportation Uniform.
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The TPPS identifies the arterial roadway improvements
necessary to sustain mobility within the Coachella Valley. The TPPS describes the set of
arterial roadway improvements to be funded by the TUMF program and other
regionally available funding sources (including Measure A and State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) funds), and prioritizes the implementation of these
improvements. The RACE determines the cost associated with implementing the
roadway system improvements identified in the TPPS and therefore provides a core
variable in the formula for calculating the fee level for the TUMF program.
The TPPS and RACE are stand alone documents updated by CVAG on a regular basis.
Their most recent update was conducted as a separate study in parallel to this TUMF
Boundary Determination and Fee Schedule Nexus Study. The most recent revision of
the TPPS and RACE, the 2005 update, was used as the basis for this Fee Schedule Nexus
Study.
In addition to identifying regional arterial projects to be funded, the TPPS ranks these
projects based on a project score. Figure 3-1 illustrates the location and score of each
project included in the TPPS. Table 3-1 lists the cost estimate for each project as
developed in the RACE process. All projects included in the TPPS and RACE total
$2,602,939,252.
Due to the essential nature of the TPPS and RACE in establishing the TUMF nexus and
associated program fee levels, it was necessary to review the assumptions and
calculations of these related studies in the context of TUMF. A few main conclusions
were formed in relation to the cost estimation methodology and projects included in
the TPPS and RACE, as described in the sub -sections below.
3.1. Cost Estimation Methodology
The review of the RACE cost estimation methodology yielded two primary conclusions:
• The RACE cost assumptions were reviewed and found to be within industry
standards for the development of planning level cost estimates for a system
total.
• Construction and right-of-way costs have been escalating at a rapid rate in
recent years. In order to maintain accurate estimates and representative fee
levels, it is recommended that the RACE and resultant TUMF fee schedule be
updated annually to keep pace.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 12 June 27, 2006
Figure 3-1 Projects in the 2005 TPPS Update (page 1 of 6)
FS1
LEGEND:
Line/Symbol Score
il0 5.9
6.J - 7.9
60 99
I('Oli 9
l �.0-139
0 +
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
PS3A RS31
4MC1 HAM NAC2
t'r
i� I� ! Lj 211I2 ' P. Teri
II 'I
DINS Imo_ Otis_
----...�
i
9 IND3
✓
Figure S-1
Studied Segments and Total Scores
S-24
13
1
Ncr T.•
xal.
M I
c I
r q,
Nexus Study Repot;
June 27, 200.-
y•
•
91118 • 9•Z148
91H8
bIlVM ilMno L77VAa iflWIO
*'►—
--ri----;orMlac eav1‘31i-
1__.._I -,. .f.•
f _ EM
. s :i:ct y .;^c
.S : !:
- i l -.¶•1 'i-, )..—. i—
''r '; : T1t 1
•
i
- .t , I 1 _
i ,11 • - 9.i• .i v `r
•.
-it
I I r-� ( .
(am9N71r i • Olgr. El I IMF , -, IL 1 ` '..,i ' r . 1
I I (•Th i � -r. ' i.. ! '-: I I. i N ! 1 ill N_gli 1
Studied Segments and Total Scores
4-
Figure 3-1 Projects in the 2005 TPPS Update (page 3 of 6)
•
2-
'WW1
----111111 '1111
1
111
LU
0, 0,
3: 0o1
s —
• 6 0
Q d
77.
V)
bt
Studied Segments and Total Scores
(/
)
2.4
J‘.
2
tu
id1/4e
. ,-
••••:
,"\\
,
,/, ,
L.
y.
..3"/vareas q. . ..',.
- ,
4iN, ,
, • ''' il° .. ' r:
\ ;'')•\ ' ' ''' *. 5. ' . 1 • .
• •
• 1, ". ' ' %I •
• ' ' ,l';$ . \\,, • , 4
Cl'` ,/;'' .,''' } A. '• '',‘
,I14„ . r . '::: • . ',.\ , \ s ' ,IP
->\-' \ ' <> 'A i ''', ..., ;''' ' s ' '*''.• . '. 4, ' •
\ \ ' \ "'',, 7.,.:'1). .‘i / ' ..( '., .(18:.‘‘ • ' ,,;‘,' ‘• s - )4' , : • . ' '
SP • :' ? • '''' ' -ll.SC\'\ . . " i •4.‘
0
Al; '• ..e: •• .. . —.
'•.\\.,... \'\. .." '-' ' •
\ I. ,., ,.. 1 % \ - ,,,:' .1. ''''', ' 1 ' , .....-::.--
, „ , •.,, ..- ,
- ).:;'• .,..) li.,". „ or \-, '',, i.'\\,. . ' ''•-•;-•
, ,-.' - .. ''...., ..i.,"z ,•-• --. ,-,„
,,,' , •-!'.. tit, ,- ‘... ., •Ns • .0. -,.-, '-c. - ,,,,,.
:•,,,„>9
N. \ /2' • :
•..,'' \ X , ..._, t!,.....1t.4 ...- ,t.:5 ,4t \ , \ ,., • 41. , " ,,.•..„ , , , ,,,r, ...i 1, 1, (,0 ' .. ........
e ,,,,, `, „ ‘, . • '...,:\ , r ,,-',- ..' ' '
'VIII r--./.."
,..... ...4„. —• ,.. ...,„
li ' / e,,..,...%',..,....., 4s1
%:-''''' o' ;'1''' / . '''''; • ''',..'k14\ \ )7'
?ti';:. ''c•4..1/ ' : .. ‘'. (2 .,• : :,,,,:,, ''.. / lb, .,..
‘.4;,../ \,,,', .011 ••, '
• ' . . • 4- t "\'• , , >,;''.:*:::,\": ,,S.,‘'...,..,,,e‘v t-s
.. . . ./;\ : -, • ' -,:r. . •-• .............. --' , -":,-", -",,::: -4,"
•
de
• \ • •
' .
--••• ........ . .. .
•
\
Co
,v.
4P- • -
toe
0, Valet? • •
• 40 ,-.. ,, ,
".
*, GFO4 • / • .,' .
, • ,
•
. • •.„
: \
„•" , , ,
•
.•
A • • 41•tv`'.., -• •
• •A' • vt.---z
o‘'`
ste9„00k*
d fr
$‘°
v‘ei3) e
•
• /1
•
• 14, $
cr so ett*
•
•
• „. s.;
04'4
.,:. •
11.1 .•
v‘,.. - , ,e,•• 5,r; „ \-=‘;.
...4\v t..-Ailr.o,
_ :„i..'..s•.7.\_ ',, .„ li.3,,,m'\i,,• L10t -\A ?A .'' .. .'. \'
: , v\, \-0 • ;\- ,1\, ‘\ . .:,. ._-i-_' ;._.,.\...-:r:,,,-. \ ,<V.. .,',,..\y. ,,, ';,''7',',.
-''\\-,i\7,?.c;•\, \.r ;-'
0
1
,
•
:.
'
.:'-
• •-1k•‘':,•
'-\--.\ i. .'',
.i.
.lC- 4S,e,,,,0i1,6m)1, \\"11-a_\.\----•.i50\C'a\•\--• •
----
hJ:----i.• -\
.:-.
- ,-.\ ,
- 1\ et. ;..:\. \\, 7,
ors
4.; , —
"`"". • •
•
, • ,
ttt,
%".
\
- A,
os
• co, Jr
uu.
4 0
0 is
Cf
SBA • SSB
LEGEND:
Line/Symbol Score
60 7.9
80.9.9
10.0.11.9
4> !4.0
7
Figure 3-1 Projects in the 2005 TPPS Update (page 6 of 6)
568
2t
5k 56D
• 1 58c ' 59D � SSE
— -3 • -. — —1;
Isi
r-
54A _ 51B1 I , 54C
•
— f—
S6E
61
S4D
62E j 62F 626
Figure S-6
Studied Segments and Total Scores
S-29
561
62A
62H 621
660 66A
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Repork
2006 Fee Schedule Update
18
June 27, 200e,
1
Ra'Lb'nb Hwy III Io Fl!mars. (u Ed al WIYIQwalci : hr I ar d F Nutb SF -sib°
C.
W W M)
0 0 L
0
44ww
E
.y p rc.
r.
W a a 19zr.a 7) a N N N 11 H N
O O O O O 000000000,700 0 J O U O
O C - Y Y C) .n 4 4) n) n) :7) '4 M M (') (') f') 4') n n)
7,
6
cr
1
U _ S
yr = - - o _ •f( c� 's
- Q N - [ _ ¢ _ C W
v v
78
m m* m s f)
m 5 p m F m
g 2
;3d
i; :, 1)
3m
SL .,
p
rr
h
z z < a�i
¢ iz i uda N33 z a Oa LT.
fgS�' o,B `v
^...1' G) d) COth C
S
i '• -•
4
W ¢
4 O S u
O ¢ S
c 2 2 2 o
E PALM •J1U DP.
th CI)
J•
G 4.4
m ci) ce ab ri) ao rD m w ri • ,i) .a .n 0)
0`43
, .7
L^ 6
S Q
4
•
U
a 5
w
i • -
▪ > > ¢ Z Z W W r.
O V¢
w > ¢ O ¢ •n ¢ ▪ > > > S S ¢
a< 0 x= a o> a 4.¢ 4 r T
O-.
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Protect (page 2 of 7)
•
u
El
F
O
Z
a0
f
u
u
0
t
4
9
5
e
u
u
(1=
1
ma r v'^ 4S §`i§
44 H W N K N p t9 44 ) W H l4 l4
w .a, N ..• ..l l+ H H W •-, H M H -9 H .4 +� .If W
V i § W M UJ O N C? N 7 i Qi § I
A O H 2y a I9 'w w W N aA W H c4 A F
.0 O 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 it 0 0 C. '0 '0 „i v 0 0 0 0 O 44 J =, CI 0 Cl C.• •._ O ._
N CV N , N CI C! N ^.1 C. CI N •, Cl N
a
Frmv 7natra Cm ro 661'alo FO.O Dr
T 44 44
4 2 C6 L Q' 1 ,-UDC,
- ,i
a
'J
C. a
3,
a T I t m
o $ 3 3
• 1 1 `t 6' G G Z V 7 G -' 3 Q f
.4
0
S
ZID CI,
r a=- i g§;5� N N v '�y q� o bi cp C
-2�rS on � a 3`nM $253�1r'%bi�S �?'S2Sgo$-v'.in
.0 44. m m m ,n m s 4 .0 m ci, u3 0) . cn d, m .n 44 u, ,v ,., a7 a) at ,n ci of r ,0 43 u 4 .i3
u: CC W W w
CC .- ▪ i a C
i S ¢ Ul W W
aU cE• rC :
CLw=
'
ai i a ouwwr
b=> a 'a 'cc, 35h
MONTEnE • AVE
y
71.
