Agenda packet — Palm Springs City Council, October 24, 2024 (part 3 of 3)

October 1, 2024

a. The site, structure, building, or object exhibits exceptional historic significance and meets one or more of the criteria listed below:

1633 Via Roberto Miguel is a single-family home constructed in the Mid-century Modern architectural style with much of the exterior features intact. While interiors of privately owned properties are not subject to historic review, much of the original floor plan, including the kitchen area, remains. The following is a detailed analysis of the criterion and integrity findings.

(Criterion i) The resource is associated with events that have made a meaningful contribution to the nation, state or community;

No meaningful event is associated with this site, thus does not qualify under Criterion i.

(Criterion ii) The resource is associated with the lives of persons who made a meaningful contribution to national, state or local history;

The first residents, Benjamin and Lee Ratner, owned the home for two years before they sold to Ronald and Jessie Knox. Based on the research in the Historic Resources Report (HRR), the Knox family provided valuable photographic documentation of the home showing its original conditions; however, none of the past owners qualify for this criterion.

(Criterion iii) The resource reflects or exemplifies a particular period of national, state or local history;

Palm Spring in the Post -World War II was a period of substantial growth in population, and a time of prosperity and design experimentation. Developers turned to large residential tract development and often collaborated with designers and architects to giv e the homes a design identity and seamlessly integrate and promote new amenities. This home specifically embodies the concept of design experimentation by embracing the Mid- century Modern style of architecture to promote the desert lifestyle of that period. The “Barbara Tract” also reflects the planning and development patterns for mass-produced residential development for this period. Criterion iii is met.

(Criterion iv) The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction;

The revised design of this building material allowed designers to create a variety of distinctive patterns within a reasonable budget. This home retains the decorative block wall on the front façade and the use of this building material gives the home a sculptural accent. Based on the use of this distinctive material for construction, Item 2B - Page 97
Resolution No. HSPB #161 – The Ratner Residence

Page 3 of 6 ends

October 1, 2024

HSPB finds Criterion iv is met under this analysis.

(Criterion v) The resource presents the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age, or that possesses high artistic value;

This specific residence is an example of that streamlined design process in a residential subdivision. Wexler later experiments with materials like steel for residential projects and gradually shifts to larger civic and commercial projects while Harrison becomes more involved in housing development projects.

Developers like Roy Fey and the Alexanders challenged the industry and designers to think at this suburban scale that eventually permeated throughout Palm Springs. HSPB finds the home reflects the genius of the two architects and the developer and meets Criterion v for historic significance.

(Criterion vi) The resource represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, as used in evaluating applications for designation of historic districts, for parcels on which more than one entity exists; or

The resource is not within a historic district and does not qualify under Criterion vi.

(Criterion vii) The resource has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to national, state or local history or prehistory.

No information is available on any pre-historic significance of the site.

SECTION 2: PART “B” ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC INTEGRITY.

Analysis of Integrity. (PSMC 8.05.070 (C,1,b). The site, structure, building or object retains one or more of the following aspects of integrity, as established in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: integrity of design, materials, workmanship, location, setting, feeling, or association.

The Ratner Residence is evaluated based on the following topics of integrity based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:

Location.

The home is in its original location on the lot and the building footprint remains intact; therefore, the integrity of location is met.

Item 2B - Page 98
Resolution No. HSPB #161 – The Ratner Residence

Page 4 of 6 ends

October 1, 2024

Design.

The “mass-produced” approach to housing resulted in a unique design approach where the architects designed three floor plans and varied the appearance for each home by selecting different rooflines, decorative block wall designs, and site orientation. The Ratner Residence is a modest single-family home utilizing the “Bermuda” floor plan with a gabled roofline. All mechanical equipment and ductwork are internalized, allowing for the roof to remain clutter free. The site placement of the home created a generous front lawn which was later reduced with the addition of the swimming pool. The roof is a low- pitched gable with an extruded eave and downturned flaps on either end along the primary front façade. The clerestory windows and floor to ceiling fenestration bring light and air into the living space, and the decorative block wall consists of alternating reliefs on each masonry unit creating a simple pattern on the primary façade of the home. The fenestration openings appear original, and the sliding doors and windows on the front façade appear original. The integrity of design is intact with minor alterations.

Setting.

This residential tract was completed in phases and the names and layout of the streets are still extant. The overall neighborhood is still bounded by Vista Chino to the north and undeveloped Tribal land to the west. The setting around the home demonstrates the same conditions as when it was first built. HSPB finds the integrity of setting remains.

Materials.

The building consists of wood- frame construction, stucco walls, floor to ceiling glazing and decorative CMU walls. The exterior is painted white with a dark trim color and the clerestory windows and sliding doors on the front façade appear original. The wooden facia and extruded rafter beams on the exterior have been repaired and maintained. The non-original decorative glazed block columns added under the extruded eave is reversible. While some fenestration at the rear of the residence has been replaced, HSPB finds a majority of the existing materials are intact and in good condition.

Workmanship.

The homes within this development were constructed using conventional methods and materials with special attention to the decorative masonry walls. Each home is a combination of different plans and roof forms. Where some homes have underdone significant exterior changes, the Ratner Residence retains the original floor plan and exterior details with signs of repairs and minor alterations that are sensitive to the original design. HSPB finds the integrity of workmanship is intact.

Feeling.

The feelings associated with a residential neighborhood and the aesthetic of the Mid- century Modern style remains unchanged. By retaining the materials, design, and setting from its period of significance, the building and the site retains its integrity of feeling.

Association.

The property is associated with architects Donald Wexler and Richard Harrison and developer Roy Fey. The original neighborhood pattern and location of the tract, down to the street names have not changed. The integrity of association is met.

Item 2B - Page 99
Resolution No. HSPB #161 – The Ratner Residence

Page 5 of 6 ends

October 1, 2024

SECTION 3: DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS

In considering a recom mendation for historic resource designation it is important to distinguish those physical elements that are original or from the period of significance that contribute to the resource’s historic significance from alterations, additions or features that were added at a later time that may be sympathetic to the original character, but which may create a false sense of historicity. Distinguishing original character -defining features from non- original elements aids the HSPB when it is tasked with evaluating future alterations to the historic resource.

Character-defining features of the resource are as follows:
• Site design of the property.
• Location within the “Barbara Tract”.
• “Bermuda” floor plan with a gabled roofline.
• Floor-to-ceiling fixed pane and aluminum -framed sliding glass doors with original hardware.
• Clerestory windows.
• Decorative “Shadowal” concrete block wall and stucco-finished walls. • Low-pitched gabled roof with turn- down flaps over the primary entrance of the home, with another volume with a gently sloping roofline to meet the gabled roof. • Open carport with adjacent storage closet and laundry room. • Enclosed, open-air patio between the carport and residence.

Non-contributing elements:
• Non-original vinyl-framed windows at the rear of the structure. • Swimming pool and pool decking in the front yard of the home. • Concrete block walls enclosing the front-loaded pool. • Hanging light fixture near the front entrance.
• Decorative glazed clay block column with biomorphic cutouts. • Glass-block bump out on the west elevation of the home. • Walls installed between the columns supporting the carport.

SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The proposed historic resource designation is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical changes to the environment, directly or indirectly.

SECTION 5: CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO CLASS 1 HISTORIC SITES.

According to Section 8.05 of the Municipal Code, the following shall apply to a Class 1 Historic Resource:

Item 2B - Page 100
Item 2B - Page 101
Resolution No. HSPB #161 -The Ratner Residence

Page 6 of 6 ends

October 1, 2024

1. It shall meet the definition of a Class 1 historic site as outlined in Municipal Code Section 8.05.020.

2. An archival file on the property shall be maintained by the City.

3. It may be qualified as 'historic' at the federal, state, and/or county level.

4. The structure/site may not be modified nor objects removed without following the procedures outlined in Municipal Code Section 8.05.110 "Demolition or Alteration of Class 1 and Class 2 Historic Resources -Certificate of Appropriateness".

5. A marker explaining the historic nature of the site may be installed at the site in a location viewable from the public way.

6. Compliance with all rules and regulations for Historic Sites and Historic Districts under Chapter 8.05 of the Municipal Code shall be required.

7. The site shall not be further subdivided.

8. The City Clerk shall submit the Council Resolution to the County recorder for recordation within 90 days of the effective date of the Council's resolution.

Based upon the foregoing, the Historic Site Preservation Board recommends that the City Council designate The Ratner Residence located at 1633 Via Roberto Miguel, a Class 1 Historic Resource (HSPB #161 ).

ADOPTED THIS FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Nelson, Hansen, Bachman, Herr, Moruzzi, Maschka Hitchcock.

None.

Rosenow.

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
>
Christopher Hadwin
Director of Planning Services

HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD

STAFF REPORT

DATE: October 1, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING

SUBJECT: APPLICATION BY LARRY YARCHEVER REPRESENTED BY THE PALM

SPRINGS PRESERVATION FOUNDATION FOR HISTORIC SITE
DESIGNATION OF “THE RATNER RESIDENCE” LOCATED AT 1633 VIA ROBERTO MIGUEL, CASE HSPB #161 (APN 677-233-003) (SY).

FROM: Department of Planning Services

SUMMARY

This request for Class 1 historic designation was submitted by the current owner of the property. This single -family home in the El Rancho Vista Estates neighborhood was designed by Donald Wexler and Richard Harrison for the developer Roy Fey during the Post-World War II period. The period of significance for this property is 1960.

If designated as a historic resource, the property would be subject to the regulations outlined in Section 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony.

2. Close the public hearing and adopt Resolution HSPB #161, “A RESOLUTION OF

THE HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF PALM

SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATE “THE RATNER RESIDENCE” LOCATED AT 1633 VIA ROBERTO MIGUEL, AS A CLASS 1 ( LANDMARK) HISTORIC RESOURCE HSPB #1 61, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS (APN #677-233-003).”

BACKGROUND AND SETTING:

El Rancho Vista Estates, also known as the “Barbara Tract”, was the first single- family subdivision designed by Wexler & Harrison. Between the years of 1940 to 1960, the permanent population of Palm Springs went from 3,434 to 13,468 people and approximately 20 new residential tracts were developed to address the increased demand for housing.
1 According to the citywide context statement , this neighborhood was developed in three phases, but the first two phases were designed by Wexler & Harrison.

The homes were designed in the Mid- century Modern architectural style using a

1 City of Palm Springs Citywide Historic Context Statement “Post-World War II Palm Springs (1945-1969)”, 179.

Item 2B - Page 102
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report October 1, 2024 HSPB-161 – The Ratner Residence

Page 2 of 9 ends

combination of three different floor plans and three different roof forms. These homes were described as a “beautiful machine for living in the desert” with modern features like air conditioning and television and telephone cables already installed. A total of 71 properties were designed in the first two phases of development.

AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL.

EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION FROM VIA ROBERTO MIGUEL, 2024.

Item 2B - Page 103
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report October 1, 2024 HSPB-161 – The Ratner Residence

Page 3 of 9 ends

Related Relevant City Actions by HSPB, Planning, Fire, Building, etc.

September, 2024 Site inspection by members of the HSPB and City Staff.

Ownership Status
June, 2020 Purchased by the current owner.

Historic Context Statement “Post-Wor ld War II (1945-1969)” As Palm Springs entered a time of growth and prosperity, tract home development and multi-family residential development began to emerge rather quickly. In addition, the 1959 Equalization Law allowed for 99- year leases on Tribal land which encouraged development opportunities including residential development.

Context: Post-World War II Palm Springs (1945-1969)
Theme: Post World War II Single-Family Residential Development (1945-1969) Registration Requirements: To be eligible under this theme, a property must:
 Date from the period of significance; and
 Represent an excellent example of an architectural style or method of construction; or be associated with a significant architect or designer; and  Display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and
 Retain the essential aspects of historic integrity.

Context: Architectural Styles & Local Practitioners
Theme: Modern Styles of the Post-World War II Era
Sub-theme: Mid-century Modern
Registration Requirements: To be eligible under this theme as an excellent example of its architectural style, a property must:
 Retain most – though not necessarily all – of the character-defining features of the style, and continue to exhibit its historic appearance  If important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique, must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.

ANALYSIS:

A historic resources report (“the report”), site visit, and city documents and forms are the basis of this staff report. D esigned by architects Wexler and Harrison, the Ratner Residence retains many character -defining features associated with the Mid- century Modern style like the simple geometric building form, expressed post -and-beam construction, unadorned walls, clerestory windows and the use of concrete blocks . The site design responds to the desert conditions and the innovative use of glass and concrete blocks created a unique design identity for the neighborhood.

Historic Preservation activities in Palm Springs are regulated under Municipal Code Section 8.05 (“ Historic Preservation” ). The purpose of the Historic Preservation Ordinance is:

Item 2B - Page 104
I
I
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report October 1, 2024 HSPB-161 – The Ratner Residence

Page 4 of 9 ends

“…to stabilize and improve buildings, structures or areas which are considered to be of historical, architectural, archaeological or ecological value, to foster civic beauty, to strengthen the local economy and to promote the use of historic resources for the education and welfare of the citizens.”

Conditions that apply t
o Class 1 historic sites or resources:

1. It shall meet the definition of a historic site as outlined in Municipal Code Section

8.05.020.

2. An archival file shall be maintained on the property by the City.

3. It may be qualified as ‘historic’ at the federal, state, and/or county level.

4. A marker explaining the historic nature of the site may be installed in a location viewable from the public way.

5. Compliance with all rules and regulations for Historic Resources and Historic Districts under Chapter 8.05 of the Municipal Code.

6. If designated, the findings in support of designation shall be stated in a resolution of the City Council that shall be recorded with the County Recorders’ office within 90 days of the effective date of the Council’s resolution.

Evaluation of the Application. P
ursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.05.070 (C,1,a), the HSPB shall evaluate the application and make findings in conformance with the following criteria:

C
riteria for the Designation of Class 1 Historic Resources. A site, structure, building or object may be designated as a Class 1 historic resource, provided both of the following findings (“a” and “b”) are met:

a. The site, structure, building or object exhibits exceptional historic significance and meets one or more of the criteria listed below:

1633 Via Roberto Miguel is a single-family home constructed in the Mid-century Modern architectural style with much of the exterior features intact . While interiors of privately owned properties are not subject to historic review, much of the original floor plan, including the kitchen area, remains. The following is a detailed analysis of the criterion and integrity findings.

(Criterion i) The resource is associated with events that have made a meaningful contribution to the nation, state or community;

No meaningful event is associated with this site, thus does not qualify under Criterion i.

(Criterion ii) The resource is associated with the lives of persons who made a meaningful contribution to national, state or local history;

The first residents, Benjamin and Lee Ratner, owned the home for two years before they Item 2B - Page 105
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report October 1, 2024 HSPB-161 – The Ratner Residence

Page 5 of 9 ends

sold to Ronald and Jessie Knox. Based on the research in the Historic Resources Report (HRR), the Knox family provided valuable photographic documentation of the home showing its original conditions; however, none of the past owners qualify for this criterion.

(Criterion iii) The resource reflects or exemplifies a particular period of national, state or local history;

Palm Spring in the P ost-World War II was a period of substantial growth in population, and a time of prosperity and design experimentation. D evelopers turned to large residential tract development and often collaborated with designers and architects to give the homes a design identity and seamlessly integrate and promote new amenities. This home specifically embodies the concept of design experimentation by embracing the Mid- century Modern style of architecture to promote the desert lifestyle of that period. It also reflects the planning and development patterns for mass- produced residential development. Criterion iii is met.

(Criterion iv) The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction;

Unlike the National Register criterion concerning construction, the Palm Springs evaluation of construction addresses the type (of construction), the period (of construction) and the method (of construction). According to the report, the c oncrete masonry unit (C.M.U) was invented in the 1900s but in 1950s, “Shadowal” and “Hi-Lite” was introduced and trademarked as a decorative building material. The revised design of this building material allowed designers to create a variety of distinctive patterns within a reasonable budget. This home retains the decorative block wall on the front façade and the use of this building material gives the home a sculptural accent. Based on the use of this distinctive material for construction, staff finds Criterion iv is met under this analysis.

