City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2024-01718 10/22/2024 Public Hearing Item 18.
Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee Program: Nexus Study Update and Revised Agreement on Operating Protocols
File ID: 2024-01718
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee Program 2024 Nexus Study Update Report and authorizing the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee to execute a revised Agreement on Operating Protocols for the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Development Impact Fee Program.
Contact: Lucinda Willcox, Assistant Director, (916) 808-5052; [email protected], Public Works Department
Presenter: Lucinda Willcox, Assistant Director, (916) 808-5052; [email protected], Public Works Department
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Resolution
3-Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study Update Report 4-Exhibit A Fee Schedule
5-Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Agreement on Operating Protocols - Amended August 2024
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: Funding for countywide transportation improvements is provided by the voter-approved Measure A, which is a half-cent supplemental sales tax that must be used for specific transportation related purposes. As a condition of local agencies receiving their allocated share of Measure A funds for street maintenance, all the incorporated cities and the County are required to implement a uniform transportation mitigation fee on new development to support the Expenditure Plan as approved through Measure A.
Since April 1, 2009, the City has been administering the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee (SCTMP), following the approval of the Nexus Study, adoption of an Agreement on
File ID: 2024-01718 10/22/2024 Public Hearing Item 18.
Operating Protocols with the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA), and the addition of Chapter
18.48 to the City Code. All fee revenues are provided to the STA, which oversees the implementation of the Measure A program. These impact fee revenues support the Measure A Expenditure Plan, as outlined in the Measure and approved by the STA Board.
The STA has undertaken a comprehensive update to the SCTMP to align with updated conditions and legal requirements. While the STA manages the fee program, local agencies are required to individually adopt the Nexus Study and collect the associated fees.
The SCTMP Nexus Study update included new land use forecasts for all of Sacramento County, status updates on transportation projects in the Measure A Expenditure Plan, revised project costs, updated trip generation rates, and projections for new transportation needs based on anticipated development. The update also incorporates revised STA Board policies and compliance with Assembly Bill 602 (2021), which creates more residential categories with fees based on size of the residential unit, so that larger units pay more than smaller units.
Additionally, a revised Agreement on Operating Protocols between the City and STA is proposed to update the requirements related to the City’s collection and management of these fees.
Policy Considerations: This action is consistent with Measure A approved by countywide voters. On September 26, 2006, by Resolution No. 2006-706, the City committed to implement the Measure A Mitigation Fee Program. The fee is authorized under City Code Chapter 18.48 Economic Impacts: None.
Environmental Considerations:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): This action involves a government fiscal activity that does not involve a commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Therefore, the proposal is not a 'project' in accordance with Section 15378(b)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Environmental review of each transportation project to be funded with Measure A sales taxes and impact fees will occur prior to any commitment by the City to implement that transportation system improvement.
Sustainability: Not applicable.
Commission/Committee Action: Not applicable.
Rationale for Recommendation: On June 13, 2024, the STA Board, of which the City is a member agency, approved a Resolution adopting the updated Nexus Study and setting the new rates to take effect on January 1, 2025. On August 8, 2024, the STA Board also approved a resolution authorizing
File ID: 2024-01718 10/22/2024 Public Hearing Item 18.
its Executive Director to execute amended agreements for SCTMFP Operating Protocols with its member agencies. In order for the City to continue receiving its allocation of street and roadway maintenance funding through Measure A, it is necessary to collect the SCTMFP. During preparation of the updated Nexus Study and Agreements and updated Operating Protocols, City staff provided comment and input to STA staff on these documents and is satisfied that all comments were adequately addressed. STA staff conducted outreach to the development industry and there were no concerns provided in writing and no comments at the STA Board hearing. The program includes fee exemptions for low and very low-income housing, accessory dwelling units of 750 square feet or less, and public projects. it also offers fee reductions for transit-oriented development and other projects with limited anticipated vehicle traffic.
Financial Considerations: The City is responsible for assessing fees on new development consistent with the adopted fee program and for collecting and forwarding the fee to STA. As permitted under the Operating Protocols, the City charges a 2% administrative fee to recover its costs to administer this fee. The administration fee revenues are split between the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The new Operating Protocols require that interest collected on the revenues be forwarded to STA, which is a standard practice among impact fee programs. Since revenues are forwarded every six months, this amount is not expected to be material.