Z L'
J .y
2 44 or w 4
a •S 4
O
N
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page 3 of 7)
0
E0
E
F
0
W6
<
2
u
u
2
u
4
g3
3
•. ,
G - `• it %� T 7fi .� s: 4: sr5 yr o. 1 '4: 5.c ii i= iC
i • ! ,W r D•
w :77W w w w w W W w w w w -i W N -1 ... r w w w w ,n w w •s w w W w
1} a
XN0 O(DNO +- R T
Ci f pc0 O
', $4449`nw.i4 4 a
4.f�l
O O O O 1,40 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0
h
9•
J O O O`
00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C' O O O_ O O
1.10 to M1b019:bY Av6 " i0 Ir let,
`P •P
q
m o,
Ave 48 to Hwy I I 1
rC AH-Fe)
IIr, v.4cp.ina 8r at W
44)
Z ^.
k
•o u . Q L•
D :. n l� C1 = i a Q Q a n ri _� = c' •` �• a 0 2.2 a
- mm mLi)
c/ _,
W W
< <
1� CJ 1� !) g r N - «4 ,: C 'J h CI h ) n Q. V ♦ S,1 V)
�i��oaa�a��� o v�,������ ��;s��.,�x��
n ni as m ao = fi, - m m m a di Cr, al s ai .n m m ri, cn m c = = ro •� _ .b
2 Q S 1 =i
▪ C - W
) J fL ▪ 9
1 ^ 1 S
S - W -
v ▪ _ ▪ fC ▪ -
W LL
a Q Q S 3 0 0> > G ¢ w LL W rr a a-
2
0
8
0
6
J
0
5
0
W
2
2
u
a
r
2
7•
H •h -. H •h H H -M H W H W W H w H V. .4 W W .. W H fY w W H H
i u
ai 2
tV V V O pp
N M N {4 N w 4 W W
p' o 4 § `G4 q b M a a g `8Ni F? 3 c
i, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 .30 O O O O 0 G 00 O O O 0 00 O G 0 0 C .3 0
.T T 3) T C)• •T Cl T 70 ,T C. ?. T ]. 'T (r O. r ♦T C` J) O) '-- '• ^l ••
HNy 11 1 .af'1 -.PR
r s; t m z;
- Stt
S _ - J
w
ui 0 6ZY
01 Fr ace Su, d n is BM
▪ a _
: F
_2
✓ d r j S
S •J P v 2
5•i n c o 2LL r—
:::!::,;!!::::::::::;2:_-. J 2O G O • Q f s O
1.
}s _ q -
t_
_ _ Z
< < . - . G _
• f` !� •D f0 )) J` d ^) N Y �- N ? N h)
37 C1 .n 'll L .i1 m m .^- CU .. J m 6. J Y Y = th Y .a a, Y .0 w
N
sb
0
Q.
z
0
N
S U
V. G • h
d
▪ a
',F. F¢ w_ w j Will
LL
z z _ 1 _ a Goc G c¢g qw % c¢ w s ('LLL,
w n x > O
4 c 3 u� I,:
a 07...
�- ) L S f. w 2 a• S w w .b r
¢ d¢ O> A A 5 L- o >>> 2 i >> a U O> G a UN
)OOZ 'a aunt'
uoded Apn4S snxeN
.J. _" 'l
A:. F��• U�' l' :3
;rt. SO'r8rl ;,3
O'OVI:'3
17'7'44';',AC. f
t 'T
' •Of'rt i• 3 1 '; 1
;o, 01c':6O?1
:F.F Iar..g."3
;a�' 1 r0 :: T•;9'
'`Jill •'9
▪ C• 0J1C4
•
.'r Ell ci •, •-T
la1 '4tU '1
.Ik%11 rl,rT
•60 Rr•-':o'.' 13
fint
•• (, 51 1'c4t. li
,'t- 13
. n.; • 1101 ;1F.'li
• t•'Gi•li
1:r'13€.1 ::1F. ti
• Of^=l'- l9
• eku- IT
orr •;F.r IT
'l,i a''. a•1'13
9t `SS%' 14
• 0_ '.r I I,.t: 13
;5£'Z£0.086.13
03
0SL' 4a3'e 1S
000'OZ6'L3
0011'9 , .'
0v8'R,'d9'rQ
o o';68'S3
OOS'9l6'0£3
01£'9£V1'3
OE9'Sf.'LS
OOL'4i0;'9l3
OLO'ISL'SS
000'1,98'8S
OV0'01O'L3
096'S8E'93
008'8fA'93
03
L91:'OL.7'£ I S
001i'99L'LS
0tv'ZZZ'ZS
0ZL'060 9t3
000'SSE'83
oo0'vL£'v3
0d='ESO'Z3
00it'9L6'V3
OCYJ'089'OV3
S13'9693
£vo £lS'l1
£L a4opdn atnpatos aad 900e
dwn1 £ VA:
.,•_,ln;,?, 9Aa 01 t, env
:s HAY JI 09 NAY
1S u001e9er 01 is U016UIUSPM
^nv may. J '210 S90JWA1 UAlfe301 6] Ulpd
J.] wed 0109 06U 40y4 emn
s uepV of 14 U01bU17seM
19 )0IeM9lluM 0101-I
..1.1 01 rr enb
cl, '.A Sened OuIa109l 01 GH .leu(A9
py Ilewea 01 Me.n wetunori
0y 'ether, Ol 8A t 8610
•:3•6 0+ GAO S83 1 u01cSV
l'nr.] S6'1 7 '.O.SSyy nl GW8 u'OSJekl
1AV'llvI 011 ,C.11CJ
0131/0100 Ol NAY Wet
ABM eSIJUf0 l:1 n3 uA) toed
rt£ HAY 01 O1'I
Dn1U wvel •J1'SSyy ^. 1V419 •+usJH.d
P.,e - Amy Iry 01 I6 uusionef
IQ •)016.JAISPM 0: Jf] QI' e6v0
..ul JNlIO IU, I IPtl) ,.] A'^H 3SI1P1Ue1 01 19 8XJ )
13,3 Ienc. Ai ale 0101.1
mu') leleAellul le 18
38d9/I Il n"AH le V),IeAoes goal:.
6up J91gM MOI, 1a r► eAY
1 ,36l'. 11 ' AN IP ,,.lgR0e$ 9pYJr
11 0t' 1 09 any
GN OI+.Y JI IIJUA'J P.S.n
•. 1 : Akt, r es •.ny 10 J.,u S50el'1 P.M 111 4MH 0r 99.1JR / Ij uosnty
(bu!1JOpL.IA
vS°'96L'913 9 8 •d etPAASUUM C'uP 11xr . 0kr. 1^,oeu.P, ); le Jg 0'4) C lG3 EWWJe9 01 U4Q WPd
008'806'Z3
1L6'0ZZ 93
OCO'VLO'L3
00''SSB'93
0o6'01L'L3
l56'Z67,'ZS
9S0.660'V3
SCR'011'l3
vOL'9►�'>f
n s.
ur
I, o
01•
OP
0
01:
1.
06
08
08
0R
08
0f
0E
08
08
08
0£
0R
08
08
Se.
98
08
00
Oo
06
06
06
06
0f•
O E.
1 11A1 bUlisl.o r111
Nut; 6'J sslw; 01 101 1$3 G103 0wAck
0A'1 A'lph JI :.] 6•,uPM Ca13
Vi '1Aa 0l 59 env
5, .ny 01 OS PAY
•81 1 ;-11%1 .P 18 19111) 08 *URA 0101 1
OF' dAY 01 Anne) UJn1e004
>£ env 0; eAV e1v10Seyl
Gti 11,111R13 01 1r1 ent1S 1R40
10 01012S ueMu0 01 20 1etemel )M as e01s N
ONO YOO
'7rli v:-
r;
SH'3
7-40
' .NO ,3ro
d1: i
VC,',
1Nn
ONO X.
SH1I
'H1J
3N11
.'i 11 ' Go
So
0Nn
SHa
Jr11
3e
'3d
ON+
']d
13t.1 V011
0r11
Y1')
ON. you
Sd
'300
JIIf-
r1n IyH
4 r;,-
tr' y
661 3
LL1'6
f_1':
£LI
S9l•9
K91 '1
651 ' I
i91"l
S91 -1
091-8
ett-41
LEV8
her; 3
200-8
SL0'H
6£0-8
1L£-g
ZM•a
IOC 9
99[ 'I
V9;'
LP'3
11'8
.J. 9ii:•41
ZLi.'0
99£•43
gyr
'3 2-8
6£1"8
9£1:'6
La'g
L5f' -)
def. a
1.1:9 nd
if r1331 NVA
•]i 10 ,10S1301d
a- 19 IC se31d
,31,1 439J'31.
0'J . 40111']
(3`J 1!1i11I.3
'1 ! I!1)11Ii1
051 101)10
!A31 . N1c!rJ1Y01'1
3•' Ndu7N1
.i.)c INIQII1
3/'' Nvl'JNl
any NY10M
9,3 'JA .'vllYd 3
iS N')1 illlHSif
'J'1 W1VJ
3r 3Ab
5.J a an l) ''J t Nno
:J0 YF11 drnz 'I)•rdNJ
15 NC?b3J33,
3,•a `,101`30d
01J NO111,3
rp 3n'11
9 3/':v
09 3nv
W10J
S 3nti
80n'JJ31VO
3r a 1fiaJ
3n0 !.3d31NOvi
•3nl0 11n1i33dVb
•]A ra 1'n'J33dde5
lei ll'A d0
•ILI 11YA a0
FJ•10r,1 :. ;��� r Ob AJl5:•:JH
HU NAO 1V1J031-t1Y'"
130 N.l:) 11H03H1V:.
($ SOU)
1003 SALLVV1111113
1t101
It SOU I T'101
11103 1731'Oila •111d SOOL
R7wC11113 TI1O1
14O1.1d1A13330133r•Oted 3)8V0)In8 SNOf)13,11 A3N30V 1.33W01141
r»ro1lno
9\1141N 13311E
stJe,IR)3 7YJ'Peleuyi, un-0Nn'8&J83OWoe1-WH'sAnidS uxed`Sd'J,esAa 1wled9ad
P'Jttre017-07 'vtld1i 11101f-411 '040(o rJNl 'sAW* ICH peSea-grp ege0e00-YO'J 'AK, i,.netra'.)-:): )
(L 10 S a6od) pafad A9 3DV11 SOUP tiowwnS l-£ amol
Table 3-1 Summary of 2005 RACE Update By Project (page 6 of 7)
CC=t,alhaJ'ai CIy, con-Gaa1:Aela, 1*1S=Oe.wr Hof Songs, TNL .Yhdlo, 1W-rowan 4442its, LO-La Ourve
PD=i'ayn Dnert, PS=Palm Sprigs, RM=Rancho Mirage, UNC-Lirincrpor1xl, CAL-Catrans
BUILDABLE
NAME PROJSCT
NUMABBR
AGENCY BACKBONE BUILDABLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
100S r'TS.