(Criterion v) The resource presents the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age, or that possesses high artistic value;

Both Donald Wexler and Richard Harrison are well- respected, notable architects that continue to influence the field of design and architecture through their work at the local and international level. The Wexler & Harrison partnership lasted from 1953-1962 and the practice designed many custom homes and residential tract s in Palm Springs. When designing the El Rancho Vista Estates, their first single-family subdivision project, it was an example of how to design a mass-produced residential development while providing a unique sense of style for each home. This specific residence is an example of that streamlined design process in a residential subdivision. Wexler later experiments with materials like steel for residential projects and gradually shifts to larger civic and commercial projects while Harrison becomes more involved in housing development projects.
2 Developers like Roy Fey and the Alexanders challen ged the industry and

2 McGrew, Patrick, Donald Wexler: Architect, (Palm Springs Preservation Foundation), 30.

Item 2B - Page 106
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report October 1, 2024 HSPB-161 – The Ratner Residence

Page 6 of 9 ends

designers to think at this su burban scale that eventually permeated throughout P alm Springs. Staff finds the home reflects the genius of the two architects and the developer and meets Criterion v for historic significance.

The resource is not within a historic district and does not qualify under Criterion vi.

(Criterion vii) The resource has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to national, state or local history or prehistory.

No information is available on any pre-historic significance of the site.

Analysis of Integrity. (PSMC 8.05.070 (C,1,b). T
he site, structure, building
or object retains one or more of the following aspects of integrity, as established in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: integrity of design, materials, workmanship, location, setting, feeling, or association.

T
he Ratner Residence is evaluated based on the following topics of integrity based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:

Location.

The home is in its original location on the lot and the building footprint remains intact; therefore, the integrity of location is met.

Design.

The “mass-produced” approach to housing resulted in a unique design approach where the architects designed three floor plans and varied the appearance for each home by selecting different rooflines, decorative block wall designs, and site orientation . The Ratner Residence is a modest single-family home utilizing the “Bermuda” floor plan with a gabled roofline. All mechanical equipment and ductwork are internalized, allowing for the roof to remain clutter free. The site placement of the home created a generous front lawn which was later reduced with the addition of the swimming pool. The roof is a low- pitched gable with an extruded eave and downturned flaps on either end along the primary front façade. The clerestory windows and floor to ceiling fenestration bring light and air into the living space, and the decorative block wall consists of alternating reliefs on each masonry unit creating a simple pattern on the primary façade of the home . The fenestration openings appear original, and the sliding doors and windows on the front façade appear original. The integrity of design is intact with minor alterations to the home.

Item 2B - Page 107
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report October 1, 2024 HSPB-161 – The Ratner Residence

Page 7 of 9 ends

Setting.

Materials.

The building consists of wood- frame construction, stucco walls, floor to ceiling glazing and decorative CMU walls. The exterior is paint ed white with a dark trim color and the clerestory windows and sliding doors on the front façade appear original. The wooden facia and extruded rafter beams on the exterior have been repaired and maintained. The non-original decorative glazed block columns added under the extruded eave is reversible. While some fenestration at the rear of the residence has been replaced, staff finds a majority of the existing materials are intact and in good condition.

Workmanship.

The homes within this development were constructed using conventional methods and materials with special attention to the decorative masonry walls. Each home is a combination of different plans and roof forms . Where some homes have underdone significant exterior changes , the Ratner Residence retains the original floor plan and exterior details with signs of repairs and minor alterations that are sensitive to the original design. Staff finds the integrity of workmanship is intact.

Feeling.

The feelings associated with a residential neighborhood and the aesthetic of the Mid - century Modern style remains unchanged. By retaining the materials, design, and setting from its period of significance, the building and the site retains its integrity of feeling.

Association.

The property is associated with architects Donald Wexler and Richard Harrison and developer Roy Fey. The original neighborhood pattern and location of the tract , down to the street names have not changed. The integrity of association is met.

DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS:

In considering a recommendation for historic resource designation it is important to distinguish those physical elements that are original or from the period of significance that, contribute to the resource’s historic significance from alterations, additions or features that were added at a later time that may be sympathetic to the original character, but which may create a false sense of historicity. Distinguishing original character - defining features from non- original elements aids the HSPB when it is tasked with evaluating future alterations to the historic resource.

On page 24, the report identifies the physical character -defining historic features of this Item 2B - Page 108
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report October 1, 2024 HSPB-161 – The Ratner Residence

Page 8 of 9 ends

site as follows:

• Site design of the property.
• “Bermuda” floor plan with a gabled roofline.
• Floor-to-ceiling fixed pane and aluminum -framed sliding glass doors with original hardware.
• Clerestory windows.
• Decorative “Shadowal” concrete block wall and stucco-finished walls. • Low-pitched gabled roof with turn- down flaps over the primary entrance of the home, with another volume with a gently sloping roofline to meet the gabled roof. • Open carport with adjacent storage closet and laundry room. • Enclosed, open-air patio between the carport and residence.

Non-c ontributing el ements:
• Non-original vinyl-framed windows at the rear of the structure. • Swimming pool and pool decking in the front yard of the home. • Concrete block walls enclosing the front-loaded pool. • Hanging light fixture near the front entrance.
• Decorative glazed clay block column with biomorphic cutouts. • Glass-block bump out on the west elevation of the home. • Walls installed between the columns supporting the carport.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to section 8.05.140 of the Municipal Code of Palm Springs, all residents within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property have been notified and notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation.

CONCLUSION:

The Ratner Residence meets the definition of a historic resource based on Criterion 3, 4 and 5 of the Palm Springs Historic Preservation Ordinance and meets the necessary integrity findings to support its historic significance; therefore, staff recommends Class 1 Designation as a historic landmark property.

Item 2B - Page 109
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report October 1, 2024 HSPB-161 – The Ratner Residence

Page 9 of 9 ends

PREPARED BY: Sarah Yoon, Associate Planner/Historic Preservation Officer REVIEWED BY: Christopher Hadwin, Director of Planning Services

Attachments:

A. Vicinity Map
B. Draft Resolution
C. A pplication, related background materials, photos.

Item 2B - Page 110

EXCERPTS OF MINUTES

At the Historic Site Preservation Board meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held October 1, 2024, the Historic Site Preservation Board took the following action:

2.A. A REQUEST BY LARRY YARCHEVER FOR HISTORIC SITE
DESIGNATION OF “THE RATNER RESIDENCE” LOCATED AT 1633
VIA ROBERTO MIGUEL, APN 677-233-003 (HSPB #161) (SY).

Associate Planner and Historic Preservation Officer Yoon presented the staff report and answered questions of the Board.

Larry Yarchever, owner and applicant, spoke and answered questions of the Board.

Steven Keylon, Palm Springs Preservation Foundation, spoke and answered questions of the Board.

Motion by Chair Nelson, seconded by Member Maschka Hitchcock to adopt the amended findings, which includes in the list of character -defining features, particularly under Criterion 3, its location within the “Barbara Track”, and recommend that the City Council designate “The Ratner Residence” (HSPB 161) as a Class 1 historic site, subject to conditions.

AYES: Nelson, Hansen, Bachman, Herr, Moruzzi, Maschka Hitchcock.

NOES: None.

ABSTAIN: Rosenow.

Item 2B - Page 111

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING

SUBJECT: A DOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS’ TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
(TUMF) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE NEXUS REPORT AND ADOPT

THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE’S TUMF INFLATION ADJUSTMENT AND
REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2025

FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager

BY: Flinn Fagg, AICP, Deputy City Manager

SUMMARY:

The City, as a member of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (“CVAG”), has collected a transportation uniform mitigation fee (“TUMF”) since 1989. Since 1989, CVAG has adopted various nexus fee studies to determine the TUMF to be collected by the City related to development projects approved and constructed within the City. The last nexus fee study prepared by CVAG was the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule Update Nexus Report (the “Study”). The CVAG Executive Committee reviews the TUMF rates each year to determine if an annual inflation adjustment to the existing TUMF rates (“Inflation Adjustment”) is required ; CVAG has proposed an Inflation Adjustment for 2025. The TUMF revenue established by CVAG is collected by the City and distributed to CVAG for funding of regional transportation projects within the Coachella Valley.

Imposing TUMF, including increases to existing TUMF rates, is governed by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code, section 66000 et seq.) (the “Act”). Pursuant to the Act, anytime the TUMF rates are proposed to be imposed or increased the City is required to hold a noticed public hearing. Prior to adopting an increase to TUMF the City is required to adopt a nexus impact study meeting certain nexus and proportionality requirements supporting the need for the TUMF increase. Here, CVAG is proposing to impose the Inflation Adjustment. As part of the TUMF increase, CVAG is not proposing to adopt a new nexus study. However, the City is adopting an addendum to the existing Study (the “Addendum”) supporting the need for the Inflation Adjustment. Because the Act has been amended since 2018, the year the Study was prepared, the City is proposing to adopt the Addendum to comply with the current Act requirements out of an abundance of caution to ensure compliance with the Act.

Item 2C - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
October 24, 2024 -- Page 2
Adopt Addendum and Inflation Adjustment to TUMF to be Effective January 1, 2025

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Hold a noticed consolidated public hearing this evening and receive public testimony; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. _____, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS’
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018 FEE

SCHEDULE UPDATE NEXUS REPORT AND ADOPTING THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE’S

TUMF INFLATION ADJUSTMENT AND REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 2025 APPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS.”

BACKGROUND:

On April 24, 2024, the CVAG Executive Committee approved the Inflation Adjustment to be imposed by each of its member agencies. Additionally, on March 21, 2024, the Desert Valleys Builders Association provided its letter in support of the Inflation Adjustment. The actions proposed this evening are the steps required for the City, acting as a member agency of CVAG, to formally implement the Inflation Adjustment.

The Act requires the City to hold a noticed public hearing in order to adopt increases to the TUMF charged by the City. Additionally, the Act requires the City hold a noticed public hearing in order to adopt an impact fee nexus study, or in this case, the Addendum. The City will hold a consolidated public hearing for the adoption of both the Addendum and the Inflation Adjustment.

To adopt the Addendum, the City is required to post the Addendum and supporting documents on its website and to also make the information publicly available at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Additionally, notice is required to be published in the newspaper and mailed to any interested party that has requested written notice be mailed to them in relation to the City adopting a nexus study.

To adopt the Inflation Adjustment, the City is required to post the 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule and supporting documents on its website and to also make the information publicly available at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the public hearing.

Additionally, notice is required to be published in the newspaper and mailed to any interested party that has requested written notice be mailed to them in relation to the City adopting new or changes to existing fees.

The City has completed these tasks in compliance with the Act. At this time the City Council shall hold the noticed consolidated public hearing, receive public testimony, and Item 2C - Page 2
City Council Staff Report
October 24, 2024 -- Page 3
Adopt Addendum and Inflation Adjustment to TUMF to be Effective January 1, 2025

following the public hearing may approve a resolution adopt ing the Addendum and Inflation Adjustment as recommended.

Following the adoption of the resolution, the Inflation Adjustment and increased TUMF fee schedule will become effective January 1, 2025 as proposed by CVAG.

As part of this proceeding, the City Council will authorize future annual Inflation Adjustments, authorized by the CVAG Executive Committee, to be imposed and added to the then current TUMF fee schedule, without future action of the City Council or need for future public hearings, until such time as a new impact fee nexus study and TUMF are adopted, or the authorization is revoked by the City Council.

STAFF ANALYSIS:

City staff and the City’s legal counsel have reviewed CVAG’s recommendation to impose the Inflation Adjustment, have prepared the attached resolution to ensure compliance with the Act , and now recommend the City Council approve the Addendum and Inflation Adjustment this evening.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
:

The requested City Council action is not a Project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15378(a), a “Project” means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. According to Section 15378(b), a Project does not include: (5) Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed Addendum and Inflation Adjustment ensures that the City imposes and collects a developer impact fee that appropriately mitigates the cost of completing improvements to the regional roadway system in the Coachella Valley attributed to new development projects. TUMF is charged and collected by the City but transmitted and paid to CVAG for its administration of the regional system improvements within the Coachella Valley.

REVIEWED BY:

Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Scott Stiles

Item 2C - Page 3
City Council Staff Report
October 24, 2024 -- Page 4
Adopt Addendum and Inflation Adjustment to TUMF to be Effective January 1, 2025

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution Adopting the Addendum and Inflation Adjustment, including attachments:
a. CVAG 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule
b. Addendum to 2018 Study, including attachments:
i. 2018 Study;
ii. CVAG 2024 Staff Report; and
iii. CVAG 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule

Item 2C - Page 4

ATTACHMENT A

Item 2C - Page 5
55575.17003\42789212.1

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN

ADDENDUM TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION
OF GOVERNMENTS’ TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM
MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE

NEXUS REPORT AND ADOPTING THE COACHELLA

VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE’S TUMF INFLATION ADJUSTMENT AND
REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2025

APPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS.

WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs (“City”) is a Member Agency of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (“CVAG”), a joint powers agency consisting of the County of Riverside, 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 (the Cities of Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs, Cathedral C ity, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella) situated in the Coachella Valley (collectively, the “Member Agencies”); and

WHEREAS, acting in concert, the Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials within CVAG’s jurisdiction (the “Regional System”) could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (“TUMF”) imposed on new development within the jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, CVAG commissioned Michael Baker International, Inc., an independent fee consultant firm, to prepare a T UMF study entitled “Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule Update Nexus Report,” dated March 2018 (the “ Study”) to establish update d TUMF funds and program revenue collection targets, which was approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on April 30, 2018; and

WHEREAS, the Study and TUMF were adopted in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code, section 66000 et seq. ) (the “Act”), which governs the adoption and implementation of development impact fees; and

WHEREAS, as a CVAG Member Agency, the City participated in the preparation of the Study prepared pursuant to the Act and based upon the Study, the City adopted and collects the TUMF; and

WHEREAS, subsequent to adopting the Study, the CVAG Executive Committee adopted a TUMF Handbook (the “Handbook”) on June 25, 2018 , which is used by the Member Agencies in imposing the TUMF, and the Handbook is updated periodically to accurately reflect the increased rates established for the TUMF as periodically increased; and
Item 2C - Page 6
55575.17003\42789212.1

WHEREAS, the CVAG Executive Committee annually reviews the TUMF and the need to apply inflationary increases (the “Inflation Adjustment”) based upon the annual change in the consumer price index for the Coachella Valley area known as the All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”), All Items for Riverside -San Bernardino-Ontario, CA (the “Index”) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistic and has proposed such action for the City Council of the City of Palm Springs (the “City Council”) to consider from time to time; and

WHEREAS, the CVAG Executive Committee has proposed such Inflation Adjustment to the existing TUMF rates and has reques ted each Member Agency adopt increased TUMF rates effective January 1, 2025, which rates are included in the TUMF fee schedule (the “2025 TUMF Fee Schedule”), attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference; and

WHEREAS, prior to adopting the Inflation Adjustment the City Council must adopt an addendum to the Study (the “Addendum”), attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, supporting such increase and taking other actions to ensure compliance with the Act, including holding a notice public hearing for adoption of such Addendum; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Addendum, the 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule, and other supporting data were posted on the City’s website and have been posted in the Office of the City Clerk of the City (the “City Clerk”) and have been available for public inspection and made available thirty (30) days prior to the date of this consolidated public hearing; and

WHEREAS, notice of a consolidated public hearing to consider the adoption of the Addendum and the 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule was published in the newspaper and mailed to all interested parties that have submitted written requests for such written notice, as applicable, in compliance with the Act; and

WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to authorize the City the ability to pass-through all future Inflation Adjustments as part of the CVAG TUMF program by holding a noticed consolidated public hearing seeking such authority; and

WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to accurately collect TUMF along with the other Member Agencies within the Coachella Valley area as requested by the CVAG General Assembly; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Inflation Adjustment and 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule modifies a development impact fee that is subject to the Act , and the City in considering such an increase to the TUMF , must adhere to the notice and public hearing provisions of the Act; and

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2024, the City Council held a noticed consolidated public hearing at which it heard and considered any and all verbal and/or written testimony from the public, reviewed and considered the information for the Addendum, the Inflation Adjustment, and 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule and supporting data, and information provided at the public hearing by staff, and has now determined to adopt the Addendum Item 2C - Page 7
55575.17003\42789212.1

and the 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The forgoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference as the factual basis for this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The City Council has been presented with and has reviewed the information related to the Addendum and the Study, including all supporting data and after being so informed hereby adopts the Addendum and supporting data.