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
Background: On July 29, 2004, the STA adopted Ordinance No. STA-04-01, which was subsequently approved by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of all cities in Sacramento County. This ordinance was placed on the ballot as Measure A and approved by the Sacramento County voters on November 2, 2004. Measure A established a 30-year, countywide half-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation purposes, effective from April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2039. The Measure also included an Expenditure Plan, which introduced a development impact fee to help fund a portion of the transportation improvements.
The Measure requires each local jurisdiction, as a condition of receiving its allocation of local road maintenance funds from sales tax revenues, to collect and remit SCTMFP fees to the STA.
Additionally, the STA Board mandated that agreements with each local jurisdiction be established to define the protocols for SCTMFP implementation.
In June 2006, the STA Governing Board adopted the Fee by (Nexus) Study for the SCTMFP through Resolution #2006-06, which confirmed the rates imposed on new developments by the County and cities. In August 2008, the STA Governing Board approved the SCTMFP agreement on operating protocols through Resolution #2008-01. The City of Sacramento adopted both the Nexus Study (Resolution R2009-0053) and Operating Protocols (R2009-0054).
File ID: 2024-01718 10/22/2024 Public Hearing Item 18.
In April 2022, the STA Governing Board authorized a contract with GHD Inc. (GHD) to update the 2006 Nexus Study for the SCTMFP and to address the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 602, which recommends that fees be proportionate to the square footage of the proposed housing developments.
The fees for the various development types were revised using the latest trip generation rates based on industry standards. Additionally, residential fees were updated to comply with AB 602, ensuring they are proportionate to the square footage of the proposed per-unit residential developments in the following five categories.
§ Very Small (<800 sq. ft.)
§ Small (801-1200 sq. ft)
§ Medium-Small (1201-1600 sq. ft)
§ Medium (1601-2400 sq. ft)
§ Large (>2400 sq. ft.)
The updated Nexus Study includes a revised project list that reflects the remaining projects from the Measure A Capital Expenditure Plan that have not yet been completed and have a nexus to new development.
Additional updates include the following:
• Allowing SCTMF regional fee collections to occur concurrently with a jurisdiction’s local fee(s) and/or other multijurisdictional fee(s).
• Introducing a new exemption for development projects where the applicant is the local jurisdiction.
• Requiring that the SCTMFP Fees be maintained in an interest-bearing account. • Establishing a process for utilizing project-specific transportation studies to calculate the SCTMFP
Fees.
• Implementing fee reductions for Transit Oriented Development based on assumed trip reductions.
All new low and very low-income housing as defined by the California Department of Housing & Community Development, is exempt from this fee program, as are Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) smaller than 750 square feet.
The Nexus Study was approved by the STA Board on June 8, 2024, and the amended SCTMFP Operating Protocols were authorized by the STA Board on August 8, 2024. The new fees will take effect on January 1, 2025.
RESOLUTION NO.
Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
October 22, 2024
APPROVING NEXUS STUDY, ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF FEES
AND EXECUTING AGREEMENT ON OPERATING PROTOCOLS FOR
THE SACRAMENTO COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION SACRAMENTO
COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
A. On July 29, 2004, STA adopted Ordinance No. 04-01, which established the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee (Measure A Mitigation Program) to be implemented by the County of Sacramento and each city within the county by April 1, 2009. STA Ordinance No 04-01 also included the Sacramento County Transportation Expenditure Plan 2009-2039 which sets out the allocation of the sales taxes and countywide development impact fees for specified public facilities.
B. On November 2, 2004, the Ordinance was approved by a public vote of the County electorate as Measure A.
C. On June 7, 2006, STA adopted Resolution No. 06-0006, approving the Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Study ("Measure A Nexus Study"), which identified the additional public facilities required by new development and determined the amount of the development impacts fees to be imposed on a countywide basis, so that all new development paid its fair share of the costs of new public facilities needed to serve such development.
D. On September 26, 2006, by Resolution No. 2006-706, the City Council committed to implement the Measure A Mitigation Fee Program.
E. On January 27, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2009-005, which added Chapter 18.48 to the Sacramento City Code to Establish Development Impact Fees for Measure A Transportation Improvements for Citywide Benefit.