TOTAL
PROD
(2000 Al
TOTAL
CUBIULATV11t COST
S20011S)
AVE 50
YARNED R1,: AVE 4_
INOIO EI.V('
PORTOLA'vE
AVE 48
AVE
AVE 5:
AVE
AVE (7
BOB1I,4'E OF,
GERAL(• FORD (,F'
HAFidc•7rt Si
•
4VE
'O11 LOl: RD
'AVE !J1
A.P84'..
THEI'RAL ',9J L'F1
'fl7'.SHII!GT•11 t ST
MAD I`C4J ; T
IOADI.i,cda ; T
FF,ED v'4.F•I1IC; (d
AVE
.VEE:.. ATFFORT ELVD
AVE 5.; All ;FOR i 61 Vr:
/:VE 33.' A7F'PORT SLVC'
rA(M
INDIA; I , .vE
LITTLE f IC'ROIVGQ F;C'
l4OUNTl•1t3 JIFW
DILI OIl76
'VARIIEF FL
tdACIFt!t'A •.x.0
IEFFERS..OrJ ST
VAtI el1E}E11 9T
AVE 5. •
AVES
AVE 9..
AVE S
DA VPLL Fr•
'=RAF EFRL'IT E'LVC'
id-21C..
E. ti7
6•258
E3-26 `
3 26,
3-30v
D.31:
d-3`0
g.:44
B-352
8-113
-17E'
6.219
6.300
3-:fl'.
3.042
6.048
'188
tut
3.11E
0.11"
a.119
8.13E
-157
a-162
!1.15,
R 171
8 18_
?•19:
204
B-206
214
i3W
E. ,104
B-a06
i4.334
6,350
CVAG TUMF
2006 Fee Schedule Update
IN(t
INL,
111:'
PC1
i:01' ,1:0
UNC
UNC
FLEA
7'n
• 'OA
Monroe Si t0 Jackson SI
katrusk SI t0 Jatk5n S1
Jacksar, SI 10 Hwy 1 7 1
Mag60sla Fan D' 10,:to 1N1y CILr Cn (8'o •_', At Wllll,,.ya14: , 11r41
Oraoe Separallcn al HVIly 11175F'RF
Grano Yrparaticn HM' 111,S' FIF1
Marr06 St to Ja6I' 0 St
Motu(, SI IO J3Ck0Jr oI
Hatoso0 St I0 T y'6. jr
Gerald Fria ioDlnan "lbfI
MCnler(,y Av..:n FYftd4 Awe
Avo 52 to A,'-, St
• OA
LINO
,OA
':C
LC
L�.
'ND
Li. 'JNC
LC
1,INC
UIIP
UNC
11113
UNC
DNS
L1H•• I!Nit
1114r
l'(
OHS
,NC'
OOP
INT. .G
LO
LO
UNC
iM
,3A
Fwu a Ave 5: iR 86.3
Bl al W8'owalar Choi
Hwy " 1 In F 36.3 .1-, i PI 4i :'Chr..wa L.; a ,
Er al'Jvr3le.,alar , too
61 41 Wrnewalar i'nry
Ave5 to Av.) A (Ilya E' 311.e'..vr,ta Ev8' ' rtnl,
Avo 56 to Av,; a
FrOo W?ring C'r 10 I3Jn 34V0
Wasra:J10r, Si 10 Durk. Fault; Ro
341180011 to tascb0l, llr •,, Ed at }Y Aim", ',
Moot% SI I3 'a3ksOn 7t
la':ks,Y• S' to 11 35 rnU.', W of vex H.n..r. tit
Harnson jl 1 ' T ythr '51
Tw) B,P"fx, T'e'llt, 1r to i'1N„"' (-Iv(:
141n AVe to l'1ar'3Y1 elm
Two euncn FfrIms Tr 8, [,3r r, R7
HaY,'„J3 Avb I0 DIVA, rid
Pao' Dr :0 M,unlar, UAW
Montarev AY610 ;,haS, S-:5 c' Rc
MMK4N1,1 JI..w rsd If irgrp, FLI,I, n11 to F1c,
110,0 AVa 4c'
A.vo 4r IO Av'. Cn
.la11ds0h SI 10 Medsu SI 'Ex, I G ,,I AH.A.
Jolrars00 St In Madsen' St
Mad0on SI to Monroe S'
Jackson St 10 van B..sta 1 St
Dean &Into lc Ramon FIO
AYE, 54 •n Ale (fi
50
8.0
90
80
80
80
0
r0
80
80
80
80
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
7 0
'10
.0
'0
0
70
,0
0
_0
70
70
70
70
70
, C.
70
37,13.37,sa'.)
$6,66a,d40
$0
j1 t,375,760
S4,935,600
$4,374,000
$6,597,06e
$6,772,206
$6,668,640
$8,219,904
$7,339,_00
$5,360,200
336,036,500
$9,897, 300
56,454,476
$1(1,660,21Y1
S8,843,'172
$0
$7,352,240
34,OJ,130
$7,812,520
$6,240,960
85,401,440
$3,5660,040
S4,746,720
$0
SS,718,240
$12,296,160
S9,468,576
$6,336,000
$1,235,52^0
S20,910.790
$0
$6,66,8,640
56,977,240
S4,498,560
S4,224,000
S6,670,182
od,457,440
$`_. i i2,000
41
:'4,: 1,1 47.
T:,'40.'..:a1>' •
Sr.!d9 ti ,9,:
T. 41C. •4t,':1
'43,yl •
i:.417,5,455:
$',a,4 1a,'a7
$2.4 .94::157
43r., s.,4, 5.1.,
15' A4:.'47
Nexus Study Repor
24 June 27, 200e,
O
0)
✓
a
v
u
w
O
L
ca
0
0.
W
OC
8
.so AO
O d
• l
E 9
y �c�
�
N) s a
75 3 g
15
Q z
-
4 4
o 4
J (f
4' 5
' a
U (O
2
0
6
Wu
u
0
t
W
J
0
O
i
0
W
2
■
2
w
4 cr
CJ 0
ci
g M
J o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z _ z
i = 1.1'8 _ w
<'; ^ O b O C, JJ N N C•I CvV a" T n t!
fL _ _ C1 6i [O .36 w w GO
Q
>
vAIJ RI RE 4 -T
O o IJ N 0 0
•r 10 J C,
Q N ��po w m c�7p1 2p
a W a {9 f9 V W
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
La,
Ave iP to Ramon WJ
Y ` 1
Yn' `� �yy # gin 4
N N N
co
4 w
3.2. Projects Included in the ?PPS and RACE
In order to be consistent with California's Mitigation Fee Act, TUMF funds should not be
applied towards maintenance projects. For this reason, PB reviewed the projects
included in the TPPS and RACE to determine what portion of projects could clearly be
categorized as maintenance projects. Maintenance projects were identified based on
the Level of Improvement Standards (LOIS) used to develop construction cost estimates
in the RACE. The following LOIS appear to be purely maintenance related:
• RS2: Resurface existing 24' (2 lanes)
• RC2-A: Reconstruct existing 24' (2 lanes). Average daily traffic less than 10,000.
• RC2-AA: Reconstruct existing 24' (2 lanes). Average daily traffic greater than
10,000.
• RS3: Resurface existing 36' (3 lanes)
• RC3-A: Reconstruct existing 36' (3 lanes). Average daily traffic Tess than 10,000.
• RC3-AA: Reconstruct existing 36' (3 lanes). Average daily traffic greater than
10,000.
• RS4: Resurface existing 48' (4 lanes)
• RC4-A: Reconstruct existing 48' (4 lanes). Average daily traffic Tess than 10,000.
• RC4-AA: Reconstruct existing 48' (4 lanes). Average daily traffic greater than
10,000.
• RS6: Resurface existing 72' (6 lanes)
• RC6-A: Reconstruct existing 72' (6 lanes). Average daily traffic less than 10,000.
• RC6-AA: Reconstruct existing 72' (6 lanes). Average daily traffic greater than
10,000.