SECTION 3.

The City Council makes the following findings related to the Inflation Adjustment and 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule:

a) The purpose of the TUMF is to pay for the costs of regional transportation- related capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new development;
b) The TUMF will be used to finance regional transportation improvements, including roadway, intersection, interchange, traffic signal improvements , and other R egional System projects. The specific public facilities are further described in the Study, on file in the Office of the Cit y Clerk and such Study is incorporated herein by this reference. TUMF revenue will not be used for any other purpose than what is defined here; c) New developments in the CVAG region will increase demands fro m and travel upon, the Regional System. TUMF revenue will be used to fund the additional transportation system capacity necessary to accommodate new development;
d) Each new development project will add to the incremental need for transportation capacity and improvements. The transportation facilities identified in the Study are necessary to support the future transportation needs of the Regional System; and
e) The TUMF is tied to the fair share cost allocations to new development based upon, among other things, traffic studies used to create the Study.

The TUMF is generated based upon the rough proportionality to the number of trips generated by new development and assigns the TUMF based upon this basis by land use classification.

SECTION 4 . The City Council further finds that the Inflation Adjustment is a necessary component of the ongoing TUMF fees to ensure the revenue collected keeps pace with the costs of constructing the projects defined in the Study. Keeping pace with inflation ensures projects can be timely completed as needed to accommodate new development. Timely completion of projects ensures those who have paid the TUMF receive the benefit of their contributions towards the program while at the same time mitigates the expected impacts to the existing community. Without the Inflationary Adjustments many projects would become delayed, underfunded, and potentially not able to be completed at all due to insufficient funds available to complete such projects.

Item 2C - Page 8
55575.17003\42789212.1

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby adopts the Inflation Adjustment and the 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule and such fees shall be effective as of January 1, 2025 and shall apply to all development projects taking place within the City’s boundaries unless otherwise exempt.

SECTION 6. As part of this Mitigation Fee Act proceeding, the City Council further authorizes future annual Inflation Adjustments , authorized by the CVAG Executive Committee, to be imposed and added to the then current TUMF fee s chedule, without future action of the City Council or need for future public hearings, until such time as a new impact fee nexus study and TUMF are adopted, or this authorization is revoked by the City Council.

SECTION 7. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to incorporate the 2025 TUMF Fee Schedule, effective January 1, 2025, into the City’s development fees collected on new development projects and to take all action necessary to effectuate the purpose of this Resolution.

SECTION 8. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable.

SECTION 9
. This Resolution shall become effective sixty (60) days following its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS THIS 24th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024.

SCOTT STILES

CITY MANAGER
ATTEST:

BRENDA PREE

CITY CLERK
Item 2C - Page 9

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )

I, BRENDA PREE, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. is a full, true, and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on the 24th day of October, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Springs, California, this 24th day of October, 2024.

BRENDA PREE

CITY CLERK
Item 2C - Page 10

EXHIBIT “A”

ADDENDUM TO THE
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE

UPDATE NEXUS REPORT
ADOPTED BY CVAG IN MARCH 2018

Item 2C - Page 11
55575.17003\42789212.1

EXHIBIT “B”

2025 TUMF FEE SCHEDULE

Item 2C - Page 12

May 1, 2024

REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE EFFECTIVE JAUARY 1, 2025

The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) is a development impact fee designed to offset the effects of population growth on transportation infrastructure within the Coachella Valley. It is charged on any construction that will result in an increase in vehicular trips.

The TUMF is collected by the permitting jurisdiction in accordance with an adopted local ordinance, which further allows for an annual adjustment for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan area. This inflation factor has been applied to the current fee schedule and results in the revised rates that will be assessed on new development starting January 1, 2025.

TUMF Category
Assessment
Unit
Rate as of
January 1, 2025
Single family detached Dwelling unit $2,840
Multi-family attached Dwelling unit $1,635
Nursing/congregate care Dwelling unit $605
Retail 1,000 sq. ft. $7,385
Office 1,000 sq. ft. $2,935
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $1,490
Fuel - gas Dispensing unit $10,585
Fuel - electric Dispensing unit $110
Hotel Room $4,315
Golf course Acre $1,130

For any question regarding the application of TUMF, please contact the Coachella Valley Association of Governments at (760) 346-1127 or by emailing [email protected] .

Item 2C - Page 13

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
74-199 El Paseo Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92260 • 760 346-1127 • cvag.org CVAG
55575.17003\42697392.1
1 ADDENDUM TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT’S NEXUS REPORT - TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE DATED MARCH 2018
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (“CVAG”) previously caused to be prepared and subsequently approved an impact fee nexus study entitled the Nexus Report – Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule Update (the “Study”) dated March 2018. The Study established TUMF applicable to all new development in the Coachella Valley area to be imposed through each of CVAG’s member agencies, including the City of Palm Springs (“City”). The Study accounted for the TUMF fee schedule to be increased annually through the application of an annual inflation adjustment (“Inflation Adjustment”) to ensure the fee revenue collected keeps pace with current costs of the proposed projects. CVAG’s Executive Committee determines the amount of the Inflation Adjustment each year.

The purpose of this addendum to CVAG’s Study (the “Addendum”) is to allow the City to comply with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code, section 66000 et seq.) (the “Act”), which governs the adoption of fees or charges, or increases to existing fees or charges. Here, the City is seeking approval to increase the existing TUMF with CVAG’s proposed Inflation Adjustment.

1. Inflation Adjustment
The Inflation Adjustment defined in the Study referenced a consumer price index (“CPI”) for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area. However, this index was discontinued at the beginning of 2018. As such, a comparable replacement CPI for the Coachella Valley area was selected. The replacement index selected is the All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”), All Items for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA (the “Index”) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”). CVAG has described the method of calculating the year-over-year change in the Index, measured as of December in the calendar year which ends in the previous fiscal year. However, the Index only publishes data every other month starting in January and as such there is no data published for the month of December for which a calculation can be based upon. Therefore, rather than changing the method by which CVAG calculates the percent change each year, it has elected to approximate a December data point based upon guidance from the BLS. To approximate a data point for an unreported month, the BLS has advised taking the square root of the product of the indexes for the preceding and subsequent months, in this case November and January. Therefore, CVAG approximates the year-over-year change using this method.

According to CVAG, the justification for the Inflation Adjustment is to ensure the TUMF revenue collected keeps pace with the costs of constructing the projects defined in the Study.

Keeping pace with inflation ensures projects can be timely completed as needed to accommodate new development. Timely completion of projects ensures those who have paid the TUMF receive the benefit of their contributions towards the program while at the same time mitigates the expected impacts to the existing community. Without the Inflationary Adjustments many projects would become delayed, underfunded, and potentially not able to be completed at all due to insufficient funds available to complete such projects.

Item 2C - Page 14
55575.17003\42697392.1

2 All CVAG documents related to the 2025 Inflation Adjustment are attached to this Addendum for review and inspection. A summary of the documents follows:

1. Attachment 1 – Nexus Report – Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule Update;

2. Attachment 2 – CVAG Staff Report on TUMF Inflation Adjustment for Calendar Year 2025 dated April 29, 2024 and includes a letter in support of the Inflation Adjustment from the Desert Valleys Builders Association; and

3. Attachment 3 – CVAG Revised Fee Schedule for the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Effective January 1, 2025 dated May 1, 2024.

2. Requirement to Proportionally Calculate the Fee per Square Footage on Housing Projects
Pursuant to section 66016.5(5)(A) of the Act, a nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, “shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development.” An exemption to this requirement is authorized pursuant to section 66016.5(5)(B) of the Act, which states a nexus study need not comply with the requirements of subparagraph (A) if certain findings are made. While, the City is not adopting a nexus study at this time, it is attempting to adopt the Inflation Adjustment which would increase the TUMF. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution the City seeks to provide this missing requirement to the existing Study. By making this finding the City does not concede that such finding is required to impose the Inflation Adjustment and reserves the right to argue any applicable legal defenses available to it should the TUMF and/or the Inflation Adjustment be challenged.

The findings required pursuant to section 66016.5(5)(B) of the Act include:
i. An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.
ii. An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. iii. That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

Addressing each finding in turn – Finding (i), the City’s general plan identifies the use of privately held land, including in some instances, the number of dwelling units authorized per acre. However, there is no similar planning metric for which the City could rely upon to determine what the square footage would be for each dwelling unit. Therefore, the square footage of each dwelling unit is determined by the property owner/developer at the time of development. In the case of a developer, that determination is based upon what they perceive is marketable and subject to change with market conditions. There simply is no way to accurately forecast what type of product mix will be developed. Without the ability to forecast the total number of square feet expected at build out, the City would be guessing at a rate per square foot.

Item 2C - Page 15
55575.17003\42697392.1

3 This creates the potential for failing to collect enough TUMF to complete projects, or alternatively, collecting too much depending on the final build out. Therefore, using square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.

Finding (ii), the TUMF is calculated based upon the demands created by class of property (i.e., traffic trips generated by land use type). In other words, the Study determined the average demands of average land use classes of property. Given, the limitation of the data and inability to forecast market conditions, this approach created a reasonable basis for applying the TUMF in an equitable and proportional manner across all potential classes of land use. Again, the City simply does not have the ability to generate the kind of information needed to meet the residential square footage requirement of the Act. Therefore, this alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.

Finding (iii), the metrics in the Study calculate the estimated impacts on a land use basis.

For example, as noted above land uses are evaluated for their increase in traffic trips. The application of this metric does not increase or decrease based upon the size of the development project but rather the individual unit. Therefore, by the very nature of the calculation, smaller developments will have smaller impacts and larger developments will have larger impacts. These impacts drive the fee. Therefore, the fee structure does not charge disproportionate fees on smaller developments.

Item 2C - Page 16
55575.17003\42697392.1

A-1

ATTACHMENT 1
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE

UPDATE NEXUS REPORT
Item 2C - Page 17

Draft Nexus Report
Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule
Update

Prepared for:

Coachella Valley Association of Governments

In Association with:

City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Indian Wells
City of Indio
City of La Quinta
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Rancho Mirage
County of Riverside

Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

In Association with:

Michael Baker International
Fehr & Peers
Rodriguez Consulting Group

March 2018

EPS #144043
Item 2C - Page 18
Ecan<Jmle & Ptanning Systt!ms, Inc.

One Kaf~r Pl.alit, Suite 1410
Oakland, CA 94612
510 841 9190 lei
S10 7<0 1080 r.x
OiJkJMd
Sacramento
°"'""' Los Angeles
www.epsys.com

Table of Contents

1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS ................................................................................ 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Summary of the TUMF Calculation ............................................................................. 3

2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND ........................................................................ 5 TUMF Boundary ...................................................................................................... 5 Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts................................................................ . 6

3. TUMF PROJECTS AND COSTS ..................................................................................... 8 TUMF Project Selection ............................................................................................ 8 TUMF Project Costs ................................................................................................ . 9

4. TUMF COST ALLOCATION ....................................................................................... 11 Application of Transportation Demand Model ............................................................. 11 TUMF Capacity Improvement Projects ...................................................................... 11 TUMF Operational, Safety, and ATP Projects .............................................................. 13 Summary of TUMF Cost Allocation ........................................................................... 13

5. OTHER FUNDING FOR TUMF PROJECTS ........................................................................ 15 Obligated Funds .................................................................................................... 15 Other External Funding .......................................................................................... 16 Developer Funded Improvements ............................................................................ 16 State and Federal Transportation Funding................................................................. 16 Local Match .......................................................................................................... 17 Measure A ........................................................................................................... 17 Summary of Other Funding Sources ........................................................................ 18

6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION ..................................................................... 20 Overview of Nexus Findings .................................................................................... 20 The TUMF Calculation ............................................................................................ 21

7. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION .............................................................. 24 Elimination of Land Use Exemptions......................................................................... 24 Simplification of Land Use Categories ....................................................................... 24 Application of Annual Inflation Adjustment ................................................................ 25

Item 2C - Page 19

Appendices
APPENDIX A: TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF
APPENDIX B: Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates

List of Tables and Figures
Table 1 Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation ................................................................ 3 Table 2 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories .............................. 4 Table 3 Estimated Growth in Trip Ends in CVAG Region (2015 – 2040) ............................... 7 Table 4 Summary of TUMF Projects and Total Costs ....................................................... 10 Table 5 TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies ..................................... 12 Table 6 Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development ............................. 14 Table 7 Summary of Obligated Funds Available to Off-set TUMF Costs .............................. 15 Table 8 Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off-set TUMF Costs .......................... 18 Table 9 Net TUMF Costs After Funding from Other Sources ............................................. 19 Table 10 Calculation of TUMF per Average Daily Trip (ADT) .............................................. 21

Figure 1 CVAG TUMF Boundary ...................................................................................... 6

Item 2C - Page 20

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx

1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
I nt ro d uct i on
This Nexus Report provides the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and its member jurisdictions with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of an updated Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Impact fees are one-time charges on new development approved and collected by jurisdictions to cover the cost of regional transportation-related capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new growth. 1 The fees are typically collected upon issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy.

Initially established in 1989, the CVAG TUMF is a one-time fee charged on all new development occurring within the CVAG region designed to cover the “fair share” cost of regional serving transportation projects and improvements needed to serve growth. The program relies on local agencies (e.g., cities and the County) to collect TUMF as development occurs. The TUMF Nexus Report establishes a nexus or reasonable relationship between the updated fee amount and the proportion of transportation improvement costs attributable to new development.

This Nexus Report has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) with support from a broader consultant team, led by Michael Baker International, that has been retained by the CVAG to assist in developing key components of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The analysis and methodology incorporate input from CVAG staff, it’s member jurisdictions, the TUMF Nexus Advisory Committee, and other stakeholders.

Institutional Context
The CVAG TUMF program is a component of Riverside County’s Measure A. Measure A is a one- half percent sales tax program that provides funding for a wide variety of transportation projects and services throughout Riverside County. It was originally approved by voters of Riverside County in 1988 and given a 30-year extension in 2002. Cities and the county in the Coachella Valley must participate in the TUMF program to assist in the financing of the priority regional arterial system in order to receive local Measure A funds.

If a city or the county chooses not to levy the TUMF, the funds they would otherwise receive from Measure A for local streets and roads is added to the Measure A funds for the Regional Arterial Program. A portion of the Measure A revenues for the Coachella Valley area is returned to the cities and the county in the Coachella Valley to assist with the funding of local street and road improvements. These funds supplement existing federal, state, and local funds. Local street improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments are typically paid for by the developers.

Other key components of the RTP that have been updated as part of this study process, and used as critical inputs in the TUMF update, include:

1 New development includes any construction activity that requires a building permit and creates additional impacts on a jurisdictions regional transportation infrastructure once completed (e.g., through additional travel demand or “trips”).