F. On January 27, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 2009-0053, approving the Nexus Study
G. On January 27, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 2009-0054, approving the Agreement on Operating Protocols for the Measure A Mitigation Program with the STA.
H. On September 9, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution 2014-0310, approving an Amendment to the Agreement on Operating Protocols for the Measure A Mitigation Program
I. On June 8, 2024, the Governing Board of the Sacramento Transportation Authority approved the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee Program 2024 Nexus Study Update Report
J. On August 8, 2024, the Governing Board of the Sacramento Transportation Authority, authorized the Executive Director to enter into Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Agreement on Operating Protocols – Amended August 2024, with the City of Sacramento.
K. In accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) a public hearing was held on the adoption of 2024 Nexus Study, at which written and oral presentations were made as part of a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. The date, time and place of this public hearing was duly noticed in accordance with Government Code Sections 66018 and 6062a, and notice was mailed to any interested party who requested notice of adoption of new fees. The Nexus Study was were available for public inspection for a period of at least ten (10) days prior to said public hearing. Materials supplementing these studies and reports and all background data referenced therein was made available to interested parties upon request at least ten (10) days prior to the date of said hearing.
BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program 2024 Nexus Study is hereby adopted.
Section 2. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the SCTMFP fees and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health, and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development projects on which the SCTMFP fees will b e imposed.
Section 3. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements and the type of development projects on which the Fee is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Transportation Network. Such development will benefit from the Transportation Network improvements and the burden of such development will be mitigated in part by the payment of the Fee.
Section 4. The City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the 2024 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Transportation Network improvements, and that the amount of the Fees expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development.
Section 5. The SCTMFP Fees shall be used to help pay for the construction and acquisition of the Transportation Network improvements identified in the 2024 Nexus Study.
The need for the improvements is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic and transit demand, thus creating the need for the improvements.
Section 6. The City Council finds and determines that the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee Program 2024 Nexus Study Update Report proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements to the Transportation Network.
Section 7. The City Council hereby adopts the updated SCTMFP Fee schedule, as attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein, to take effect January 1, 2025.
Section 8. The City Council finds and determines that the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee Program 2024 Nexus Study Update Report does not calculate all of the cost of traffic impacts caused by new development. The City may impose additional development mitigation fees to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development that are not covered by the SCTMFP Fee.
Section 9. The City Council finds and determines that the SCTMFP Fee will be used to mitigate the impacts of new development upon the Transportation Network and not to correct existing deficiencies in the Transportation Network.
Section 10. The City Council establishes an administrative fee of two percent of fee amount to offset the actual reasonable costs to the City for the collection, deposit, investment, accounting, remittance, and reporting of the SCTMFP fees.
Section 11. The City Council authorizes an annual adjustment to the SCTMFP as determined by the STA to reflect changes in construction costs based on the McGraw-Hill Engineering News Record (ENR) 20-City Construction Cost Index.
Section 12. Severability.
1. If any section, phrase, sentence, or other portion of this Resolution for any reason is held or found to be invalid, void, unenforceable, or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution.
2. If any fee established by this Resolution for any reason is held or found to be invalid, void, unenforceable, or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such fee shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent fee, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining fees established by this Resolution.
3. If any fee established by this Resolution is held or found to be invalid, void, unenforceable or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction based upon an insufficient nexus to a specific public facility for which the revenue generated from such fee may be expended pursuant to this Resolution, said fee as it relates to such specific public facility shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent fee, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the fee as it relates to other public facilities.
Section 14. The City Manager is authorized to execute the Measure A Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Agreement on Operating Protocols – Amended August 2024.
2024 Nexus Study
Update Report
Sacramento Transportation Authority
May 24, 2024
GHD Inc.
The Power of Commitment
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report i
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to present information that the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) may find useful in updating the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee (SCTMF), pursuant to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. The report updates previous work in several ways:
• It incorporates new land use forecasts for Sacramento County, prepared under a different contract.1 • The status of individual transportation projects was updated. This resulted in some projects no longer needing future SCTMF funding because the project has either been completed or is no longer planned.
• Project costs were updated, based on construction cost inflation and new estimates prepared by member agencies.
• The trip generation rates were updated to reflect the new data found in the 11th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. • The percentage of the need for new transportation projects attributable to new development was recalculated using a version of SACOG’s latest travel demand model. • Board policies since the last nexus study, such as those regarding fees for retail developments, are reflected in the calculation of future fees.