Table 3-2 lists projects, or components of projects, falling into one of the above LOIS
categories. As can be seen at the bottom of the table, the construction cost
components of these projects total $293,250,330, or 11% of the total RACE value of
$2,602,939,252. Since this value is less than the "other funding sources" identified and
factored into the TUMF Target Collections, as discussed in a later section, the inclusion
of these maintenance projects in the TPPS and RACE does not raise a nexus issue.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 26 June 27, 2006
iable ;3•- 'Maintenance Only" Projects Included in the 2005 TPPS and RACE Updates
'Street Name
AVE 44
AVE 52
AVE 52
AVE 52
CATHEDRAL CYN DR
CATHEDRAL CYN DR
CATHEDRAL CYN DR
COOK ST
COUNTRY CLUB DR
CROSSLEY RD
CROSSLEY RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
HARRISON ST
HARRISON ST
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIO BLVD
JEFFERSON ST
MILES AVE
MILES AVE
PALM CYN DR
PALM CYN DR
PALM CYN DR
PALM CYN DR
PALM CYN DR
PIERSON BLVD
PIERSON BLVD
PORTOLA AVE
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
THOUSAND PALMS RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD/AVE 42
WASHINGTON ST
WASHINGTON ST
TOTAL
TOTAL AS PERCENT OF
Segment Number
44B
52H
521
52J
CTHCN2
CTHCN4
CTHCNS
CK8
CC3
CROSL Y3
CROSLY4
DLN1
DLN6
DLN7
DLN8
DLN9
PLCN7
PLCN8
PLCN9
PLCN10
PLCN 11
FS4
FS5
FS6
FS7
FS8
FS9
FS1 1
GRPF1
HARSNI
HARSN2
INCN1
INCN2
INCN3
INCN4
INCN5
INCN6
INDIO5
JEF9
MIL3A
MIL4
PLCN2
PLCN3
PLCN4
PLCN5
PLCN6
PRS3B
PRS4
POR1
RAMS
RAMS
RAM13
RAM 14
THPL1
VRNR4
VRNR5
VRNR6
VRNR7
VRNR8A
VRNR9
WSH1OA
WSH10B
RACE
LOIS
RC4-A
RC4-AA
RS4
RC4-AA
RC4-AA
RC4-AA
RS4
RS4
RS4
RC4-A
RC4-A
RC2-A
RS2
RC2-A
RC2-A
RC2-A
RC4-AA
RS4
RC4-AA
RC4-AA
RCA -AA
RS4
RS4
RC4-AA
RC4-AA
RS4
RC4-A
RC4-AA
RC4-AA
RC4-AA
RC4-AA
RC4-AA
RS4
RS4
RS4
RS4
RC4-AA
RC4-AA
RC2-A 1
RC4-AA
RC4-A 1
RS4
RC3-AA
RC3-AA
RC4-AA
RC4-AA
RC4-A
RC4-A
RS4
RC6-AA
RC6-AA
RC4-AA
RC4-AA
RC2-A
RC4-AA
RC2-A
RS2
RS2
RS3
RC2-A
RS4
RS2
Construction Cost
$8,619,000
$122,100
$790,500
$111.000
$3,676,320
$4,102,560
$903,550
$448,800
$897,600
$2, 097,120
$2.154,240
$12,375,000
$1,436,310
$30,916,500
$25,072,500
$29,475.000
$5,860,800
$448,800
$8,946.600
$7,335,990
$1,748,250
$532,100
$326,400
$6.857,580
$5,033,850
$895,900
$1.300,500
$133,200
$7.326,000
$5.860,800
$5.860,800
$2,908,200
$450`500
$438,770
1,442;000
$442,000
$8,846,700
$8,791,200-
$4,001.250
$4.395,600
$21692,800
$448;800-
$2,013,600
12,613 _600
$3,207.900
$2,375.400
$4,039200
$9,435 _000
$897,600
$7,892,760
$7,738,000
$4,260,180
$111,000
$18,615,000
$136,530
$3.818,250
$1,235,520
$1,755,900
$686,400
$4 _680,000
$1,615_000
$1,092,600
S293,250,330
11%
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 27 June 27, 2006
4.0 TRAFFIC GROWTH ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT
Traffic growth attributable to new development in the CVAG TUMF Collection Area is
one of the two inputs which determine the TUMF Fee Schedule. Simply put, the Tl.lty
collection target, described in a later section, is divided by the estimated traffic growth
to develop the TUMF fee per trip. Section 4.1 describes the methodology used to
estimate traffic growth.
The current TUMF Fee Schedule has three rate categories: residential, retail, and non -
retail or hotel. The fee for each land -use category is based on the portion of future
growth attributable to each of these land -use categories. As a policy assumption, the
current TUMF Fee Schedule reassigns 60% of trip growth attributable to retail to the
residential category. The 60% factor was a policy decision made during the initial TUMF
Nexus Study and ordinance development process. The 60% factor was reevaluated
based on data from the newly updated CVATS Model and CVAG Origin -Destination
Survey. Section 4.2 describes this analysis and presents the revised factor.
4.1. Determining Traffic Growth
The Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study (CVATS) Model provided the most
comprehensive forecast of traffic growth in the CVAG TUMF Collection Area. A model
update was in process at the time of this study, and was sufficiently advanced to
provide estimates of future traffic growth.
Using the CVATS Model, traffic growth attributable to new development inside the TUMF
Collection Area was estimated as follows:
• Trip growth as forecasted by the CVATS Model was determined (Section 4.1.2)
• CVATS Model forecasts were converted to project level forecasts (Section 4.1.3)
4.1.1. Background on CVATS Model
The CVATS Model provides the best available quantitative estimate of travel occurring
and expected to occur in the CVAG region. It is based upon estimates of
socioeconomic and land use characteristics. CVAG and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) maintain it jointly.
The CVATS modeling area includes nine cities and neighboring unincorporated areas of
Riverside County. The nine cities included in the CVATS modeling area are Desert Hot
Springs, Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La
Quinta, Indio, and Coachella.
The CVATS modeling area is divided up into numerous transportation analysis zones
(TAZs) which provide the spatial unit (or geographical area) within which travel
behavior and traffic generation are estimated. Most TAZs cover the "internal" CVATS
modeling area, while eight of them are cordons covering the area "external" to the
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 28 June 27, 2006
1ir.:'•_.ielirij uie as follows: 1- ii_ ui illt �r?►ilk..::,;
end of the Valley, I-10 at the southeast end of the Valley, SR62, SR74, SR 1 1 1, SR86. 70th
Avenue, and 66th Avenue/Box Canyon Road.
Figure 4-1 illustrates the extents of the CVATS modeling area. The extents of the internal
TAZ borders are shown in red shading. The figure also illustrates the relationship
between the CVATS modeling area and the TUMF Collection Area (as updated in 2005
during the Boundary Determination phase of this study).
The CVATS Model is periodically updated to better reflect current conditions. A model
update was in process at the time of this study, and was sufficiently advanced to
provide estimates of future traffic growth. The updated CVATS Model used for this study
produces O-D tables for a 2000 base year, and a 2030 future year.
4.1.2. Determining Trip Growth Forecasted by the CVATS Model
The total traffic growth was estimated by subtracting the Year 2000 CVATS Model origin -
destination (O-D) table from the Year 2030 one. The CVATS Model estimates the
number of vehicle trips will grow by 2,359,605 trips between Year 2000 and Year 2030, as
shown in Table 4-1.
Year 2000
Year 2030
Growth
(2000 to 2030) 2,143,616 56,151
Table 4-1 CVATS Model Trips
Numbers of Trips
Internal Internal External External
to to to to
Internal External Internal External
1,015,746 35,804 35,630 21,768 1,108,948
3,159,362 91,955 91,783 125,453 3,468,553
56,153 103,685 2,359,605
Internal
Total to
Internal
Share of Trips
Internal External External
to to to Total
External Internal External
92% 3% 3% 2% 100%
91% 3% 3% 4% 100%
90.8% 2.4% 2.4% 4.4% 100%
As described above, the CVATS Model has an "internal" modeling area illustrated in
Figure 4-1 and several "external" cordons that capture the contribution of external
areas to traffic on CVAG roadways. The majority of new trips, 90.8%, will both start and
end in the internal CVATS modeling area. The CVATS Model estimates about 4.8% of
new trips to be between internal and external areas, while an additional 4.4% to pass
through CVAG starting and ending in external areas.
It is important to note that not all of the total traffic growth captured in the CVATS
Model O-D tables will be generated by new development inside the TUMF Collection
Area. It is necessary to determine this portion in order to develop an appropriate TUMF
fee schedule. In other words, since the TUMF Target Collections represent improvement
needs of new development inside the TUMF Collection Area, so too should the trip
estimates used in conjunction with the TUMF Target Collections to develop the TUMF fee
schedule.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 29 June 27, 2006
1
Figure 4-1 CVATS Model and TUMF Collection Areas
TUMF Collection Area (2005 Update)
— CVATS Model Area
r
U
0
0
a
8
r
r • "
w
U)
Figure 4-1, illustrating the correspondence between the CVATS modeling area and the
TUMF Collection Area, is a key tool in isolating this portion attributable to new
development inside the TUMF Collection Area. As can be seen in the figure, the CVATS
internal zones roughly correspond to the CVAG TUMF Collection Area, while the CVATS
external zones do not. Thus, the portion of traffic growth attributable to new
development inside the CVAG TUMF Collection Area includes only those trip ends
located in one of the internal CVATS zones. In other words the portion consists of both
trip ends of the "internal to internal" trips and only the internal trip end of the "internal to
external" and "external to internal" trips. This results in 2,143,616 plus half of 56,151 and
56,153 trips, or a total of 2,199,768 trips attributable to new development inside the TUMF
Collection Area.
4.1.3. Converting Model Forecasts to Project Level Forecasts
The next step in developing the necessary input for the TUMF fee calculation, was
converting the number of model forecasts into trip ends or project level forecasts in
order to be consistent with the TUMF implementation process.
Model forecasts correspond to the total number of trips generated in the modeling
region. Project level forecasts are computed for a specific development typically using
trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
manual or another source. The CVAG TUMF program is implemented by computing a
given development's fee obligation as follows: the fee rate is multiplied by the specific
development's trip generation rate as prescribed in the ITE Trip Generation manual to
yield the fee obligation for that particular trip end. Since fees are assessed on new
development that could represent either end of a model forecast trip, it follows that the
fee rate should be set based on trip end or project level forecasts.
The total project level forecasts for a region are about twice the model level forecasts
since project level forecasts are computed for each of the two trip ends of a model trip.
This can best be understood with an example. Consider a trip made from someone's
home to their office. The model would count this as one trip. However, the sum of the
project level trip generation for the house and the project level trip generation for the
office would equal two trips (i.e. one at the house end and one at the office end).
Applying this simple one to two relationship between model and project forecasts, it
follows that two times 2,199,768, or 4,399,536, project level trips are attributable to new
development in the TUMF Collection Area.
4.2. Fee Category Share of New Trips
The current TUMF Fee Schedule has three land use categories utilized to determine the
fee rate:
• Residential
• Retail
• Non -retail or Hotel
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 31 June 27, 2006
I I is i:.c ivl cll� ia ego y I, based of i the portion of ru l ure trip growth a i ti ibu table
to each of them.
The newly updated CVATS Model and the CVAG Origin -Destination Survey were key
tools in determining the distribution of trips between the three fee rate categories. The
CVATS Model breaks internal -to -internal trips down into five trip -purpose categories
based on the type of land use at each of a trip's two endpoints:
1. Home -Based -Work (HBW): One trip end is a residence and the other trip end is a
retail or non -retail workplace.
2. Home -Based -Shopping (HBSho): One trip end is a residence and the other trip
end is a retail land -use.