Item 2C - Page 21
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx  Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS): The TPPS identifies and prioritizes the regional arterial transportation projects in the CVAG region.  Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE): The RACE provides costs estimates for the projects included in the TPPS.
 Active Transportation Plan (ATP): The Regional ATP defines the bicycle, pedestrian, and low speed electric vehicle (LSEV) networks designed to provide a multimodal compliment and/or alternative to automobiles. The Regional ATP projects are included in the TPPS.

The TPPS, RACE, and ATP were formally approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on June 27, 2016. Since the TPPS, RACE, and ATP provide the underlying basis for the TUMF program, these updates have necessitated update of the TUMF program to reaffirm the nexus between projected development and needed transportation system improvements. The reevaluation of the TUMF nexus also provides the opportunity to address important policy issues including, fee land use categories, exemptions, cost indexing, and other factors, as described further in Chapter 7.

Legal Context
A Nexus Report provides a legal basis and necessary technical analysis to support a schedule of transportation impact fees consistent with Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code Section 66000 et seq.). The Mitigation Fee Act allows jurisdictions to adopt, by resolution, the Transportation Impact Fee consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling ordinance.

Impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of constructing capital and infrastructure improvements required to serve new development and growth in the jurisdictions in which it is charged. As such impact fees must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. Impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure. In addition, impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover the cost of existing needs/ deficiencies in the transportation capital improvement network.

In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;

2. Identify how the fee is to be used;

3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of development project for which the fee is being used;

4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed; and

5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility.

These statutory requirements have been followed in establishing this TUMF, as documented in subsequent chapters. If the transportation impact fee is adopted, this Nexus Study and the technical information it contains should be maintained and reviewed periodically by CVAG to Item 2C - Page 22
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx ensure accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent that transportation improvement requirements, costs, and development potential changes over time, the TUMF will need to be updated. Further information on the implementation and administration of the TUMF is provided in Chapter 7.

S u m mar y o f t h e T U M F Ca lcu l at i o n
Table 1 shows summarizes the TUMF calculation per trip consistent with nexus requirements and the associated analysis contained in this Technical Report. These transportation impact fees are designed to cover the cost of regional transportation improvements required to support new development after existing deficiencies and known other funding sources have been taken into account. The fees apply to all new residential and non-residential projects, except those exempted by State or federal law or other means.

Table 1 Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation

While per trip sets the basis for the TUMF, individual land use categories will pay different fees depending on their trip rates per unit. Table 2 provides an illustrative calculation of the fee level for various land use categories. The actual land use categories and their specific application, including various discounts, will be included in the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter 7.

Net TUMF Cost See Table 9 = a $263,335,000
Growth in ADT (2015 - 2040) See Table 3 = b 1,074,520
Avg. TUMF / ADT = a / b $245
Category Source Formula Amount
Item 2C - Page 23
----- ---- ----- -----
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx Table 2 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories

Land Use Category
Residential
Single Family Detached $2,310 per dwelling
Multi-Family $1,790 per dwelling
Non-Residential
Industrial $1,220 per 1,000 sq. ft.

Office $2,390 per 1,000 sq. ft.

Retail2 $6,010 per 1,000 sq. ft.
[1] Based on a TUMF of $245 per ADT.
[2] Includes a discount of 35% percent to account for pass-through trips.

Fee Per Unit1
Item 2C - Page 24

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx

2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND
This chapter documents the land use and travel demand assumptions and forecasts that underlie the TUMF calculations. These factors drive the traffic generation and attraction in the CVAG region and, in turn, are critical in determining how to allocate new transportation improvement costs between existing and new development.

T U M F Bo u nd ar y
The TUMF boundaries define the geography (i.e. cities and unincorporated areas) where new development will be subject to the TUMF. In order to assure accurate and timely implementation of the TUMF program, the applicable boundary should be easily identified and understood by developers and jurisdictions responsible for fee collection. Good boundary devices are easily identified, stay relatively constant over time, and can be related to data collection or analysis zones in order to facilitate future analysis updates.

As part of an update to the TUMF in 2005 (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005), the CVAG TUMF Boundary Determination established a roughly defined area within which there exists a “reasonable relationship” between new development and traffic conditions on TUMF roadways.

Formal boundary lines were defined based on the results of the analysis in relation to easily administered features. This boundary is illustrated in Figure 1 and includes the CVAG core, as well as outlying areas along the I-10 east, SR74 south, SR86 south, and SR111 south corridors.

The boundary corresponds to several easily defined features:
 The Riverside County line to the north and south,
 Joshua Tree National Park to the northeast,
 Township line 10E-11E to the east, and
 The WRCOG/CVAG border to the west.

Item 2C - Page 25
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx Figure 1 CVAG TUMF Boundary

T r av e l D em a nd A s s um pt io ns a n d F or e ca st s Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees must establish a reasonable relationship, or nexus, between the cost of new capital facilities and improvements allocated to future development and the contribution of growth to the need for these facilities. For transportation impact fees, recently updated and adopted traffic models are generally used as a key tool to estimate the allocation of costs of new transportation facilities between existing and future development.

Based on direction from the CVAG Executive Committee, the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) has been used to calculate the TUMF. Specifically, as part of this study process, the RIVTAM model has been updated to reflect the latest 2040 socio-economic forecasts and roadway network assumptions in the CVAG region consistent with SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In addition to the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and projects identified in the 2016 RTP, the TPPS projects were also added to the model to estimate the daily trips generated in the CVAG region by Year 2040.2 Table 3 shows the estimated growth in the number of daily vehicle trips ends in the CVAG region between existing (2015) and 2040 based on the updated RIVTAM model. As shown, the

2 For transportation modeling purposes, even projects not included in the TUMF calculation but included as part of the RTP or FTIP are considered to be part of the regional network in 2040.

Item 2C - Page 26
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx existing 2015 vehicle trip ends were estimated to be 3,141,640 and the total growth was estimated to be an additional 1,074,520 trip ends over the next 25 years, or by 2040.3 Based on this projection, the future growth in trip ends will represents about 25 percent of total trips in 2040. In other words, future growth is expected to account for roughly 25 percent of total trips ends within the CVAG region by 2040. This proportion is used to allocate a portion of the cost for TUMF eligible projects to future growth, as described further in subsequent chapters.

Table 3 Estimated Growth in Trip Ends in CVAG Region (2015 – 2040)

3 Trip ends are those that either start or end in the CVAG region. Through trips (i.e. those that pass through but do not stop in the CVAG region), are excluded from this calculation as described further in Chapter 4.
2015 2040 (with TPPS) Total Growth as % of
2040 total
Average
Annual
Total for CVAG Regional
Network 3,141,640 4,216,160 1,074,520 25.5% 1.2% Source: F&P; RIVTAM
Avg. Daily Trip (ADT) Ends in Year: 2015 - 2040 Growth in ADT Item 2C - Page 27

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx

3. TUMF PROJECTS AND COSTS
This chapter documents the transportation facilities included in the TUMF as well as their estimated cost. Development impact fees are derived from a list of planned regional transportation capital improvement projects and associated costs that are needed in part or in full to accommodate new growth. Consequently, the capital improvements included in the fee program need to be described in sufficient detail to generate cost estimates.4 T U M F Pro j e ct S e l e ct i o n
As noted in Chapter 1, the TPPS, as well as the RACE and ATP provide the core elements of the TUMF calculation by providing the list of potentially eligible projects and their corresponding costs. Updates to these documents were prepared by the consultant team, led by Michael Baker International, and formally approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on June 27, 2016.

While the projects included in the TPPS represent the universe of transportation facilities and improvements potentially eligible for funding through TUMF, not all of them need to be included in the program. A key component of the TUMF study process is to identify which of these eligible projects should be included in the TUMF based on both nexus and policy considerations.

Accordingly, as part of this study, CVAG obtained input from member jurisdictions and the TUMF Nexus Committee to consider options for reducing the cost of the TUMF program.

The policy direction resulting from this consultation was to identify and remove projects from TUMF consideration where there was uncertainty in the likelihood of that project moving forward in the next 15-25 years. After meeting with each of the individual jurisdictions, CVAG found that nearly all projects scoring below 7.5 points on the TPPS met the criteria and thus should be “removed” from TUMF consideration. Jurisdictions pointed out that these projects may become more certain in the future, when the TUMF Nexus study is repeated.

CVAG, with concurrence from its members and the TUMF Nexus Committee, determined that the regional priority in the TPPS necessitated the inclusion of projects scoring above 7.5 points. By removing TPPS projects scoring 7.5 points and lower, jurisdictions acknowledge that regional funding will not be available for those projects until or unless the TUMF project list (those TPPS projects scoring above 7.5 points) is amended.

The ATP includes a comprehensive listing of all active transportation projects within the jurisdictions of the CVAG member agencies that were determined to have regional significance.

Specifically, it includes local and regional bike plans as well as pedestrian improvement to transit hubs. In addition, the TPPS includes other regional transportation projects, such as CV Link, that correspond to long-term planning efforts and cannot analyzed in the same way as traditional TPPS projects. These projects were tested for regional significance based on factors that were agreed upon as part of the RTP study process. Based on CVAG committee direction, ATP and

4 Impact fees programs do not, in themselves, represent actual approval of a City plan or capital project (and as such do require clearance through the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA).

Item 2C - Page 28
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx these regional planning projects were not ranked against one another but are simply listed as part of the regional transportation system to be considered for funding.

In addition to this policy-based approach, TPPS projects focused on the resurfacing of existing arterials have been removed from the TUMF calculation based on nexus considerations (i.e., the costs of these projects are excluded from TUMF). These projects are needed to maintain the current regional arterial network rather than help accommodate growth. Based on the requirements of AB 1600, projects focused primarily on the operation and maintenance of existing facilities should be excluded from development impact fee programs. It should be noted that this is a relatively minor adjustment since total cost of these projects is only $940,000.

Based on the process and criteria described above, about 80 TPPS projects were removed from TUMF consideration, or about 30 percent of the total.
5 Eliminating these projects removed about
$605 million from TUMF consideration. A detailed list of the projects included and removed from the TPPS is provided in Appendix A.

T U M F Pro j e ct C o s t s
As described earlier, the Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) study provides a uniform methodology to create planning-level cost estimates for transportation projects included in the TPPS. As further described in the RACE, these costs estimates include construction, right-of- way, and impact factors to cover other related project conditions.6 The costs for CV Link and Regional Signal Synchronization were estimated from other planning efforts and added to the overall TPPS cost.

Table 4 provides cost estimates for TPPS projects after removing those that scored at or below

7.5 points. As shown, the total delivery cost for the projects included as part of the TUMF calculations is estimated at approximately $2.809 billion, including the TPPS, ATP, and two other regional projects. The cost estimates for each project are attached to this Report as Appendix B (with further detail available in the RACE).

5 This total excludes ATP and other Regional Projects such as CV Link. 6 Impact factors are multipliers applied to the project’s construction cost to account for special conditions likely add to its complexity in the construction process. These include project conditions like the existence of utilities structures, nearby drainage facilities, and medians that add complexity and costs.

Item 2C - Page 29
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx Table 4 Summary of TUMF Projects and Total Costs

The bulk of the TUMF project costs, or approximately 76.3 percent, are identified as “Capacity Improvement Projects.” These projects are so-named because they expand the capacity of the regional transportation network by adding lanes or entirely new arterials and connections, allowing the network to better accommodate growth. The projects referred to as “Widening or Updating of Cross-Sections” and “Other Operational Improvements”, which combine for about 13 percent of costs, provide a variety of benefits to both new and existing commuters, but do not expand the network capacity in a measurable way. ATP and other regional projects such as CV Link and valley-wide signal synchronization, combine for slightly less than 11 percent of total costs.

Type of Projects
$ Amount %
Buildable Projects $2,506,140,000 89.2%
-- $2,143,490,000 76.3%
-- $69,910,000 2.5%
-- $292,570,000 10.4%
-- $170,000 0.01%
ATP Regional Projects $157,700,000 5.6%
-- $149,700,000 5.3%
-- $8,000,000 0.3%
$146,100,000 5.2%
-- $99,400,000 3.5%
-- $46,700,000 1.7%
Regional Traffic System Costs $2,809,940,000 100%
TUMF Project Cost
Capacity Improvement Projects
Widening or Updating Cross-Sections
CV Link
Valley-wide Signal Synchronization
Other Operational Improvements
Resurface or Reconstruction Only
Regional Bicycle Projects
Regional Pedestrian Improvements
Other Regional Transportation Projects
Item 2C - Page 30

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx

4. TUMF COST ALLOCATION
This Chapter describes how the cost of TUMF eligible projects (described in Chapter 3) are allocated to new development. Under the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees cannot include the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to address “existing deficiencies”. In other words, the cost of new capital facilities and improvements needed solely to address the needs of existing users must be excluded from the TUMF calculation.

A p pl i cat i o n o f T r an s po rt a t io n D em a nd Mo d e l As noted in Chapter 2, the nexus calculations provided in this Report utilize RIVTAM projections to allocate the cost of the TUMF eligible projects between new and existing development. The RIVTAM model is a mathematical representation of travel demand in the CVAG region between Base Year 2008 and Future Year 2040, updated by Fehr & Peers as part of this study effort. The model uses socioeconomic data, such as number of jobs and households to estimate the expected travel in, between, and through CVAG. Existing 2015 origin-destination (O-D) trip table and daily volumes were developed using the interpolation between the Base Year 2008 Model and Future Year 2040 Model.

The traffic growth in CVAG was estimated using the change in origin-destination (O-D) trip tables between existing 2015 Model and Future Year 2040 Model. In order to capture the trips only associated with the Coachella Valley region, the external-to-external trips (meaning trips starting from and ending at areas outside of the Coachella Valley) were excluded from traffic growth. For external-to-internal or internal-to-external trips (meaning trips having one end in CVAG and the other end outside of CVAG), only half of those trips were included in the traffic growth calculation.

For the purpose of the TUMF, the number of trip ends was used to calculate the fee which is consistent with the 2005 TUMF study. Any internal-to-internal trip (meaning trips traveling inside CVAG) is considered as two trip ends and any external-to-internal or internal-to-external trip is considered to have one trip end in Coachella Valley.

The results from the traffic demand model are applied differently depending on the type of TUMF project under consideration. Specifically, this nexus analysis employs different cost allocation methodologies depending on whether the project is primarily designed to increases the overall travel capacity within the CVAG region versus those that are primarily designed for other purposes, such as safety or bicycle / pedestrian access. The cost allocation methodology for each category of TUMF improvement is described separately below.

T U M F Ca pa c it y I m pr ov e m e nt Pr o j ec t s As described in Chapter 3, the TPPS identified a number of projects as “capacity improvements.” These projects are so-named because they expand the capacity of the regional transportation network by adding lanes to existing facilities or adding entirely new arterials and connections, allowing the network to accommodate growth. For these projects the RIVTAM model was used to estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth. Specifically, the existing 2015 daily volumes were compared to capacity to develop the existing volume/capacity (v/c) Item 2C - Page 31
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx ratio to determine whether the project is experiencing an existing deficiency based on level of service (LOS) criteria. Consistent with the 2005 TUMF study, LOS D or worse is considered to be unacceptable LOS for arterial roadway network.

Any project’s roadway segment with a v/c ratio exceeding 0.62 (LOS D or worse) were considered to operate with existing deficiency, and a fair share calculation was then performed to estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth for the project. The fair share percentage was calculated by subtracting the existing volumes from future demand and then divided by the future demand, and the percentage was applied to the project’s total cost to estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth. For projects with roadway segments operating at LOS C or better (or v/c ratio of 0.62 or less), it is assumed 100 percent of the project’s cost is attributable to growth.

Table 5 shows the list of TUMF projects experiencing a v/c ratio above 0.62 and how the cost of these projects has been allocated between new and existing development. Overall, out of the 190 TUMF projects (excluding ATP) 13 are estimated to operate with an existing deficiency. As shown in Table 5, out of the $121.7 million in total cost estimated for these projects, approximately $54.4 million is allocated to the TUMF. The remaining $67 million, or about 55 percent, is attributable to existing deficiencies.