3. Home -Based -School (HBSch): One trip end is a residence and the other trip end
is a school (i.e. a non -retail land -use).
4. Home -Based -Other (HBO): One trip end is a residence and the other trip end is a
non -retail land -use not fitting into one of the other categories.
5. Non -Home -Based (NHB): Neither trip end is the person's home.
Table 4-2 shows the distribution of internal -internal trips amongst the five categories.
Since trips between internal and external CVATS zones were not broken down into
these five trip purpose categories by the CVATS Model, the distribution of internal -
internal trips into the five categories was applied as an approximation.
Year 2000
Year 2030
Growth
(2000 to 2030)
Table 4-2 Distribution of CVATS Model Internal -Internal Trips
HBW HBSho HBSch HBO NHB Total
13% 13% 10% 29% 35% 100%
10% 16% 8% 34% 32% 100%
9% 18% 6% 37% 30% 100%
The five trip purpose categories relate to the three fee categories (residential, retail,
and non-retail/hotel) as shown in Table 4-3. For example, the 9% of trips that are in the
Home -Based -Work category can be attributed 50% to residential because one trip end
is a home, and 50% to retail or non-retail/hotel since one trip end is a retail or non -retail
workplace. In other words, 4.5% can be attributed to residential and 4.5% can be
attributed to either retail or non-retail/hotel. A similar logic was applied for the other
categories.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 32 June 27, 2006
Table 4-3 CVATS Model frip Purposes by Fee Categories
Residential
Retail
Non -Retail & Hotel
Total
HBW HBSho HBSch HBO NHB
4.5% 9% 3% 18.5%
4.5% 9% 30%
3% 18.5%
9% 18% I 6% 37% 30%
To establish the distribution of trips between the three fee rate categories, the model
trip purposes were refined to determine the breakdown of the Home -Based -Work and
Non -Home -Based trip purpose categories between the retail and non-retail/hotel fee
categories. Using the CVAG Origin -Destination Survey, this breakdown was estimated
based on current travel patterns. The survey results showed that the 4.5% HBW trips
attributed to retail or non-retail/hotel could be broken down 34% retail and 66% non-
retail/hotel. Similarly, the survey results showed that the 30% NHB trips attributed to retail
or non-retail/hotel could be broken down 35% retail and 65% non-retail/hotel. Table 4-4
shows the final correspondence after refining the trip purpose breakdowns by fee
category.
Table 4-4 CVATS Model Refined Trip Purposes by Fee Categories
HBW HBSho HBSch HBO NHB I Total
Residential 4.5% 9% 3% 18.5% 35%
Retail 1.5% 9% 10.5% I 21%
Non -Retail & Hotel 3% 3% 18.5% 19.5% 44%
Total 9% 18% I 6% 37% 30% I 100%
General policy number 7 of the original Uniform Transportation Mitiaation Fee
Ordinance Report (CVAG, 1988) states "that added benefit in the form of shorter trips
will accrue to residential land uses from the convenience of close -in retail/commercial
development; as a result some of the retail/commercial trips should be reassigned to
residential trips." Consistent with this policy, section 6 (e) of the CVAG model TUMF
ordinance dated June 7, 1988 reassigned 60% of trip growth attributable to retail to the
residential category. The 60% factor was a policy decision made during the initial TUMF
Nexus Study and ordinance development process. The 60% factor was reevaluated as
part of this study in Tight of more extensive and recent data availability.
To reflect the intent of this policy, it was determined that the retail share of HBW and
HBSho trips would be allocated back to the residential trip end. This methodology is
consistent with NCHRP Report # 187 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniaues
and Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978), which
details operational travel estimation techniques that are universally used for the travel
demand modeling. Chapter 2 of this report states that "HBW (Home Based Work) and
HBNW (Home Based Non Work) trips are generated at the households, whereas the NHB
(Non -Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere." Based on this premise, the 1.5%
HBW retail component, as well as the 9% HBSho retail component were reassianed to
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 33 June 27, 2006
the residential land use category. the reassigned distribution is shown in Table 4-5. As
can be seen by _.ornpariny the right-hand columns of Tables 4-4 and 4-5, this translates
into 50% of retail trips being reassigned to residential. More specifically, half of the 21%
retail total shown in Table 4-4 was reassigned to residential leaving 10.5% of trips in the
retail category.
Table 4-5 CVATS Model Trip Purposes versus Fee Categories - Reassigned
HBW HBSho HBSch HBO NHB Total
Residential 6% 18% 3% 18.5% 45.5%
Retail 0% 0% 10.5% I 10.5%
Non -Retail & Hotel 3% 3% 18.5% 19.5% I 44%
Total 9% 18% I 6% 37% 30% I 100%
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 34 June 27, 2006
5.0 TUMF COLLECTION TARGET
Based on the TPPS and RACE document described in Secfion 3.0, the total value of
needed improvements to the arterial street system in Coachella Valley exceeds $2.6
billion. However, only a portion of this amount can be attributed to improvement
needs necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new
development. Some of the improvements identified in the TPPS address existing
transportation needs that have not been caused by the impact of new development
(although new development may exacerbate the existing need). Other projects in the
TPPS are for maintenance purpose only and therefore do not directly mitigate the
impacts of new development.
The availability of other funding sources to address existing needs and maintenance
projects in addition to future capacity expansion can offset the share of improvement
needs that are attributable to new development and obligated through the payment
of TUMF. Developer dedications as a condition of development approvals can also
result in the completion of improvements identified in the TPPS further reducing the
share of the RACE allocable to the TUMF. This section of the Nexus Report will quantify
the share of the arterial improvement costs that will likely be satisfied by other available
funding sources and developer dedications. By accounting for the use of other funding
sources to help address existing needs and roadway maintenance, and the share of
the TPPS that is likely to be accomplished through developer dedications, it is possible
to establish the TUMF collection target which is the rough proportion of the RACE that
will be assessed through the payment of TUMF.
5.1. Other Funding Sources
Section 6 (a) of the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated June 7, 1988 prescribes that
"the Uniform Transportation Mitigation Fee proceeds shall not exceed the unfunded
portion of the construction cost of the regional system..." Section 6 (b) further clarifies
that "the Uniform Transportation Mitigation fee is not intended to be the sole source of
funding for the construction of the Regional System." Consistent with Section 6 (c) of
the model ordinance, the original TUMF collection target was adjusted by 50% to
account for other funding sources that would be used to implement the regional
system improvements. The 50% other funding level was considered to adequately
account for existing needs and other funding sources but was not quantified as part of
the Nexus determination. Section 6 (c) of the model ordinance indicates that "this
share may change, however, as future revisions are made to the fees." For the purpose
of this update, it was determined that an estimate of the other revenue sources
expected to be available for implementation of the regional system would be used as
the basis for adjusting the TUMF collection target to address other funding.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 35 June 27, 2006
Measure
In accordance with RCTC Ordinance No. 88-1 Riverside County Transportation
Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax
(Measure A), 35% of the sales tax revenue generated by Measure A within the
Coachella Valley is allocated to CVAG for use on the Regional Arterial System. CVAG
uses this revenue to complete projects included in the TPPS. With the reauthorization of
Measure A and in accordance with RCTC Ordinance 02-001, commencing in Fiscal
Year 2009 the share of Measure A revenues to be used for regional road improvements
will increase to 50%. CVAG intends to continue to utilize this revenue for projects
included in the TPPS.
For the purpose of determining the share of Measure A revenues that will likely be
available for completing future TPPS projects, actual Measure A revenues for the period
from 1990 to 2005 were reviewed and future revenues forecast to 2030 based on the
historic trend. Table 5-1 summarizes actual and estimated Measure A revenues for
Coachella Valley.
Table 5-1 Measure A Revenue Estimate for Coachella Valley
Measure A Total Revenue for Coachella Valley
FY 1990 Revenue in millions (1)
FY 2005 Revenue in millions )1)
Annual Revenue Growth since 1990
Estimated Revenue 2007 to 2030 in millions
Ili Source: Riverside County Transportation Commission, March 3. 2006
$10.1
$33.7
8.34%
$2,764.0
Measure A Allocation for Coachella Valley Regional Arterials
Estimated Revenue 2007 to 2030 in millions $2,764.0
Regional Arterial Allocation through FY 2008 (2) 40%
Regional Arterial Allocation FY 2009-2030 (3) 50%
Estimated Allocation 2007 to 2030 in millions $1,373.8
12) Ordinance 88-1 defines that 55% of Measure A Revenues generated within Coachetla
Valley will be used on State Highways and Major Regional Road Projects. The ordinance
provided for "about V." 10 supplement Federal and State funds for specified State
highway projects. By formula 15% of revenues is provided for this purpose with the
balance (40% of total revenues) allocated to regional arterials.
13) Ordinance 02-001 defines that 50% of Measure A revenues will be used "for State
highways and regional road improvements...implemented through CVAG"
Between 1990 and 2005, the total Measure A revenues generated in the Coachella
Valley has grown from $10.1 million to $33.7 million, a rate of approximately 8.34%
compounded annually. By projecting the actual 2005 revenues at the historic annual
growth rate, it is estimated that approximately $2.76 billion in Measure A revenues will
be generated between 2007 and 2030.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 36 June 27, 2006
wince only a portion of the Measure A revenues are utilized for TPP, projects, the
funding share prescribed by the respective RCTC Ordinances was applied to the
funding total to determine the share of future Measure A revenues that will be available
for TPPS projects. Of the estimated $2.76 billion in forecast Measure A revenues,
approximately $1.37 billion is expected to be available for use by CVAG on TPPS
projects.
5.1.2. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The STIP is a multi -year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and
off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the State Highway Account
and other funding sources. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) through the
Caltrans Transportation Programming Division develops forecasts of future STIP funding
availability and allocates funding authority to the various transportation funding
agencies statewide as the basis for project programming. RCTC is responsible for
administering STIP funding within Riverside County and allocates a portion of STIP
funding to the Coachella Valley based on a predetermined formula. CVAG is
responsible for programming STIP projects within the Coachella Valley.
RCTC estimates that approximately $16.9 million in STIP funding will be available to
CVAG for the period from 2007 to 2011 (approximately $3.4 annually). For the period
between 2005 and 2011, Caltrans State Highway Account Revenue Assumptions
indicate relevant STIP funding categories will grow by a combined rate of
approximately 2.74% annually. By inflating the approximate annual CVAG STIP funding
share by the combined funding growth rate, it is estimated that approximately $112.9
million in STIP funding will be available to CVAG between 2007 and 2030 for use on TPPS
projects. Table 5-2 summarizes the STIP funding estimate for CVAG.
Table 5-2 STIP Funding Estimate for Coachella Valley
STIP Available Funding for Coachella Valley
FY 2007-2011 Estimated New Capacity Funding in millions r1r
FY 2007 Proportionate Annual Share in millions
Forecast STIP Annual Revenue Growth FY 2005 - FY 2011 (2)
Estimated STIP Allocation 2007 to 2030 in millions
(i( Source: Riverside County Transportation Commission, March 9, 2006
(2) Source: Caltrans 2006 STIP FE Assumptions Book, May 26, 2005
5.1.3. Unfunded Share of RACE
$16.9
$3.4
2.74%
$112.9 j
To determine the other funding share of the RACE, it was necessary to escalate the
total cost to improve the regional arterial system to account for cost inflation. Inflation
of the RACE value was necessary to enable a fair comparison between future TPPS
improvements costs and the anticipated future Measure A and STIP funding sources
forecast based on expected growth.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 37 June 27, 2006
f.;a;ed on the C:;V; RAL,E 2uu5 Update, the total cost to implement the fPPS is $2.60
billion including $2.29 in construction costs and $317 million in right of way (ROW) costs.
A review of the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index indicates that
construction costs have increased at a rate of approximately 3.07% annually between
1990 and 2005, while the July 25, 2005 Coachella Valley Economic Report indicates the
median resale price of an existing single family home has increased 6.71% annually
between 1990 and 2004. Based on these rates for inflation of construction and ROW
costs, respectively, Table 5-3 summarizes the inflated total cost estimate for the 2005
RACE.
Table 5-3 CVAG RACE Inflated Cost Estimate
RACE Total Construction Cost in 2005 (in millions)
Annual Change in Construction Cost since 1990
Inflated Construction Cost Estimate 2007-2030
RACE Total ROW Cost in 2005 (in millions)
Annual Change in Housing Cost since 1990
Inflated ROW Cost Estimate 2007-2030
RACE Total Cost Estimate in 2005 (in millions)
Inflated Total Cost Estimate 2007-2030 (in millions)
$2,286
3.07%
$3,372.9
$317
6.71%
$806.9
$2,603.0
$4,179.8
A comparison of the inflated RACE value to the total estimated revenues from Measure
A and STIP sources is provided in Table 5-4. As shown in Table 5-4, approximately 35.6%
of the RACE inflated cost estimate is expected to be available from Measure A and STIP
funding sources. Consistent with the TUMF model ordinance Section 6, the remaining
64.4% of the estimated cost to improve the regional arterial system will need to come
from the TUMF program or developer dedications.
Table 5-4 Unfunded Share of RACE 2005 Update
CVAG Revenue Share of RACE 2005 Update Value Share
RACE Inflated Total Cost Estimate 2007-2030 (in millions) $4,179.8
I Estimated Measure A Allocation 2007 to 2030 (in millions) $1.373.8 32.9%
Estimated STIP Allocation 2007 to 2030 (in millions) $1 12.9 2.7%
I Subtotal Other Available Revenue Sources $1,486.6 35.6%
I Unfunded Share of RACE Inflated Cost Estimate $2,693.2 64.4%
The TUMF program is intended to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation
impacts of new development and therefore is not intended for use on maintenance
projects or other existing needs. By dedicating regional Measure A and STIP funds
toward the total cost to improve the regional arterial system, CVAG is able to
demonstrate a substantial financial commitment to address existing needs and
maintenance projects incorporated in the TPPS. As indicated in Section 3.2 of this
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 38 June 27, 2006
, e,pori, the tofa► ,_ i,t,i of r ►rjir►t .•nance only projects included in the TPPS is approximately
1 1 % of the total RACE value. By comparison, Measure A and STIP funding will contribute
over 35% of the value to complete the TPPS by 2030.
5.2. Developer Dedications
Section 6 (d) (2) of the CVAG TUMF model ordinance indicates that CVAG will
"establish an estimate of the value of customary developer dedications to the extent
they have been included in the total cost of the regional system." Dedications are right
of way and/or completed roadway segments that are required to be completed by
developers as part of their development approvals. This estimated value of developer
dedications is used as the basis to offset the TUMF collection target. The reduction of
the TUMF collection target to account for developer dedications is intended to provide
appropriate program 'credit' to developers for completing actual improvements to the
arterial system.
During the original Nexus development, CVAG determined that 25% of the total
regional system cost represented the value of customary developer dedications as
conditions of development approval. Ongoing experience with the TUMF program has
indicated that the 25% factor is fair and adequate to reflect the value of developer
dedications. CVAG has determined that it will continue to apply this factor as the basis
for reducing the TUMF collection target.
5.3. TUMF Collection Target
Having determined the share of the regional arterial system improvement costs that will
be derived from Measure A and STIP funding sources, and the value of improvements
that will be accomplished by customary developer dedications, it is possible to establish
the TUMF collection target. The TUMF collection target is the second key variable
needed to determine the TUMF program Fee Schedule.
Table 5-5 summarizes the adjustment of the total cost outlined in the CVAG RACE 2005
Update as the basis for establishing the rough proportion of improvement costs
allocable to new development through TUMF. As indicated in Table 5-5, the total cost
to fully fund the TPPS is adjusted by 35.6% to reflect estimated available other funding
sources and 25.0% to reflect customary developer dedications. The remaining
unfunded balance of $1.65 billion is the inflated value of arterial system improvements
that would need to be derived from TUMF revenues to fully fund the TPPS.
Table 5-5 TUMF Collection Target
Fully Funded TPPS Collection Target Values
Inflated RACE Total Cost Estimate 2007-2030 (in millions)
Estimated Available Measure A/STIP Revenues
Estimated Customary Developer Dedications
Remaining Balance (Inflated TUMF Collection Target)
Value
$4,179.8
$1, 486.6
$1,045.0
$1,648.2
Share
00.0%
35.6%
25.0%
39.4%
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 39 June 27, 2006
6.0 FEE CALCULATION
The fee amounts that will need to be collected to mitigate the cumulative regional
impacts of new development on the arterial street system in the Coachella Valley are
quantified in this section. The calculation of the TUMF program fees follows the basic
methodology that was utilized to establish the original fee schedule in 1988 yielding a
fee per trip for three land use categories. As described in Section 3.0, the total present
day cost to fully implement the TPPS (as presented in the RACE) is $2.60 billion.
For the purpose of calculating the fee, the total RACE value is adjusted to reflect the
availability of other funding sources and the value of customary developer dedications.
Having accounted for other funding sources and developer dedications in Section 5.0,
the share of the total RACE value that will be attributed to new development is 39.4%.
At this level, the TUMF collection target to fully fund the implementation of the TPPS is
approximately $1.03 billion in present day dollars.
The total trips resulting from new development are divided between the three fee land
use categories in the next step of the fee calculation. Based on the distribution of trips
by purpose obtained from the CVATS model, it was determined that 35% of the new
trips would have a residential based trip end, while 21% would have a
retail/commercial trip end and 44% would have a non -retail or hotel trip end. The
resultant trip values are used as the denominator in the equation to determine the
respective fee levels per trip for each land use category.
The numerator for the final fee calculation is the share of the TUMF collection target that
is considered to be attributable to the particular land use category. As described
previously, CVAG policy establishes that the added benefit in the form of shorter trips
will accrue to residential land uses from the convenience of close -in retail/commercial
development and therefore some of the retail/commercial trips should be reassigned
to residential trips. Based on the evaluation of trip purposes derived from the CVATS
model, the retail trip end of retail related home based work trips and all home based
shopping trips are reassigned to the residential land use.
Table 6-1 presents the TUMF Fee calculation following the steps described above. Table
6-1 indicates the resultant fees for the CVAG TUMF are $303 per trip for residential land
uses, $117 per trip for retail/commercial land uses, and $233 per trip for non -retail and
hotel land uses.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 40 June 27, 2006
Table 6-1 CVAG TUMF Fee Calculation
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PART I: TUMF COLLECTION TARGET
VALUE SOURCE OR
FORMULA
$2,602 y39,252
a:'
B Share of Cost to be Funded by Other Sources 35.6% Table 5-5
C Portion of Cost to be Funded by Other Sources $926,646,374 C=A*B
D Share of Cost Attributable to Developer Dedications 25.0% Table 5-5
E Portion of Cost Attributable to Customary Developer $650,734,813 E=A*D
Dedications
F TUMF Collection Target $1,025,558,065 F=A-C-E
PART II: NEW PROJECT LEVEL TRIPS
G Total New Average Weekday Trip Ends 4,390,536
Section 4.1.3
(CVATS 200S Update)
K New Average Weekday Residential Trip Ends 1,539,838 K=G*H
L New Average Weekday Retail/Commercial Trip Ends 923,903 L=G*I
M New Average Weekday Non -Retail & Hotel Trip Ends 1,935,796 M=G*J
PART III: COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO LAND USE CATEGORY
N Shore of Cost Attributable to Residential 45.5%
O Share of Cost Attributable to Retail/Commercial 10.5 o Table 4-4
P Share of Cost Attributable to Non -Retail & Hotel 44%
Q Portion of Cost Attributable to Residential $466,628,920 Q=F*N
R Portion of Cost Attributable to Retail/Commercial $107,683,597 R=F*O
S Portion of Cost Attributable to Non -Retail & Hotel $451,245,549 S=F*P
PART IV: FEE PER TRIP
T Residential Fee per Trip $303 T=Q/K
U Retail/Commercial Fee per Trip $117 U=R/L
✓ Non -Retail & Hotel Fee per Trip $233 V=S/M
NOTE: Shaded rows are inputs or policy assumptions.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 41 June 27, 2006
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it has been possible to determine a
reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional impacts of new land
development projects in the Coachella Valley on the arterial roadway system and the
need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the TUMF
program. The reasonable relationship between the impact of new development and
the need for the TUMF can be summarized as follows:
• The Coachella Valley is expected to continue to grow as a result of new
residential and non-residential development in the future.
• The continuing residential and non-residential growth of the Coachella Valley will
result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways due to the impact of newly
created trips and traffic demand.
• Future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative
regional transportation impacts of future development in the Coachella Valley.