Table 5 TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies

Street Name
Segment
# Segment Description
Cost
Considered
in TUMF
Fair
Share
Factor
Cost
Contributed
to Future
Growth

ADT V/C ADT V/C
a b c e = a * d
AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy
111/SPRR $22,011,480 21,120 0.85 49,420 0.48 0.57 $12,604,712 AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC $55,222,500 20,260 0.82 37,930 0.35 0.47 $25,725,852 AVE 50 50I2 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl.

Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $3,356,880 20,150 0.72 38,870 0.37 0.48 $1,616,691 Dillon Rd. DLN13 S side of Whitewater Br. to
Hwy 111 $4,062,858 19,440 0.71 46,870 0.43 0.59 $2,377,730 Hwy. 74 Hwy.74A Highway 111 to El Paseo $450,240 38,960 0.63 39,080 0.34 0.00 $1,383 Hwy. 111 Hwy.111F Cook St to Eldorado Dr $3,537,600 47,240 0.72 67,580 0.58 0.30 $1,064,735 Hwy. 111 Hwy.111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave $4,924,800 53,240 0.81 73,300 0.64 0.27 $1,347,769 Hwy. 111 Hwy.111H Miles Ave to Washington St
(incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl) $7,573,400 46,430 0.70 62,300 0.43 0.25 $1,929,211 Indian Cyn Dr. INCN8 Garnet Ave to 20th Ave $165,000 20,370 0.68 37,920 0.56 0.46 $0 Indian Cyn Dr. INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave $1,722,800 24,960 0.85 45,050 0.31 0.45 $768,281 Indian Cyn Dr. INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd $7,379,840 21,780 0.78 39,410 0.26 0.45 $3,301,360 Indian Cyn Dr. INCN13
Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes
Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at
Mission Cr.)
$6,945,600 16,460 0.62 27,730 0.40 0.41 $2,822,824
Palm Dr. PD1 I-10 IC to Varner Rd $4,024,416 28,340 0.85 35,290 0.24 0.20 $792,567 Total $121,377,414 $54,353,115
[1] Data provided by Fehr & Peers based on updated RIVTAM. d = (c - b)
/ c
Existing Year
20151
Future Year
2040 w/ TPPS1
Item 2C - Page 32
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx As noted, the bulk of the capacity improvement projects, in terms of both number and costs, currently operate with a v/c ratio below 0.62. Consequently, these projects are assumed to be entirely attributable to new development.

T U M F O p er at io n a l, Sa f e t y , a n d A T P Pro j ec t s In addition to “capacity improvement projects”, other regional projects are included in the TUMF calculation because they improve the regional network for both existing and new users. While these projects provide a variety of benefits to both new and existing commuters, they do not expand the network capacity in a measurable way. The TUMF projects that fall into this category include operational improvements such as reconfiguring intersections, adding turn lanes at intersections, adding traffic signals, and ATP projects (e.g. bike / pedestrian facility and transit station improvements, and CV Link).

Since these improvements and facilities associated with the project categories above are designed to serve and benefit both existing and new development, the costs are allocated in proportion to growth. Specifically, 25 percent of the cost of these projects are allocated to growth reflecting the estimated share of new trip ends to total trip ends in 2040 (see Table 3 in Chapter 2).

S u m mar y o f TU M F Co st A l l oc at io n
Table 6 summarizes the allocation of TUMF eligible project costs between new and existing development based on the methodology described above. As shown, overall, about 80 percent of the TUMF eligible project costs are allocated to new development. This amount includes 97 percent of the cost of “Capacity Improvement Projects” since the majority of these projects are not currently needed given level of service standards assumed for this analysis (i.e. v/c ratios of

0.62 or less).

Item 2C - Page 33
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx Table 6 Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development

Type of Projects
Buildable Projects $2,505,970,000 $2,169,010,747
-- $2,143,490,000 96.9% $2,076,630,000
-- $69,910,000 25.5% $17,817,088
-- $292,570,000 25.5% $74,563,659
ATP Regional Projects $157,700,000 $40,191,028
-- $149,700,000 25.5% $38,152,168
-- $8,000,000 25.5% $2,038,860
$146,100,000 $37,234,681
-- $99,400,000 25.5% $25,332,836
-- $46,700,000 25.5% $11,901,845.28
Total $2,809,770,000 80% $2,246,436,456
[2] Cost allocation based on new trips from 2015 - 2040 divided by total trips in 2040, as shown in Table 3.

Project Costs
Proportion of Costs
Allocated to Growth
[1] Cost allocation based on RIVTAM analysis. For projects with no existing deficiencies, 100 percent of costs are allocated to growth.

Other Regional Transportation Projects
Capacity Improvement Projects1
Widening or Updating Cross-Sections2
Other Operational Improvements2
Valley-wide Signal Synchronization2
CV Link2
Regional Bicycle Projects2
Regional Pedestrian Improvements2
Total Costs
Allocated to
Growth
Item 2C - Page 34

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx

5. OTHER FUNDING FOR TUMF PROJECTS
It is a common practice in calculation of a development impact fee to deduct any obligated or projected revenue from other funding sources from the total cost of planned capital facilities and improvements. Accordingly, this section identifies and quantifies the separate external revenue or funding sources (other than the TUMF itself) and deducts these amounts from the TUMF calculation.

CVAG has programming authority for Measure A, State and Federal formula funds. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the regional transportation planning agency responsible for administration of funds throughout Riverside County. Due to the diverse needs of sub-regions throughout the County, programming decisions within Coachella Valley are typically delegated to CVAG. Competitive grant funding and programming is typically managed directly by RCTC or State and Federal sponsoring agencies.

O b l i gat e d Fu nd s
TUMF project costs should exclude funding that has already been secured or is obligated from other external sources. As of November, 2016, CVAG has approximately $232 million allocated to TPPS projects from available sources. Programming decisions are made periodically and obligation values are updated as needed. A list of current projects and funding commitments is summarized in Table 7.

Table 7 Summary of Obligated Funds Available to Off-
set TUMF Costs

Type of Projects
$ Amount %
Buildable Projects $2,505,970,000 89.2% $145,886,000
-- $2,143,490,000 76.3% $102,956,000
-- $69,910,000 2.5% $1,972,000
-- $292,570,000 10.4% $40,958,000
ATP Regional Projects $157,700,000 5.6% $8,300,000
-- $149,700,000 5.3% $8,300,000
-- $8,000,000 0.3% $0
$146,100,000 5.2% $77,767,625
-- $99,400,000 3.5% $75,000,000
-- $46,700,000 1.7% $2,767,625
Regional Traffic System Costs $2,809,770,000 100% $231,953,625 [1] Only includes portion of obligated funding applicable to TUMF related costs.

CV Link
Valley-wide Signal Synchronization
Other Operational Improvements
Regional Bicycle Projects
Regional Pedestrian Improvements
Other Regional Transportation Projects
Obligated
Funding1 Project Cost
Capacity Improvement Projects
Widening or Updating Cross-Sections
Item 2C - Page 35
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx Although a significant portion of obligated funds are under CVAG’s control, competitive funding from State and/or federal sources, such as Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, is determined by others. ATP projects in the CVAG region, including major infrastructure projects such as CV Link, have received approximately $75 million in grants and funding allocations from CMAQ and various other sources. The values are deducted from the TPPS and ATP gross network.

O t h er E xt er n al F u n d i ng
As part of the TUMF study effort, CVAG staff identified and estimated the level of non-TUMF external funding assumptions inherent in each jurisdiction's ability to move specific TPPS projects forward. These external funding assumptions have been removed from the TUMF obligation.

Specifically, CVAG staff have worked with member jurisdictions to identify and estimate the additional, external (i.e. non-TUMF) funding assumptions associated with the all TPPS projects rated above 7.5 points. The total external funding estimate from all the jurisdictions was $328,032,689. Consequently, this amount has been removed from the TUMF calculation.

D e v e l op e r F un d e d I mp ro v em e n t s
Section 6 (d) (2) of the CVAG TUMF model ordinance indicates that CVAG will “establish an estimate of the value of customary developer dedications to the extent they have been included in the total cost of the regional system.” Dedications are right of way and/or completed roadway segments that are required to be completed by developers as part of their development approvals. In previous TUMF Nexus Studies, the estimated value of developer dedications has been used to offset or reduce the TUMF collection target.

This reduction of the TUMF collection target provides an appropriate program ‘credit’ to developers for completing actual improvements to the arterial system. While the value of developer contributions is difficult to quantify, they are real and should be accounted for in the TUMF. As part of the initial TUMF calculation in 1988 it was estimated that such dedications represented 25 percent of the value of total TPPS (regional system) costs. This estimate was affirmed in 2005. It is recommended that we retain the 25 percent estimate for the value of developer dedications for the 2018 Nexus Study, excluding CV Link.

S t a t e a n d F e de r a l T ra n s po rt at io n Fu n d i ng CVAG receives transportation funding from a variety of State and federal sources, much of which is allocated by formula or agreement through RCTC. This includes funding through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding (CMAQ), the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP), and other sources. While the funding levels from State and Federal sources can vary significantly from year to year, for the purposes of the TUMF analysis, CVAG projects that the region will receive about $172 million from these sources over the next 25 years, or an average of about $6.86 million per year.7

7 Based on the last call for projects in 2013 for federal grant funds STP, CVAG received $21,458,175, or about 33 percent of the total pot for Riverside County. For CMAQ funds, CVAG is averaging about Item 2C - Page 36
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx L oc a l Ma t c h
The CVAG share of regional road system project costs has been set by the Executive Committee at 75 percent of qualified project costs, has been applied after any external funding comes off the top. Local jurisdictions are required to provide the remaining 25 percent of project costs, as well as 100 percent of unqualified project costs. For the purposes of the TUMF, CVAG has indicated that projects on the TPPS will be funded with 75 percent regional funds with a 25 percent local match requirement. Accordingly, this analysis assumes that the TUMF costs are reduced by 25 percent to account for this local match.

M e a s ur e A
In accordance with RCTC Ordinance No.02-001, Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax (Measure A), 50 percent of the sales tax revenue generated by Measure A within the Coachella Valley is allocated to CVAG for use on the Regional Arterial System. This sales tax was approved through 2038. CVAG uses this revenue to complete projects included in the TPPS. CVAG intends to continue to utilize this revenue for projects included in the TPPS
For the purpose of determining the share of Measure A revenues that will likely be available for completing future TPPS projects, an average of actual revenues between 2007 and 2016 (adjusted for inflation) and projected growth in trips through 2040 was used. In addition, it is assumed that 80 percent of the Measure A revenue would be used to off-set TUMF costs, with the remaining available to cover future project costs not covered by TUMF (e.g., the amount allocated to “existing deficiencies”). This methodology yields average annual Measure A revenues available to off-set TUMF costs of about $22.8 million per year or $461 million over 25 years, as shown in Table 8.

$6 million per year. These two sources would combine for about $171,458,175 over a 25-year period ($21,458,175 + $6 million times 25 years).

Item 2C - Page 37
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx Table 8 Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off- set TUMF Costs

S u m mar y o f Ot h e r F u n di n g S o ur c e s
Table 9 summarizes the assumptions above to estimate the total revenue that is likely to be available to off-set TUMF project costs over the next 25 years. As shown, the total TUMF Costs of $2.176 billion (i.e., the TPPS costs attributable to growth) are reduced by an additional $1.934 billion to account for other funding sources, leaving a net TUMF cost of about $242.7 million.

Type of Projection
Based on 2007-16 Growth Rate In Measure A $s $20,308,586 $487,406,064 Based on 2010-16 Growth Rate in Measure A $s $26,270,481 $630,491,536 Based on SCAG Trip Growth (2017 - 2040) $21,934,342 $526,424,215 Average of All Projections $22,837,803 $548,107,272
25 Year Total $570,945,075
Allocation to TUMF Eligible Projects @ 80% [1] $456,475,736 [1] Equals to proportion of total TUMF costs allocated to growh, as shown in Table 6.

Total Projected
Through 2040
Average Annual
Amount
Item 2C - Page 38
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx Table 9 Net TUMF Costs After Funding from Other Sources

TUMF Cost Allocation See Table 6 = a $2,246,436,000
Obligated Funding See Table 7 = b $231,953,625
External Funding CVAG Jurisdiction data = c $328,000,000 CV Link Costs Allocated to Growth See Table 6 = d $25,332,836 Developer Funded Improvements CVAG Estimate e = 25% * (a - d) $555,276,000 State and Federal Funding CVAG Estimate = f $171,458,000 Subtotal g = a - b - c - e - f $959,748,000
25% Local Match CVAG Policy h = g * 25% $239,937,000
Measure A Funding to TUMF See Table 8 = i $456,476,000 Net TUMF Costs j = g - h - i $263,335,000
Category Amount
(rounded)FormulaSource
Item 2C - Page 39
---------- ---- -----
------

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx

6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION
This chapter summarizes the nexus findings presents in the previous chapters and calculates and presents the final TUMF calculations.

O v e rv i e w o f Ne x u s F i nd i n g s
A “nexus” or relationship between new development in the CVAG region and transportation improvements and their costs must be established before incorporating transportation improvement costs into a transportation impact fee calculation. To determine the appropriate costs to include in the new transportation fee calculation, it is necessary to conduct a series of steps:
 Identify Total Costs of Transportation Improvements. The identification of the required transportation improvement projects and their associated costs is the first step (see Chapter 3).
 Remove Existing Deficiencies. Next, it is necessary to evaluate whether there is an existing deficiency at any of the project locations, and if so, the magnitude of that deficiency.

Existing deficiencies are accounted for by reducing the project cost that is included in the Fee Program with funding required from other sources (see Chapter 4)  Determine Proportionate Allocation to New Development. Once existing deficiencies are identified, it is necessary to determine the proportion of the remaining project cost that is attributable to new development in Cupertino, and therefore can be the subject of a fee program (see Chapter 4).
 Account for Known Funding. To the extent there is dedicated funding for any of the transportation improvements, this portion of costs should not be included in the transportation fee calculation. For this TIF calculation, funding from external sources has been excluded (see Chapter 5).

The technical calculations described above and further detailed in subsequent sections establish the following nexus findings, consistent with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Purpose
The TUMF will help maintain adequate levels of transportation service in the CVAG region. It is levied on all new development throughout the Coachella Valley to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts on the transportation system.

Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to fund regional transportation improvements, including roadway, intersection, interchange, and traffic signal improvements, ATP facilities and other regional serving projects. The list of eligible transportation projects and costs are summarized in Chapter 3 and further detailed in the Appendix B and the TPPS.

Item 2C - Page 40
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx Relationship
New development in the CVAG region will increase demands for, and travel on, the region’s transportation network. Transportation fee revenue will be used to fund additional transportation capacity necessary to accommodate this growth. New development will benefit from the increased transportation capacity.

Need
Each new development project will add to the incremental need for transportation capacity and improvements. The transportation improvements considered in this Study have been identified and are necessary to support the future transportation needs in the CVAG region.

Proportionality
The fee levels are tied to fair share cost allocations to new development based on the RIVTAM transportation model and adapted for this study purpose. Recognizing that some improvements within the Coachella Valley will be completed by developer dedications or using alternate funding sources, the TUMF program establishes the share of unfunded improvement costs in rough proportionality to the number of trips generated by new development and assigns the fair-share fee to new developments on this basis.

T h e T U M F C a lc u l at io n
The data and analysis described above provide the core components of the TUMF calculation.

The final step in the TUMF calculation is to estimate the fee per trip and by land use category (i.e. different types of residential and non-residential development). These calculations are described below.

TUMF per Trip
The TUMF rate per trip is calculated by dividing the net TUMF cost above by the projected growth in average daily trips (ADT) over from 2015 – 2040. Specifically, the fee per trip is calculated by dividing the aggregate fee program cost of $263.3 million by the total number of trips generated by new development, or 1.074,520, as shown in Table 10. The results in a TUMF of $245 per ADT.