• Capacity improvements to the arterial roadway system will be needed to
mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development.
• Revenues from other established funding sources (including Measure A and STIP
funds) and developer dedications will not be sufficient to address all the arterial
roadway improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development.
• The arterial roadway improvements identified in the TPPS are arterial roadway
facilities that will provide additional capacity to help mitigate the impacts of
new development and merit inclusion for funding improvements through this fee
program.
The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the
improvement cost attributable to new development based on the availability of other
funding sources and improvements to be completed through developer dedications.
Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to
mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in the Coachella
Valley in rough proportionality to the trips that will be generated by future residential
and non-residential development. The respective fee allocable to future new
residential and non-residential development in the Coachella Valley is summarized in
Table 7-1.
Table 7-1 CVAG TUMF Schedule of Fees
Land Use Category Fee per Trip
Residential $303
Retail/Commercial $117
Non -Retail & Hotel $233
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 42 June 27, 2006
i. I. Fee Adjustments and Program Updates
7.1.1. Annual Inflation Adjustment
Section 12 of the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated June 7, 1988 includes provisions
that provide for an annual review and adjustment of the TUMF schedule of fees to
account for cost inflation. To ensure the TUMF program revenues are adequate to
accomplish the improvements recommended in the TPPS, it is appropriate to regularly
adjust the underlying cost assumptions to reflect inflation. Specifically, the project costs
identified in the RACE should be adjusted annually to reflect the influence of right-of-
way and construction cost inflation. Based on the revised improvement cost
information, the TUMF Schedule of Fees can be recalculated and the fees adjusted
accordingly to sustain the value of the program.
As the basis for completing an annual inflationary adjustment to the TUMF program, it is
recommended that CVAG utilize separate indices for right-of-way and construction
costs. By applying the respective index for right-of-way and construction costs, CVAG
can adjust the project cost values presented in the RACE and summarized in Table 3-1
of this report. The resultant total cost value can then be used as the basis for
recalculating the TUMF Schedule of Fees as presented in Table 6-1.
For right-of-way cost adjustments, CVAG should utilize the "Existing Home Price Trend for
Coachella Valley" as presented in the Coachella Valley Economic Report compiled for
the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership (Exhibit 31 in the July 25, 2005 version of the
report). The Existing Home Price Trend for Coachella Valley is developed from
information compiled by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to track the median
sales price of existing single family homes in metropolitan areas across the country. The
median sales price of existing single family homes represents the most widely available
index of property values providing a relative measure of property values in a given area
over time. Although the acquisition of right-of-way may involve some properties other
than existing single family homes, this index provides a reasonably concise and readily
accessible source of data reflecting the overall trend in land values.
For construction costs, CVAG should utilize the Engineering News Record (ENR)
Construction Cost Index (CCI). The ENR CCI represents the most widely accepted
standard index for assessing changes in construction material and labor costs over time
based on a monthly survey of the largest metropolitan markets in the United States.
ENR builds its construction cost index by developing a twenty city average of the
combined costs for labor and various common construction materials.
The use of the national ENR CCI represents a more stable index over time by reducing
the influence of local short term fluctuations in the supply of materials and labor. The
application of a more stable index for adjusting cost values is recommended to reduce
the potential for erratic fluctuation in the TUMF Schedule of Fees as part of the annual
adjustment.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 43 June 27, 2006
Figure 7-1 compares the ENR CCI with the Caltrans Highway CCI and the FHWA Price
Trends Composite Index frorn 1985 to 2005. The comparison of the three indices
illustrates the greater stability of the ENR CCI over a twenty-year time frame compared
to the remaining two indices. Figure 7-1 also includes linear trend lines for both the ENR
CCI and the Caltrans Highway CCI. As can be seen in the graph, the linear trend for
the two indices is almost identical despite the greater volatility of the Caltrans index.
Figure 7-1 Construction Cost index Comparison
R-*-ENR CCI !trans CCI-s--FHWA PTCI
8.000 -
7.000 - -
6.000 --
1.000 -- —
0 1 !
1 1 '
I 1
Linear (ENR CCI) linear (Caltrans CCI)
300
250
a_
d
200 Q
150
100
- 50
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20002001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Sources.
ENR CCI- E nyneenng Nees R eoordCors traction Cost Inctu History
Cdtro sCCI-StoteofCdfornoDeparmen?ofTrasportdionHipnorCorstruiionCostIndex
FHWAPTCI-Fe ciHigM.orActrinstrctionPnoel r xtCormsIto Indsoc
To facilitate the annual adjustment of the TUMF Schedule of Fees, it would be
appropriate for CVAG to establish a schedule of specific milestone dates for the annual
adjustment process to correspond with local jurisdiction budget approval cycles. Key
milestones may include determination of the respective indices, recalculation of the
fee schedule, adoption of the revised schedule of fees by CVAG and final
implementation of the updated fee schedule by the local jurisdictions.
7.1.2. Regular Program Review and Update
Section 66001 (d) of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that a comprehensive review of a
mitigation fee program be completed at (east every five years. While section 12 (c) of
the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated June 7, 1988 introduces elements of the
statutory requirements relating to timely expenditure of TUMF revenues, CVAG needs to
establish a process for the regular comprehensive review and update of the TUMF
program. The comprehensive review is intended to reaffirm the purpose. of the fee and
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 44 June 27, 2006
r1i lec,onable :elotronship between the tee and the purpose for which it is being
charged, and to reassess the program's financial status to ensure the designated
improvements can be fully funded.
The comprehensive review also provides the opportunity to update the program to
respond to changing needs within the area. In particular, successive updates provide
the opportunity to utilize the latest available demographic and travel demand forecast
information for the area to reflect changing rates and patterns of development. By
responding to changing development trends, the program can be adjusted as
necessary to adequately address the improvement needs resulting from changes in
development activity.
In accordance with the provision of the Mitigation Fee Act, it is recommended that
CVAG undertake a comprehensive review and update of the TUMF program within five
years of the date of adoption of this Nexus Study. In addition to meeting the intents of
the Mitigation Fee Act by reaffirming the rational nexus for the TUMF program, CVAG
should use the comprehensive review and update as an opportunity to reevaluate the
program within the context of changing development patterns and improvement
needs.
7.2. TUMF Ordinance Amendments
Changes to key assumptions, methodology and findings of the CVAG TUMF Nexus as
presented in this report will necessitate amendments to the respective local TUMF
ordinances to ensure consistency. The following section summarizes necessary changes
to the TUMF ordinances based on a review of the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated
June 7, 1988.
7.2.1. Horizon Year and CVATS
Various sections of the Model Ordinance will need to be amended to refer to the new
horizon year 2030 which supercedes the original horizon year of 2010. Furthermore, the
Model Ordinance refers to the 1987 Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study
(CVATS) as the basis for the horizon year and for determining the extent to which new
development will generate traffic. Such references will need to be amended to reflect
the current methodology for establishing the TPPS. In particular, Sections 1 (a), 2 (b), 3,
3 (a), 3 (b), 3 (c), 3 (d), 3 (f), 4 (c), 6 (e), and 15 include references to CVATS or the
horizon year 2010.
7.2.2. Trip Generation Rates
Section 4 (e) of the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated June 7, 1988 references the
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Third Edition as the basis for determining
trip generation rates for fee calculations. The current version of the ITE Trip Generation
Seventh Edition (published in 2003) should be referenced as the basis for fee
calculations.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 45 June 27, 2006
7.2.3. Applicability
Section 5 of the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated June 7, 1988 indicates the
provisions of the ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 1989. Subsequent to the
update of the program Nexus Study and the proposed amendments to the respective
ordinances, it will be necessary to establish a new effective date in accordance with
the desired time frame for implementation of the new schedule of fees.
7.2.4. Establishment of the Transportation Mitigation Fee
Section 6 (c) of the CVAG model TUMF ordinance dated June 7, 1988 indicates that
one-half of the cost of the regional system will be attributable to new development
although this amount may change as future revisions are made to the program.
Consistent with Section 6 (c) of the model ordinance, the original TUMF collection target
was adjusted by 50% to account for other funding sources that would be used to
implement the regional system improvements. The 50% other funding level was
considered to adequately account for existing needs and other funding sources but
was not quantified as part of the original Nexus determination. For the purpose of this
update, an estimate of the other revenue sources expected to be available for
implementation of the regional system was prepared as the basis for adjusting the TUMF
collection target to address other funding.
As described in Section 5.1 of this report, approximately 35.6% of the total cost to
implement the TPPS was determined to be available through existing revenue sources
including Measure A and STIP. This amount is considered to adequately account for
existing needs on the regional system and therefore was used as the basis for adjusting
the Total System Cost in the fee calculation. Reference to the one-half cost adjustment
in Sections 6 (c), 6 (d) (1) and 6 (d) (3) of the Model Ordinance needs to be amended
to be consistent with the revised fee calculation methodology.
7.2.5. Share of Trips
Section 6 (e) of the 1988 Model Ordinance reassigns 60% of trip growth attributable to
retail to the residential category. The 60% factor was a policy decision made during the
initial TUMF Nexus Study and ordinance development process. To better quantify the
influence of residential land uses on retail trip generation, the 60% factor was
reevaluated as part of the Nexus Study update. As presented in Section 4.2 of this
report, the share of trips between residential, retail and non -retail land uses was
calculated based on data from the newly updated CVATS Model and CVAG Origin -
Destination Survey.
For the purposes of the fee calculation, 45.5% of the system cost was determined to be
attributable to residential development, while 10.5% was determined to be retail and
44% was determined to be non -retail. Reflecting the intent of the original policy
decision, the calculation of the share of trips effectively resulted in 50% of the retail trips
being attributable to residential land uses. The relevant provision of the Model
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 46 June 27, 2006
Ordinance needs to be amended to be consistent with the revised share of trips
methodology.
7.2.6. Schedule of Fees
Section 6 (h) of the 1988 Model Ordinance presents the schedule of fees on a per trip
basis for each of the applicable land use categories. The schedule of fees needs to be
amended to reflect the revised schedule of fees presented in Table 7-1.
7.2.7. List of Projects on the Regional System
Appendix B of the 1988 Model Ordinance included a list of projects on the regional
system to be implemented under the auspices of the TUMF program. The 2005 update
of the TPPS establishes the list of projects as the basis for this Nexus Study update. The
TPPS list of projects needs to be included by reference in the Model Ordinance
superceding the list of projects contained in the original Appendix B.
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 47 June 27, 2006
APPENDIX A - SCAG 2004 RTP Model Network Plots
CVAG TUMF Nexus Study Report
2006 Fee Schedule Update 48 June 27, 2006
YEAR 2000
N
Z >.
Z uu- O
rt
>OWO
O440
O 0 W
Z U OC
a.
OZOZ
QOZu_
J CL N
>Q0
5Zz
N
W
_ H W
4 �
U
0
_
0
L
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
YEAR 2000 SCAG NETWORK - CVAG AREA ONLY
BY DAILY VOLUME
N
Daily Volume
Daily Volume < 10,000
Daily Volume >= 10,000 and Daily Volume < 20,000
Daily Volume >= 20,000 and Daily Volume < 30,000
Daily Volume >= 30,000 and Daily Volume < 40,000
Daily Volume >= 40,000 and Daily Volume < 50,000
Daily Volume >= 50,000
viper
Based on SCA'. 20(4PTF
Printed 5/2.. I2i-!(
H O
w • w J
N
ccU. 0 0
2
QQa
u. S2 La
O F-Qix
z o
O I Q
a0re=F.
LL}lO(�IX
JQ
>00w
ZNO
La
c.i4w�
Q
0 •
V
0
O o
0
O N
- II
✓ A
oa)CD
o E E
o
O O 0
N
ri .
Eao
0
r
u
6
i
u_
0
m ui
00
J J
YEAR 2030 BASELINE
a
1
1
J
i
1
1
1
1
l
}
U) -�
z 0
2 LIJ W W
ZUW.Q
W
Z
O • < >
V
O F=YW
0I 0
z>-
N = 0J
,Zt-
QZUQ
Oy
J<Z
J F-
>aN
N Q
z co
W < o
'Q�N
O <
V W
•
v
� o
▪ o
N
0 tl
b CV
N
C�-0
O
c
d
0
a)
1n
O 000
0 0 0 0
N Celc�
✓ VVV
m CD
EEEE
0 • 0 0 0
>> >>
o • oaa
'0-0Z7
c c c c
camasca
o O Q 0 0
000 001
000000
°-00000
o N M
11 it 11 II II
✓ AA A A A
E• EEEEEI
> • > > > > >
• T T >. 7+ T
Printed 5/2'3/2000
coo
v v
U
v v
✓ • N co
>po
• 3
CU CD
U- lL
o O o
N
(ND O
V V
• > >
� �
c9
r-
C (NO CO
Q O O
O U c C
O O
cu
m¢Q
a)• QO W
O 000
J J J
a)
J
O'
O
A
0
IL
0
-J
6
a
IN
,a
/ I 1/1
r �(
ham- 0
Cc'cv
0 it
N
U c
d
0
a>
0
0 0
00
00
O N
N 11
V h
O
N >
>, >.
ai (0 (0
EO
0
6
1
RESOLUTION NO. 06-143
EXHIBIT "B"
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
,t+.-v•--ii'vc.
!1 • "L .
CI I 'b OF PALM UESER I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
California, will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chamber, Palm Desert City Hall,
located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, at an Adjourned Regular City
Council Meeting on Tuesday, October 31, 2006, at 1:00 p.m. to consider the following:
1. Proposed increase of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
imposed on new development projects within the City for the purpose of
mitigating the impacts such new development will have on the regional
system of roads, streets, and highways; and
2. Modification of the TUMF jurisdictional boundaries.
The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee, 2006 Fee Schedule Update, Nexus
Study Report, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, and dated June 27, 2006, which
provides details concerning the purpose of TUMF and the amount of fees to be
imposed, is available to the public for review during regular business hours at the
Office of the City Clerk, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California.
The City of Palm Desert encourages interested parties to attend public meetings
and comment on the issues being discussed. If you wish to provide testimony and are
unable to attend the meeting, written comments delivered to the City Clerk's Office prior
to the time of the hearing will be made a part of the public record. Failure to submit
information to the City regarding this matter prior to or at the public hearing may
preclude you from later raising such issues in any court proceeding to challenge
the City's action on this item.
Questions regarding this matter should be directed to Mark Greenwood,
Director of Public Works, at (760) 346-06'i 1.
Dated this .i i"' day of October, 2006.
•
k.
r'F P,'1-M DESERT, Ct .l_tFOP`.11 r,
ity ui F'alrct Desert
c !h I fl Fri V./11 'r•in' i-tr ra,z
r rao OL nipp19 9h]
RESOLUTION NO. 06-143
EXHIBIT "C"
TUMF FORMULA FOR FEES
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF)
FORMULA FOR FEES
Fee Per TUMF Fee
Daily Trip Average Per Land -
Code TUMF Land Use Generation Unit Daily Trip Use Unit
Rate Code $ $
1411 Commercial Airport
1411 General Aviation Airport
I - TERMINAL
104.73 K 148
1.97 K 148
II - INDUSTRIAL
15,500.04
291.56
1310 Industrial/Automotive 6.97 A 148 1,031.56
Repair (compute both, or
use the highest) 51.80 D 148 7,666.40
1315 Wind Turbines/Antennas 6.97 N 148 1,031.56
1340 Mini -Warehousing 2.50 A 148 370.00
III - RESIDENTIAL
1110 Single Family Detached 9.57 B 192 1,837.44
1120 Multi -Family (Also Time- 6.72 B 192 1,290.24
Share Units, Condos
1130 Mobile Home Park 4.99 B 192 958.08
1252 Congregate Care Facility 2.15 B or G 192 412.80
(compute both, use the highest)
IV - LODGING
1233 Lodging (Ancillary Uses - 7.27 C 148 1,075.96
50% of individual rate)
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF)
FORMULA FOR FEES
Fee Per TUMF Fee
Daily Trip Average Per Land -
Code TUMF Land Use Generation Unit Daily Trip Use Unit
Rate Code $ $
V - RECREATIONAL
1232.0 Indoor Recreational Facility 37.64 A 148 5,570.72
1232.1 Bowling Center 33.00 0 148 4,884.00
(compute both, use or
the highest) 333.30 D 148 49,328.40
1232.2 Outdoor Recreational Facility 90.38 D 148 13,376.24
1232.3 Race Track/Stadium 38.17 D 148 5,649.16
1810.0 Golf Course 5.04 D 148 745.92
1232.4 Live Theater 0.10 E 148 14.80
1232.5 Movie Theater 1.76 E 148 260.48
1232.6 Recreation Courts 38.70 M 148 5,727.60
VI - MEDICAL
1244 Hospitals 17.57 A 148 2,600.36
1252 Nursing Home ** (See
Conditional Waiver of TUMF)
2.37 G 148 350.76
VII - OFFICE
1210 Office Building 35.05 A 148 5,187.40
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF)
FORMULA FOR FEES
Fee Per TUMF Fee
Daily Trip Average Per Land -
Code TUMF Land Use Generation Unit Daily Trip Use Unit
Rate Code $ $
VIII - RETAIL/SERVICES
1200.00 Retail/Services
(per 1,000 square feet)
1200.01 0 to 75 76.81 A 74 5,683.94
1200.02 75.001 to 76 76.43 A 74 5,655.82
1200.03 76.001 to 78 75.68 A 74 5,600.32
1200.04 78.001 to 80 74.97 A 74 5,547.78
1200.05 80.001 to 82 74.28 A 74 5,496.72
1200.06 82.001 to 84 73.61 A 74 5,447.14
1200.07 84.001 to 86 72.96 A 74 5,399.04
1200.08 86.001 to 88 72.33 A 74 5,352.42
1200.09 88.001 to 90 71.73 A 74 5,308.02
1200.10 90.001 to 92 71.14 A 74 5,264.36
1200.11 92.001 to 94 70.56 A 74 5,221.44
1200.12 94.001 to 96 70.00 A 74 5,180.00
1200.13 96.001 to 98 69.46 A 74 5,140.04
1200.14 98.001 to 100 68.93 A 74 5,100.82
1200.15 100.001 to 120 64.34 A 74 4,761.16
1200.16 120.001 to 130 62.42 A 74 4,619.08
1200.17 130.001 to 140 60.68 A 74 4,490.32
1200.18 140.001 to 150 59.10 A 74 4,373.40
1200.19 150.001 to 160 57.66 A 74 4,266.84
1200.20 160.001 to 170 56.34 A 74 4,169.16
1200.21 170.001 to 180 55.12 A 74 4,078.88
1200.22 180.001 to 190 53.98 A 74 3,994.52
1200.23 190.001 to 200 52.93 A 74 3,916.82
1200.24 200.001 to 210 52.04 A 74 3,850.96
1200.25 210.001 to 220 50.66 A 74 3,748.84
1200.26 220.001 to 240 48.24 A 74 3,569.76
1200.27 240.001 to 260 46.20 A 74 3,418.80
1200.28 260.001 to 280 44.45 A 74 3,289.30
1200.29 280.001 to 300 42.94 A 74 3,177.56
1200.30 over 300 42.94 A 74 3,177.56
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF)
FORMULA FOR FEES
Fee Per TUMF Fee
Daily Trip Average Per Land -
Code TUMF Land Use Generation Unit Daily Trip Use Unit
Rate Code $ $
IX - MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL SERVICES
1225.0 Outdoor Materials/ 96.21 D 74 7,119.54
Garden Center
1223.0 New/Used Car Sales 33.34 A 74 2,467.16
(compute both, use or
the highest) 210.50 0 74 15,577.00
1223.1 Rental Car Center 5.73 P 74 424.02
1222.0 Service Stations 168.56 H 74 12,473.44
1223.2 Convenience Market 845.60 A 74 62,574.40
1226.0 Coin -Operated Car Wash 16.60 I 148 2,456.80
1226.1 Full Service Car Wash 273.00 D 148 40,404.00
1261.0 Day -Care Center ** 4.48 F 148 663.04
(see Conditional Waiver of TUMF)
1267.0 Private Schools ** 1.50 F 148 222.00
(see Conditional Waiver of TUMF)
X - STAND ALONE RESTAURANT
(On own site with own parking lot)
1281 Low Turnover 89.95 A 74 6,656.30
Restaurant/Night Club
1282 High Turnover Restaurant 127.15 A 74 9,409.10
1283 Fast Food Restaurant 606.06 A 74 44,848.44
XI - FINANCIAL
1290 Financial Institutions 201.49 A 148 29,820.52