Table 10
Calculation of TUMF per Average Daily Trip (ADT)

Net TUMF Cost See Table 9 = a $263,335,000
Growth in ADT (2015 - 2040) See Table 3 = b 1,074,520
Avg. TUMF / ADT = a / b $245
Category Source Formula Amount
Item 2C - Page 41
----- ---- ----- -----
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx TUMF by Land Use
This average TUMF per trip amount will be used as the basis for calculating the actual TUMF obligation for particular types of development based on ADT generation factors for specific land use categories. Table 11 provides the ADT rates for generalized land use categories based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition released in 2017). The actual land use categories and their specific application, including various discounts, will be included in the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter 7. In addition, CVAG may update these rates and land use categories over time as conditions change and new data becomes available.

Table 11 Trip Rate Assumptions for illustrative Land Use Categories

Table 12 calculates the TUMF for each land use categories defined above based on the fee per trip. It should be noted that, the TUMF per trip rate for retail is reduced by 35 percent to account “linked” and pass-through trips, or trips that are part of multi-purpose commute (e.g., stopping at a retail store on the way to or from work). Typically, retail-based trips often involve multiple stops. To recognize this traffic pattern, an adjustment for pass-through trips, or percentage of new trip adjustment, takes into account vehicle trips using the adjacent roadway that enter a site as an intermediate stop on the way to another destination. For example, some drivers will stop for fuel on their way home from work. The pass-by adjustment reduces total number of vehicle trips to account for the sharing of the one trip for two destinations (fuel and then home).

Land Use Category ITE Code ITE Land Use Description
Residential
Single Family Detached 9.44 dwelling 210 Single-Family Detached Housing Multi-Family 7.32 dwelling 220 Multifamily Housing Low Rise Non-Residential
Industrial 4.96 1000 sq. ft. 110 General Light Industrial Office 9.74 1000 sq. ft. 710 General Office Building
Retail 37.75 1000 sq. ft. 820 Shopping Center
ITE Daily Trip Rate / Unit
Item 2C - Page 42
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx Table 12 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories

Land Use Category
Residential
Single Family Detached $2,310 per dwelling
Multi-Family $1,790 per dwelling
Non-Residential
Industrial $1,220 per 1,000 sq. ft.

Office $2,390 per 1,000 sq. ft.

Retail2 $6,010 per 1,000 sq. ft.
[1] Based on a TUMF of $245 per ADT.
[2] Includes a discount of 35% percent to account for pass-through trips.

Fee Per Unit1
Item 2C - Page 43

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx

7. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
This chapter summarizes the implementation and administrative issues and procedures associated with the TUMF program. Implementation and administrative elements of this Updated TUMF are specified in the CVAG TUMF Handbook as well as the CVAG TUMF model ordinance.

This TUMF update incorporates a number of modifications requested by CVAG’s member jurisdictions and other stakeholders. The key elements of these documents that are expected to be modified as part of this update are described below.

E l i m i na t i o n o f L a nd U s e Ex e m pt io n s The 2012 TUMF policy handbook exempts a number of land use categories from paying the fee (examples include affordable housing, public buildings, and some religious structures). It is proposed that the new TUMF update will eliminate any TUMF land use exemptions except those required by State or federal law (for example, public schools are statutorily exempt from AB 1600 impact fees). In other words, all new development that increases trips in the CVAG region will be subject to the TUMF unless otherwise exempt due to State and / or federal law.

While the goal is to eliminate all exemptions, consistent with State or federal law, CVAG has also proposed a TUMF discount for Transit Oriented Residential Development projects. With the new Handbook, CVAG is also considering an exemption for Affordable housing (below 80% of the ACI).

Regional fee programs approach affordable housing fees in a variety of ways; charge a full fee, allow fee reductions of a stated percentage, and completely exempting fees. These are evenly implemented throughout programs in California. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual does not include affordable housing as a land use. Programs that charge a fee often simply define a reduction of 20% or 50% of the fee for affordable housing but don’t provide a methodology on how it was arrived at other than it was a policy decision.

S i m p li f i cat io n o f L a nd U s e C a t eg or i e s The current TUMF Manual defines over 35 separate land use categories, and numerous sub- categories, each with different fee rates based upon trip generation. Concerns have been raised by developers and CVAG member agencies that this structure is overly complicated and confusing. Consequently, CVAG has simplified the land use categories which eliminate factors that override the basic fee rate of a land use.

For example, under the current TUMF Program, the highest TUMF rates are for convenience markets and fast food restaurants. When convenience stores are located within shopping centers it can create confusion because under the current TUMF Manual, shopping centers are defined as having at least three business establishments which may be housed in one or more buildings; have a total building floor area of at least 10,000 square feet (sq. ft.), and that the largest establishment not contain more than 50 percent of the floor area.

Under the new TUMF Program, it proposed that the land use categories be simplified and consolidated. For example, convenience stores, restaurants and shopping centers are proposed Item 2C - Page 44
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx to be charged strictly as “retail” and charged one flat rate. Therefore, TUMF would apply to each new building based on square footage without any additional factors.

A p pl i cat i o n o f A n n ua l I n f la t i o n A d j u st m e n t It is common practice to include an annual adjustment factor so that the fee revenues keep pace with inflation. By way of example, the Coachella Valley Local Development Mitigation Fee is revised annually by means of an adjustment at the beginning of each fiscal year based on the average percentage change over the previous calendar year set forth in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area. Accordingly, it is proposed that an inflation adjustment for TUMF be reviewed by CVAG’s Executive Committee on an annual basis.

Such inflation adjustment shall be the same as the Coachella Valley Local Development Mitigation Fee.

Item 2C - Page 45

APPENDIX A:

TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF

Item 2C - Page 46
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Yes No
20TH AVE 20A Worsley Rd to N Indian Canyon Dr No
20TH AVE 20B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (missing link) Yes 20TH AVE 20C Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr (missing link) Yes 20TH AVE 20D Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Yes
AVE 44 44A Ave 44 Br./Low Water Xing Yes
AVE 44 44B Monroe St to Low Water Xing Yes
AVE 44 44C Low Water Xing to Dillon Rd Yes
AVE 48 48B1 Jefferson St to Madison St No
AVE 48 48B Madison St to W side of All-Amer. Canal (Excl. Br. At All-Amer. Canal) No
AVE 48 48E Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes
AVE 48 48F Van Buren St to W of SR-86 Yes
AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR Yes
AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC Yes
AVE 50 50B1 Washington St to E side of Br. at Evac. Chnl (Incl. Br. at Evac. Chnl) Yes
AVE 50 50C Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. at All-Amer. Canal) Yes AVE 50 50D Madison St to Monroe St Yes
AVE 50 50E Monroe St to Jackson St Yes
AVE 50 50F Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes
AVE 50 50G Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes
AVE 50 50I2 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes AVE 50 50J Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR Yes
AVE 50 50K SR-86S to I-10 IC Yes
AVE 50 50L Br. at All-Amer. Canal (in 50K) Yes
AVE 50 50M Future Ave 50 I-10 IC Yes
AVE 52 52B Jefferson St to Madison St (Excl. Br. at All-Amer.

Canal) Yes
AVE 52 52D Monroe St to Jackson St Yes
AVE 52 52E Jackson St to Calhoun St Yes
AVE 52 52F1 Calhoun St to Van Buren St Yes
AVE 52 52F2 Van Buren St to Frederick St Yes
AVE 52 52G Frederick St to Harrison St Yes
AVE 52 52H Intersection of Ave 52 and SR-86 No
AVE 52 52IA Harrison St to Shady Ln Yes
AVE 52 52IB Shady Ln to Hwy 111 Yes
AVE 52 52K Future Ave 52 SR-86S IC Yes
AVE 52 52L Hwy 111 to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes AVE 52 52M SR-86S to Pierce St Yes
AVE 54 54A Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes
AVE 54 54B Harrison St to Tyler St Yes
AVE 54 54C Tyler St to Hwy 111 Yes
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56B Monroe St to Jackson St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56C Jackson St to 0.25 miles W of Van Buren St No AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56D 0.25 mi. W of Van Buren St to Harrison St No AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56E Harrison St to Tyler St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56F Tyler St to Polk St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56G Polk St to Highway 111 (Grapefruit Blvd) Yes AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56I SPRR to SR-86 (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Item 2C - Page 47
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Yes No
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
58TH AVE 58A Jefferson St to Madison St No
58TH AVE 58B Madison St to Monroe St No
58TH AVE 58C Monroe St to Jackson St No
58TH AVE 58D Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes
58TH AVE 58E Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes
66TH AVE 66A Future 66th Ave SR-86 IC Yes
66TH AVE 66B 66th Ave Br./Low Water Xing Yes
66TH AVE 66C Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (Bridge) Yes BOB HOPE DR BH1-6 Frank Sinatra Dr to Gerald Ford Dr No BOB HOPE DR BH2-6 Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore Dr No
BOB HOPE DR BH3-6 Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd (southbound only) No CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN1 Terrace Rd to E Palm Canyon Dr No CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN2 E Palm Canyon Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. (Incl.

Cath Cyn Br.) Yes
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN4 N side of Whitewater Br. to Dinah Shore Dr No CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN5 Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd No
COOK ST (formerly CHASE
SCHOOL RD) CHSC1 I-10 IC to Ramon Rd Yes
COOK ST CK4 Frank Sinatra Dr to Country Club Dr Yes
COOK ST CK5 Country Club Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. Yes COOK ST CK6 S side of Whitewater Br. to Fred Waring Dr Yes COOK ST CK7 Br. at Whitewater Chnl No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC4 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC5 Portola Ave to Cook St Yes
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC6 Cook St to Eldorado Dr No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC7 Eldorado Dr to Oasis Club Dr No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC8 Oasis Club Dr to Washington St Yes
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY1 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave/Dinah Shore Dr Yes CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY2 Dinah Shore Dr/Mesquite Ave to 34th Ave Yes CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY3A Br. at Palm Cyn Chnl No DA VALL DR DVALL1 Dinah Shore to Ramon Rd No
DA VALL DR DVALL2 Ramon Rd to McCallum Way No
DA VALL DR DVALL3 McCallum Way to 30th Ave No
DA VALL DR DVALL4 30th Ave to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR) No DA VALL DR DVALL5 Future Da Vall I-10 IC Yes
DA VALL DR DVALL6 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (Incl. Br. at Long Cyn Chnl) Yes DATE PALM DR DPLM0A Hwy 111 (E Palm Cyn Dr) to Gerald Ford Dr (Incl. at Cath. Cyn Br., excludes WW Br.) No
DATE PALM DR DPLM0B Gerald Ford Dr to Dinah Shore Dr No DATE PALM DR DPLM0C Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd No
DATE PALM DR DPLM1 Ramon Rd to McCallum Way No
DATE PALM DR DPLM2 McCallum Way to 30th Ave No
DATE PALM DR DPLM3 30th Ave to Vista Chino No
DILLON RD DLN1 SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr Yes
DILLON RD DLN2 Intersection of Dillon Rd & N Indian Canyon Dr Yes DILLON RD DLN3 N Indian Canyon Dr to Palm Dr (Incl. Future Br. at Mission Cr.) Yes
DILLON RD DLN4 Intersection of Dillon Rd & Palm Dr Yes
DILLON RD DLN5 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Yes
Item 2C - Page 48
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Yes No
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
DILLON RD DLN6 Mountain View Rd to Bennett Rd Yes
DILLON RD DLN7 Bennett Rd to Thousand Palms Cyn Rd (Incl. Br. At Wide Cyn Chnl) No
DILLON RD DLN8 Thousand Palms Cyn Rd to Sunny Rock Rd No DILLON RD DLN9 Sunny Rock Rd to Ave 44 (Incl. Br. over All-Amer.

Canal) No
DILLON RD DLN10 Ave 44 to I-10 IC Yes
DILLON RD DLN11 I-10 IC to N side of Whitewater Br. No
DILLON RD DLN12 Br. at Whitewater Chnl Yes
DILLON RD DLN13 S side of Whitewater Br. to Hwy 111 Yes DILLON RD DLN14 Dillon Rd I-10 IC Yes
DILLON RD DLN15 Dillon Rd SR-86S IC Yes
DUNE PALMS RD DUNEP1 Br. at Whitewater Chnl No
DUNE PALMS RD DUNEP2 Highway 111 to Blackhawk Way (formerly Westward Ho) No
E PALM CYN DR PLCN7 Palm Cyn Dr to Sunrise Way No
E PALM CYN DR PLCN8 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr Yes
E PALM CYN DR PLCN9 Farrell Dr to Gene Autry Trl (Incl. Br. at Palm Cyn Wash) Yes
E PALM CYN DR PLCN11A Cathedral Canyon Dr to Date Palm Dr Yes E PALM CYN DR PLCN11B Date Palm Dr to E Cath. City limits Yes FRANK SINATRA DR FS6 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave Yes
FRANK SINATRA DR FS7 Portola Ave to Cook St No
FRANK SINATRA DR FS8 Cook St to Eldorado Dr No
FRANK SINATRA DR FS9 Eldorado Dr to Tamarisk Row Dr No
FRED WARING DR FW1 Bridge at Whitewater River No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT1A Intersection of Gene Autry Trl and Mesquite Ave / Dinah Shore Dr No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2A E Palm Cyn to Eagle Way Yes
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2B Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash Yes
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2C N of Palm Canyon Wash Bridge to 0.18 mi south of Mesquite Ave No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2D 0.18 mi S of Mesquite Ave to Mesquite Ave No GENE AUTRY TR GAT2E Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd Yes
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2F Ramon to Escena Way No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2G Escena Way to Vista Chino No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT3 Future Whitewater Rvr Br. Yes
GERALD FORD DR GFD4 Cook St to Frank Sinatra Dr No
GERALD FORD DR GFD5 Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr and Bob Hope Dr Yes GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY1 Golf Center Pkwy. I-10 IC Yes
GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY4 Ave 45 to Hwy 111 Yes
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF1 Ave 48/Dillon Rd to Ave 50 Yes
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF2 Ave 50 to Ave 52 Yes
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF3 Ave 52 to Ave 54 Yes
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF4 Ave 54 to Ave 56 No
HACIENDA AVE (now RUBY DR & E HAC0A SR62 to N Indian Canyon Dr Yes HACIENDA AVE (currently 13TH AV HAC0B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd Yes HACIENDA AVE HAC1A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr Yes HACIENDA AVE HAC1B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr Yes
HACIENDA AVE HAC2 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd No
Item 2C - Page 49
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Yes No
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
HACIENDA AVE HAC3 Mountain View Rd to Dillon Rd (Long Cyn Rd) No HARRISON ST HARSN1 Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52 Yes
HARRISON ST HARSN2 Ave 52 to Ave 54 No
HARRISON ST HARSN3 Ave 54 to Ave 56 (Airport Blvd) Yes
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74A Highway 111 to El Paseo Yes
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74B El Paseo to Mesa View Dr No
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74C Mesa View Dr to S Palm Desert City Limits No HIGHWAY 111 HWY111F Cook St to Eldorado Dr Yes
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave Yes
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111H Miles Ave to Washington St (incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl) Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN1 Ramon Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Way Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN2 Tahquitz Cyn Way to Alejo Rd Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN3 Alejo Rd to Tachevah Dr Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN4 Tachevah Dr to Vista Chino Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN5 Vista Chino to Racquet Club Rd Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN6 Racquet Club Rd to Sunrise Pkwy No
INDIAN CYN DR INCN7 Sunrise Pkwy to Garnet Avenue Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN8 Garnet Ave to 20th Ave Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN11 Dillon Rd to 14th Ave Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN12 14th Ave to Pierson Blvd Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN13 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at Mission Cr.) Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN14 Mission Lakes Blvd to SR-62 No
INDIO BLVD INDIO0 I-10 Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 railroad bridges) Yes
INDIO BLVD INDIO1 Jefferson St to Madison St (over All-Amer. Canal) Yes JACKSON ST JAC2A1 I-10 IC to 43rd Ave Yes
JACKSON ST JAC2A2 43rd Ave to Ave 44 Yes
JACKSON ST JAC4 Ave 48 to Ave 50 Yes
JACKSON ST JAC5 Ave 50 to Ave 52 Yes
JACKSON ST JAC6 Jackson St I-10 IC Yes
JEFFERSON ST JEF1A Intersection of Jefferson St and Dunbar Dr No JEFFERSON ST JEF2A 58th Ave to 62th Ave Yes
JEFFERSON ST JEF9A1 40th Ave to 0.27 mi S of Ave 39 Yes JEFFERSON ST JEF9B Ave 39 to Ave 38 No
KEY LARGO AVE KL1 Dinah Shore Dr. to Varner Rd (Incl. flyover at I-10 and RR) Yes
LANDAU BLVD LAN1 Vista Chino to Verona Rd Yes
LANDAU BLVD LAN2 Verona Rd to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR, missing link) Yes LANDAU BLVD LAN3 Future Landau Blvd I-10 IC (missing link) Yes LANDAU BLVD LAN4 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (missing link) Yes LITTLE MORONGO RD LM1 Mission Lakes Blvd to Pierson Blvd No LITTLE MORONGO RD LM2 Pierson Blvd to Two Bunch Palms Trl Yes LITTLE MORONGO RD LM3 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Dillon Rd (Incl. Future Br. at Mission Cr.) Yes
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM4 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave Yes
MADISON ST MAD5 Ave 52 to Ave 50 Yes
Item 2C - Page 50
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Yes No
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
MADISON ST MAD7A 0.25 mi N of Ave 49 to Ave 48 Yes
MADISON ST MAD7B Ave 48 to Hwy 111 Yes
MADISON ST MAD9 Miles Ave to Fred Waring Dr (Incl. Br. over WW Chnl and All-Amer. Canal, missing link) Yes
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK0 SR 62 to Indian Canyon Dr Yes
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd No MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr No MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK3 Palm Dr to Eastern Terminus at Verbena Dr No MONROE ST MON1 0.25 mi N of Ave 42 to Ave 42 Yes
MONROE ST MON6 Monroe St I-10 IC Yes
MONROE ST MON7 Ave 54 to 58th Ave No
MONROE ST MON8A 58th Ave to Ave 60 No
MONROE ST MON8B Ave 60 to 62nd Ave No
MONROE ST MON9 I-10 Interchange to 900 ft N of Oleander Yes MONTEREY AVE MNT1-6 Highway 111 to Fred Waring Dr Yes
MONTEREY AVE MNT2-6 Fred Waring Dr to Clancy Lane (Incl. Br. at Whitewater River) Yes
MONTEREY AVE MNT3-6 Clancy Lane to Country Club Dr Yes
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV0 Pierson Blvd at E Terminus of Desert View Ave to Hacienda Ave No
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1A Hacienda Ave to Brunner Ln Yes
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1B Brunner Ln to Dillon Rd Yes
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV2 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave No
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV3 20th Ave to Varner Rd No
N PALM CYN DR PLCN1 Vista Chino to Tachevah Dr No
N PALM CYN DR PLCN2 Tachevah Dr to Alejo Rd No
N PALM CYN DR PLCN3 Alejo Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Rd Yes
N PALM CYN DR PLCN4 Tahquitz Cyn Rd to Ramon Rd Yes
N PALM CYN DR PLCN5 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave (Incl. Br at Tahquitz Crk.) Yes N PALM CYN DR PLCN6 Mesquite Ave to E Palm Cyn Dr Yes
PALM DR PD1 I-10 IC to Varner Rd Yes
PALM DR PD2 Varner Rd to 20th Ave No
PALM DR PD3 20th Ave to Dillon Rd Yes
PALM DR PD4 Dillon Rd to Two Bunch Palms Trl Yes
PALM DR PD5 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Hacienda Ave No
PALM DR PD6 Hacienda Ave to Pierson Blvd No
PALM DR PD7 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd Yes
PIERSON BLVD PRS1 SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr No
PIERSON BLVD PRS2 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (Incl. Br. at Mission Cr.) No
PIERSON BLVD PRS3A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr No
PIERSON BLVD PRS3B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr No
PIERSON BLVD PRS4A Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd No
PIERSON BLVD PRS4B Miracle Hill Rd to Eastern Terminus of Desert View Av. No POLK ST PLK1 Polk St from Ave 52 to Ave 48 Yes
PORTOLA AVE POR1 Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr Yes
PORTOLA AVE POR2 Magnesia Falls Dr to Country Club Dr (Excl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) No
PORTOLA AVE POR3 Country Club Dr to Frank Sinatra Dr Yes PORTOLA AVE POR4A Frank Sinatra Dr to Julie Ln Yes
Item 2C - Page 51
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Yes No
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
PORTOLA AVE POR5B Dinah Shore Dr to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR) Yes PORTOLA AVE POR6 Future Portola Ave I-10 IC Yes
RAMON RD RAM1 S Palm Cyn Dr to S Indian Cyn Dr Yes
RAMON RD RAM2 S Indian Cyn to Sunrise Way (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl Xing) Yes
RAMON RD RAM3 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr Yes
RAMON RD RAM3A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Sunrise Way Yes RAMON RD RAM4 Farrell Dr to El Cielo Rd Yes
RAMON RD RAM4A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Farrell Drive Yes RAMON RD RAM5 El Cielo Rd to Gene Autry Trl Yes
RAMON RD RAM5A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Crossley Rd Yes RAMON RD RAM7 Br. at Whitewater Rvr Yes
RAMON RD RAM15 Monterey Ave to Thousand Palms Cyn Rd No S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV1 Monroe St to Jackson St Yes
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV2 Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV3 Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes S VALLEY PKWY SV4 Harrison St to Tyler St (missing link) Yes S VALLEY PKWY SV5 Tyler St to Polk St (missing link) Yes S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE SV6 Polk St to Fillmore St No
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE SV7 Fillmore St to Pierce St (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) No S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE SV8 Pierce St to SR-86 Yes
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE SV9 Future Ave 62 SR-86 IC Yes THOUSAND PALMS CYN RD THPL1 Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd Yes
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR / 14TH
AVE TBP1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd Yes
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr Yes TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP3 Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd Yes
TYLER ST TYL1 Ave 50 to I-10 frontage road Yes
VAN BUREN ST VANB2 Ave 48 to Ave 50 Yes
VAN BUREN ST VANB3 Ave 50 to Ave 52 Yes
VAN BUREN ST VANB4 Ave 52 to Ave 54 No
VAN BUREN ST VANB5 Ave 54 to Ave 56/Airport Blvd Yes VARNER RD VRNR0 20th Ave to Palm Dr Yes
VARNER RD VRNR1 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Yes
VARNER RD VRNR2 Mountain View Rd to Date Palm Dr Yes
VARNER RD VRNR3 Date Palm Dr to Ramon Rd Yes
VARNER RD VRNR6 Monterey Ave to Cook St No
VARNER RD VRNR7B Ave 38 to Washington St Yes
VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR9 Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. over All-Amer.

Canal) Yes
VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR10A Madison St to Clinton St No
VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR10B Clinton St to Monroe St Yes
VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR11 Monroe St to Gore St Yes
VISTA CHINO VC1 N Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise Way Yes
VISTA CHINO VC1A Intersection of Vista Chino and N Palm Canyon Dr Yes VISTA CHINO VC2 Sunrise Way to Gene Autry Trl Yes
VISTA CHINO VC2AA Intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise Way Yes VISTA CHINO VC2AB Intersection of Vista Chino and Farrell Drive Yes VISTA CHINO VC2A Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trl Yes VISTA CHINO VC3 Gene Autry Trl to W side of Whitewater Rvr Yes Item 2C - Page 52
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Yes No
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
VISTA CHINO VC4 Future Whitewater Rvr Br. Yes
VISTA CHINO VC5 E side of Whitewater Rvr to Landau Blvd No VISTA CHINO VC7 Date Palm Dr to Da Vall Dr Yes
WASHINGTON ST WSH9 I-10 IC to Ave 38 Yes
WASHINGTON ST WSH10A Ave 38 to Coyote Song Way No
WASHINGTON ST WSH10B Coyote Song Way to Ramon Rd No
WORSLEY RD WORS1 20th Ave to Dillon Rd No
WORSLEY RD WORS2 Dillon Rd to 1 mile S of Pierson Blvd No WORSLEY RD WORS3 1 mile S of Pierson Blvd to Pierson Blvd No WORSLEY RD WORS4 Pierson Blvd to N Indian Canyon Dr Yes Total 188 94
Item 2C - Page 53

APPENDIX B:

Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates
Item 2C - Page 54
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description Project Costs
20TH AVE 20B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (missing link) $11,208,000 20TH AVE 20C Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr (missing link) $15,974,400 20TH AVE 20D Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $7,036,800
AVE 44 44A Ave 44 Br./Low Water Xing $14,313,000
AVE 44 44B Monroe St to Low Water Xing $7,411,950
AVE 44 44C Low Water Xing to Dillon Rd $12,083,250
AVE 48 48E Jackson St to Van Buren St $5,315,970
AVE 48 48F Van Buren St to W of SR-86 $2,275,088
AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR $22,011,480 AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC $55,222,500
AVE 50 50B1 Washington St to E side of Br. at Evac. Chnl (Incl. Br. at Evac. Chnl) $8,799,480
AVE 50 50C Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. at All-Amer. Canal) $7,131,405 AVE 50 50D Madison St to Monroe St $4,977,480
AVE 50 50E Monroe St to Jackson St $2,304,030
AVE 50 50F Jackson St to Van Buren St $12,084,000
AVE 50 50G Van Buren St to Harrison St $14,301,582
AVE 50 50I2 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $3,356,880 AVE 50 50J Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR $21,687,600
AVE 50 50K SR-86S to I-10 IC $45,177,600
AVE 50 50L Br. at All-Amer. Canal (in 50K) $3,952,320
AVE 50 50M Future Ave 50 I-10 IC $62,687,500
AVE 52 52B Jefferson St to Madison St (Excl. Br. at All-Amer. Canal) $2,075,940 AVE 52 52D Monroe St to Jackson St $4,195,800
AVE 52 52E Jackson St to Calhoun St $2,660,400
AVE 52 52F1 Calhoun St to Van Buren St $2,699,400
AVE 52 52F2 Van Buren St to Frederick St $4,689,300
AVE 52 52G Frederick St to Harrison St $6,190,104
AVE 52 52IA Harrison St to Shady Ln $13,286,328
AVE 52 52IB Shady Ln to Hwy 111 $1,629,900
AVE 52 52K Future Ave 52 SR-86S IC $53,782,500
AVE 52 52L Hwy 111 to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $22,536,194 AVE 52 52M SR-86S to Pierce St $20,556,880
AVE 54 54A Van Buren St to Harrison St $4,794,900 AVE 54 54B Harrison St to Tyler St $4,560,300
AVE 54 54C Tyler St to Hwy 111 $6,380,750
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56G Polk St to Highway 111 (Grapefruit Blvd) $1,155,714 AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56I SPRR to SR-86 (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $13,329,000 58TH AVE 58D Jackson St to Van Buren St $4,583,040
58TH AVE 58E Van Buren St to Harrison St $4,583,040
66TH AVE 66A Future 66th Ave SR-86 IC $46,934,500
66TH AVE 66B 66th Ave Br./Low Water Xing $2,826,960
66TH AVE 66C Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (Bridge) $48,044,000 CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN2 E Palm Canyon Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. (Incl. Cath Cyn Br.) $4,815,850
COOK ST (formerly CHASE
SCHOOL RD) CHSC1 I-10 IC to Ramon Rd $25,501,600
COOK ST CK4 Frank Sinatra Dr to Country Club Dr $3,997,488 COOK ST CK5 Country Club Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. $6,228,320 Item 2C - Page 55
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description Project Costs
COOK ST CK6 S side of Whitewater Br. to Fred Waring Dr $1,212,030 COUNTRY CLUB DR CC5 Portola Ave to Cook St $3,714,480
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC8 Oasis Club Dr to Washington St $3,812,300

CROSSLEY RD / GOLF
CLUB DR CROSLY1 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave/Dinah Shore Dr $2,283,600

CROSSLEY RD / GOLF
CLUB DR CROSLY2 Dinah Shore Dr/Mesquite Ave to 34th Ave $2,928,100 DA VALL DR DVALL5 Future Da Vall I-10 IC $71,647,500
DA VALL DR DVALL6 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (Incl. Br. at Long Cyn Chnl) $24,753,600 DILLON RD DLN1 SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr $29,522,800
DILLON RD DLN2 Intersection of Dillon Rd & N Indian Canyon Dr $956,500 DILLON RD DLN3 N Indian Canyon Dr to Palm Dr (Incl. Future Br. at Mission Cr.) $12,887,680
DILLON RD DLN4 Intersection of Dillon Rd & Palm Dr $956,500 DILLON RD DLN5 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $5,353,920
DILLON RD DLN6 Mountain View Rd to Bennett Rd $11,495,760 DILLON RD DLN10 Ave 44 to I-10 IC $9,427,480
DILLON RD DLN12 Br. at Whitewater Chnl $1,487,125
DILLON RD DLN13 S side of Whitewater Br. to Hwy 111 $4,062,858 DILLON RD DLN14 Dillon Rd I-10 IC $18,150,000
DILLON RD DLN15 Dillon Rd SR-86S IC $15,360,000
E PALM CYN DR PLCN8 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr $1,531,200 E PALM CYN DR PLCN9 Farrell Dr to Gene Autry Trl (Incl. Br. at Palm Cyn Wash) $7,725,600 E PALM CYN DR PLCN11A Cathedral Canyon Dr to Date Palm Dr $2,166,000 E PALM CYN DR PLCN11B Date Palm Dr to E Cath. City limits $2,483,800 FRANK SINATRA DR FS6 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave $4,750,434 GENE AUTRY TR GAT2A E Palm Cyn to Eagle Way $631,450
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2B Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash $6,655,700 GENE AUTRY TR GAT2E Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd $957,600
GENE AUTRY TR GAT3 Future Whitewater Rvr Br. $233,900,000 GERALD FORD DR GFD5 Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr and Bob Hope Dr $1,099,332 GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY1 Golf Center Pkwy. I-10 IC $19,481,100 GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY4 Ave 45 to Hwy 111 $2,725,800
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF1 Ave 48/Dillon Rd to Ave 50 $4,978,000 GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF2 Ave 50 to Ave 52 $12,157,200
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF3 Ave 52 to Ave 54 $12,772,500
HACIENDA AVE (now RUBY
DR and ESTRADA AVE) HAC0A SR62 to N Indian Canyon Dr $34,336,000 HACIENDA AVE (now 13TH
AVE) HAC0B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd $12,503,040 HACIENDA AVE HAC1A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr $7,793,280 HACIENDA AVE HAC1B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr $2,653,200
HARRISON ST HARSN1 Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52 $3,677,200 HARRISON ST HARSN3 Ave 54 to Ave 56 (Airport Blvd) $9,694,080 HIGHWAY 74 HWY74A Highway 111 to El Paseo $450,240
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111F Cook St to Eldorado Dr $3,537,600
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave $4,924,800 HIGHWAY 111 HWY111H Miles Ave to Washington St (incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl) $7,573,400 INDIAN CYN DR INCN1 Ramon Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Way $5,847,600 INDIAN CYN DR INCN2 Tahquitz Cyn Way to Alejo Rd $2,123,550 INDIAN CYN DR INCN3 Alejo Rd to Tachevah Dr $2,383,200
Item 2C - Page 56
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description Project Costs
INDIAN CYN DR INCN4 Tachevah Dr to Vista Chino $1,463,550 INDIAN CYN DR INCN5 Vista Chino to Racquet Club Rd $1,440,900 INDIAN CYN DR INCN7 Sunrise Pkwy to Garnet Avenue $204,099,790 INDIAN CYN DR INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave $1,722,800
INDIAN CYN DR INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd $7,379,840
INDIAN CYN DR INCN11 Dillon Rd to 14th Ave $5,510,000
INDIAN CYN DR INCN12 14th Ave to Pierson Blvd $4,903,440 INDIAN CYN DR INCN13 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at Mission Cr.) $6,945,600
INDIO BLVD INDIO0 I-10 Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 railroad bridges) $21,888,720 INDIO BLVD INDIO1 Jefferson St to Madison St (over All-Amer. Canal) $2,920,195 JACKSON ST JAC2A1 I-10 IC to 43rd Ave $17,915,106
JACKSON ST JAC2A2 43rd Ave to Ave 44 $10,967,500
JACKSON ST JAC4 Ave 48 to Ave 50 $5,615,280
JACKSON ST JAC5 Ave 50 to Ave 52 $2,047,650
JACKSON ST JAC6 Jackson St I-10 IC $19,826,100
JEFFERSON ST JEF2A 58th Ave to 62th Ave $13,518,000
JEFFERSON ST JEF9A1 40th Ave to 0.27 mi S of Ave 39 $1,011,840 KEY LARGO AVE KL1 Dinah Shore Dr. to Varner Rd (Incl. flyover at I-10 and RR) $23,868,000 LANDAU BLVD LAN1 Vista Chino to Verona Rd $832,000
LANDAU BLVD LAN2 Verona Rd to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR, missing link) $19,280,000 LANDAU BLVD LAN3 Future Landau Blvd I-10 IC (missing link) $71,647,500 LANDAU BLVD LAN4 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (missing link) $22,614,400 LITTLE MORONGO RD LM2 Pierson Blvd to Two Bunch Palms Trl $4,506,240 LITTLE MORONGO RD LM3 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Dillon Rd (Incl. Future Br. at Mission Cr.) $14,539,120
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM4 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave $19,768,320 MADISON ST MAD5 Ave 52 to Ave 50 $6,608,460
MADISON ST MAD7A 0.25 mi N of Ave 49 to Ave 48 $898,920 MADISON ST MAD7B Ave 48 to Hwy 111 $1,450,140
MADISON ST MAD9 Miles Ave to Fred Waring Dr (Incl. Br. over WW Chnl and All- Amer. Canal, missing link) $18,607,200
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK0 SR 62 to Indian Canyon Dr $29,315,840 MONROE ST MON1 0.25 mi N of Ave 42 to Ave 42 $1,754,280 MONROE ST MON6 Monroe St I-10 IC $2,400,000
MONROE ST MON9 I-10 Interchange to 900 ft N of Oleander $15,467,750 MONTEREY AVE MNT1-6 Highway 111 to Fred Waring Dr $1,240,800 MONTEREY AVE MNT2-6 Fred Waring Dr to Clancy Lane (Incl. Br. at Whitewater River) $13,247,266 MONTEREY AVE MNT3-6 Clancy Lane to Country Club Dr $3,557,376 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1A Hacienda Ave to Brunner Ln $4,016,160 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1B Brunner Ln to Dillon Rd $3,315,840 N PALM CYN DR PLCN3 Alejo Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Rd $1,182,150 N PALM CYN DR PLCN4 Tahquitz Cyn Rd to Ramon Rd $1,310,850 N PALM CYN DR PLCN5 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave (Incl. Br at Tahquitz Creek) $6,437,440 N PALM CYN DR PLCN6 Mesquite Ave to E Palm Cyn Dr $1,436,200 PALM DR PD1 I-10 IC to Varner Rd $4,024,416
PALM DR PD3 20th Ave to Dillon Rd $7,736,256
PALM DR PD4 Dillon Rd to Two Bunch Palms Trl $5,359,464 Item 2C - Page 57
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description Project Costs
PALM DR PD7 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd $4,241,952 POLK ST PLK1 Polk St from Ave 52 to Ave 48 $19,754,280
PORTOLA AVE POR1 Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr $5,638,410 PORTOLA AVE POR3 Country Club Dr to Frank Sinatra Dr $4,180,000 PORTOLA AVE POR4A Frank Sinatra Dr to Julie Ln $2,606,400 PORTOLA AVE POR5B Dinah Shore Dr to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR) $23,026,500 PORTOLA AVE POR6 Future Portola Ave I-10 IC $71,647,500 RAMON RD RAM1 S Palm Cyn Dr to S Indian Cyn Dr $372,240 RAMON RD RAM2 S Indian Cyn to Sunrise Way (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl Xing) $4,279,950 RAMON RD RAM3 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr $2,574,880
RAMON RD RAM3A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Sunrise Way $1,051,947 RAMON RD RAM4 Farrell Dr to El Cielo Rd $1,717,600
RAMON RD RAM4A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Farrell Drive $957,177 RAMON RD RAM5 El Cielo Rd to Gene Autry Trl $8,367,900
RAMON RD RAM5A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Crossley Rd $1,051,947 RAMON RD RAM7 Br. at Whitewater Rvr $24,864,323
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV1 Monroe St to Jackson St $4,494,240 S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV2 Jackson St to Van Buren St $4,741,440 S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV3 Van Buren St to Harrison St $5,269,440 S VALLEY PKWY SV4 Harrison St to Tyler St (missing link) $9,583,600 S VALLEY PKWY SV5 Tyler St to Polk St (missing link) $10,562,080 S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND
AVE SV8 Pierce St to SR-86 $3,892,200
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND
AVE SV9 Future Ave 62 SR-86 IC $46,550,500

THOUSAND PALMS CYN
RD THPL1 Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd $17,252,840

TWO BUNCH PALMS TR /
14TH AVE TBP1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd $12,522,240 TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr $5,422,560 TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP3 Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd $4,278,787 TYLER ST TYL1 Ave 50 to I-10 frontage road $11,854,020
VAN BUREN ST VANB2 Ave 48 to Ave 50 $3,519,200
VAN BUREN ST VANB3 Ave 50 to Ave 52 $4,690,800
VAN BUREN ST VANB5 Ave 54 to Ave 56/Airport Blvd $5,332,536 VARNER RD VRNR0 20th Ave to Palm Dr $20,249,600
VARNER RD VRNR1 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $6,295,000
VARNER RD VRNR2 Mountain View Rd to Date Palm Dr $12,505,200 VARNER RD VRNR3 Date Palm Dr to Ramon Rd $47,489,880
VARNER RD VRNR7B Ave 38 to Washington St $11,293,450
VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR9 Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. over All-Amer. Canal) $9,872,400 VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR10B Clinton St to Monroe St $4,952,640 VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR11 Monroe St to Gore St $2,327,424 VISTA CHINO VC1 N Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise Way $5,288,420 VISTA CHINO VC1A Intersection of Vista Chino and N Palm Canyon Dr $984,150 VISTA CHINO VC2 Sunrise Way to Gene Autry Trl $5,668,080 VISTA CHINO VC2AA Intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise Way $1,073,547 VISTA CHINO VC2AB Intersection of Vista Chino and Farrell Drive $967,677 VISTA CHINO VC2A Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trl $1,014,039 VISTA CHINO VC3 Gene Autry Trl to W side of Whitewater Rvr $1,185,600 Item 2C - Page 58
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description Project Costs
VISTA CHINO VC4 Future Whitewater Rvr Br. $94,701,810
VISTA CHINO VC7 Date Palm Dr to Da Vall Dr $20,625,000
WASHINGTON ST WSH9 I-10 IC to Ave 38 $3,055,200
WORSLEY RD WORS4 Pierson Blvd to N Indian Canyon Dr $11,646,600 Total $2,505,969,566
Item 2C - Page 59
55575.17003\42697392.1

A-2

ATTACHMENT 2

CVAG STAFF REPORT ON TUMF INFLATION ADJUSTMENT
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2025

Item 2C - Page 60
ITEM 7H
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Executive Committee
April 29, 2023

STAFF REPORT
Subject: TUMF Inflation Adjustment for Calendar Year 2025

Contact: Peter Satin, Conservation Program Manager ([email protected])

Recommendation: Adopt a 3.6-percent increase in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) rates to take effect January 1, 2025, and update the TUMF Handbook to reflect the revised fee upon its effective date

Transportation Committee: Concurred (Meeting of April 1)

Background: The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) was established in 1989 as a one-time impact fee charged on all new development occurring within the CVAG region. Monies collected through the TUMF program are applied to transportation-related capital facilities and infrastructure required to serve new growth within the Coachella Valley and are intended to compliment revenue generated through Riverside County’s Measure A sales tax. To date, TUMF has provided less than the intended share of match toward Measure A funding.

The current TUMF rates were adopted in 2018 upon the completion of a revised Nexus Study, Transportation Project Prioritization Study, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate, and Active Transportation Plan. Prior to their adoption, the fee had remained unchanged at $192/trip for over a decade. The 2018 Nexus Study originally proposed a revised fee of $751/trip; however, this fee was reduced to the current $245/trip after re-evaluating which regional transportation projects would likely be built in the near-term. This rate equates to $2,313 for a single-family dwelling, as compared to the $10,104 currently charged by Western Riverside Council of Governments for similar development.

The 2018 TUMF Handbook allows for the consideration of an annual inflation adjustment:

The inflation factor shall be the same one utilized by the Coachella Valley Local Development Mitigation Fee, based on the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Consumer Price Index (CPI). Such CPI will be reviewed annually by the Executive Committee which will determine whether or not to apply the inflation factor.

The Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) inflation factor is calculated on the CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U), All items, as the over -the-year percent change, measured as of December in the calendar year which ends in the previous fiscal year. The Riverside- San Bernardino-Ontario CPI is measured every other month, and does not include data for the month of December. To approximate a data point for an unrecorded month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recommends taking the square root of the product of the indexes for the preceding and subsequent months, in this case November and January. This approximated December data point can then be used to calculate the over-the-year percent change.

Item 2C - Page 61
Applying regular increases due to inflation is a preferred approach to infrequent increases to catch up over time. An inflation factor of 7.4 -percent was applied across each of CVAG’s TUMF categories by the Executive Committee at its April 2023 meeting. In accordance with California’s Mitigation Fee Act, and to allow member jurisdictions time to update their local TUMF ordinances as needed, implementation of the inflation factor did not go into effect until January 1, 2024.

The CPI-U, All items for the Riverside -San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan area rose by 3.58- percent for calendar year 2023. BLS notes that some entities choose to calculate “core” inflation on the CPI-U, less food and energy (the latter of which includes motor fuel), as these items tend to be more volatile in their pricing. Removing these volatile items from the regional CPI results in an inflation factor of 4.72-percent, largely due to reductions in the price of fuel and other energy sources. CVAG staff recommend applying the CPI-U, All items inflation factor of 3.58-percent to the current fee assessments, as described in the below table.

TUMF Category Current Rate Proposed Rate Difference
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Single family detached $2,740 $2,840 $100
Multi-family attached $1,580 $1,635 $55
Nursing/congregate care $585 $605 $20
Transit oriented single family $2,330 $2,415 $85
Transit oriented multi-family $1,345 $1,395 $50
Non-Residential (per 1,000 sq. ft)
Retail $7,130 $7,385 $255
Office $2,835 $2,935 $100
Industrial $1,440 $1,490 $50
Fuel - gas (per dispensing unit) $10,220 $10,585 $365
Fuel - electric (per dispensing unit) $105 $110 $5
Hotel (per room) $4,165 $4,315 $150
Golf course (per acre) $1,090 $1,130 $40

The revised rates would be implemented January 1, 2025 so that member jurisdictions will have sufficient time to amend local ordinances. The rates listed in the TUMF Handbook will also be updated at that time to reflect the adjustment.

This information was provided to the Desert Valleys Builders Association (DVBA) for comment on March 8, 2024. They have submitted a letter (attached) indicating support for a “periodic, systematic, and standard increase.”
Fiscal Analysis: Based on TUMF revenues generated in fiscal year 2022-2023, adjusting current TUMF rates based on the CPI-U, All items inflation rate of 3.56-percent would result in additional revenue of $275,774.

Revising the TUMF Handbook will have no fiscal impact.

Attachments: DVBA comment letter dated March 21, 2023
Item 2C - Page 62
Item 2C - Page 63
2024
BOARD
OF

DIRECTORS
PRESIDENT Paul
Ma
honey,
PMA
Adve1tising
Immediate
Past
President
Todd
Hooks
Agua
Caliente
Band
of
Cahuilla
Indians
J>
1 VICE

PRESIDENT
Tom
Dubose
Dubose
Design
Group,
Inc.

SECRETARY/TREASURER Pedro
Rincon
Osborne
Rincon
CPAs
VICE

PRESIJJENT
OF

ASSOC/A
TES
Allan
Levin
Allan
Levin
&
Associates
CHIEF

EXECUTIVE

OFFICER
Gretchen
Gutierrez

DIRECTO
RS
Fred
BelV
2024
PAC
Chairman
Nobel!
Energy
So
lutions
Brian
Benedetti
Brian
Benedetti
Construc
tion
Mark
Benedett
i
Mario
Gonzales
-
Presidents
Council
GHA
Companies
Joe
Hayes
-
Presiden
ts Council
Jeremy
Roos
Agua
Caliente
Band
of
Cahui
lla
Ind
ians
Dave
Lippe
rt
Lippe1t
Construc
tion,
Inc
Bruce
Maize
Orr
Builders
Russ
Martin
M
ission
Springs
Water
District
Deborah
McGarrey
Southern
Californ
ia Gas
Company
Dan
Olivier
Nethery
Mueller O
livier
Alan
Pace
Petra
GeoSciences
Kevin
Pi
llow
PS
A
ir Museum
John
Powell,
Jr.

Coac
hella
Valley
Wa
ter
Distr
ict
Ph
il Sm
ith
-
Presidents
Council
Sunrise
Company
Alissa
Vatter
Fide
lity
N
atio
nal Ti
tle
Jeff
Wattenbarge
r -
Preside
nts
Council
Watte
nbarge
r Construct
ion
Miche
lle Witherspoon
MSA
Consulting
desert
valleys
builders
association
March
21,
2024
Coachella
Valley
Association
of
Governments
Tom
Kirk
, Executive
Director
c/o
Peter
Satin,
Conservation
Program
Manager
74-199
El
Paseo,
Suite
100
Palm
Desert,
CA
92260
Re:

Annual
TUMF
Report
TUMF
Dear
Mr.

Kirk:

Thank
you
for
providing
the
Desert
Valleys
Builders
Association
the
opportunity
to
review
the
Coachella
Valley
Association
of
Government's
"Annual
Inflation
Adjustment
to
the
TUMF
Fee.
" The
DVBA
supports
our
local
agencies'
periodic, systematic,
and
standard
increase
of
costs
based
on
recognized
traditional
methods
such
as
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
Consumer
Price
Index.

The
Desert
Valleys
Builders
Association
is
satisfied
that
CVAG
has
met
its
obligations
in
its
noticing
and
adherence
to
the
Mitigation
Fee
Act
in
calculating
a reasonable
fee
increase.
34360
Gateway
Dr
ive
•
Palm
Desert
• CA
9221
1 (7
60)
77 6-700
l
office
•
(7
60)
77 6-7002
fax
www.

The
DYBA
org
55575.17003\42697392.1

A-3

ATTACHMENT 3

CVAG REVISED TUMF FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2025

Item 2C - Page 64

May 1, 2024

REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE EFFECTIVE JAUARY 1, 2025

For any question regarding the application of TUMF, please contact the Coachella Valley Association of Governments at (760) 346-1127 or by emailing [email protected] .

Item 2C - Page 65

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
74-199 El Paseo Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92260 • 760 346-1127 • cvag.org CVAG

Palm Springs City CouncilOctober 24, 2024

Palm Springs City Council
October 24, 2024