• Several new sections were added based on requirements mandated by AB 602, which went into effect in 2022.
These updates enable STA and the local jurisdictions to reaffirm the findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act, which are described in Chapter 5, and implement the fee program.
Most readers of this report will find the calculation of the impact fees to be the part of greatest interest. This is found in Chapter 4. The proposed fee for the average single-family home would adhere to the 2004 voter- approved Measure A Ordinance’s express requirement to adopt a fee consistent with State law. In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 602, which requires cities, counties, and special districts, inter alia, to “calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development.” (Cal. Government Code, § 66016.5(a)(5)(a)). AB 602 also allows for other systems beyond square footage-based proportionality but requires “…an explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric,” and “that an alternative basis […] bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by new development”, and “that other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments…” (Cal. Government Code, § 66016.5(a)(5)(b)).
Accordingly, the percentage increase or decrease in fees for different types of development varies due to changes in their trip generation rates and the new AB 602-mandated adjustment for floor area. For example, while the rate for the average single-family dwelling (SFD, medium size 1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) would not change, the fee for very small SFD (≤ 800 sq.ft.) would decrease by $486 (31%) and the fee for small SFD (801-1,200 sq.ft.) would decrease by $240 (15%). The fee for medium-small SFD (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) would increase by $123 (8%) and the fee for large SFD (>2,400 sq.ft.) would increase by $156 (10%). Rates for age-restricted senior housing would decrease. Rates for multi-family dwellings would generally increase for all development types except very small units due to revisions to their trip-generation rate. Per the Measure A Ordinance, non-SFD rates are set in proportion to the trip generation rate of a (medium) single-family dwelling unit.
1 Technical Memorandum: Sacramento Transportation Authority Development Forecasts, dated August 18, 2021
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report ii
Please note that these are all “potential” changes to fees; the STA Board may, at its discretion, choose to set fee rates for any given development type at a level lower than that calculation in this report. It may not, however, set the fee rates higher than those supported by a nexus calculation.
The intent of this study is to validate the fee and allow the local jurisdictions to continue to implement the fee.
A local jurisdiction that fails to implement the fee would forfeit local street and road maintenance funds provided by Measure A. All such funds would be made immediately available on a pro rata basis to all other local jurisdictions that have this fee program in place.
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report iii
Contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose of this report 1
1.2 Background on the SCTMF Program 1
1.3 Implementation History 2
2. Review of Previous Nexus Study 5
2.1 Methodology Used 5
2.2 Key Assumptions 7
3. Updates of Key Inputs 9
3.1 Development Growth Forecasts 9
3.2 Traffic and Ridership Growth Forecasts 10
3.3 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios 16
3.4 Project Cost Estimates 18
4. Updated Fee Calculation 22
4.1 Consideration of Residential Floor Area 22
4.1.1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 24
4.2 Computing the Maximum Allowable Fee 24
4.3 Recommended Fee by Land Use Category 25
4.4 Funding from Other Sources 28
4.4.1 Funding from Local Jurisdictions 28
5. Mitigation Fee Act Findings 32
5.1 Purpose of the Fee 32
5.2 Use of Fee Revenues 32
5.3 Use/Type-of-Development Relationship 32
5.4 Need/Type-of-Development Relationship 32
5.5 Proportionality Relationship 33
5.6 Residential Floor Area 33
Table index
Table 1: Revenues by Year and Jurisdiction 3
Table 2: Expenditure by Years and Jurisdiction 4
Table 3: Computation of Average Rate for Commercial/Retail Uses 14 Table 4: Computation of Average Rate for Industrial Uses 14 Table 5: Computation of Average Rate for Warehouse/Self Storage Uses 14 Table 6: Computation of Average Rate for Lodging Uses 14 Table 7: Trip-Generation Rates Used for Forecast of Traffic Growth 15
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report iv
Table 8: Growth in Trips Generated in Sacramento County 15 Table 9: LOS Policies of Jurisdictions in Sacramento County 16 Table 10: Volume-to-Capacity Ratios for Measure A Road Projects 17 Table 11: Updated Project Costs 19
Table 12: Construction Cost Inflator 21
Table 13: Computation of Average Trip Generation by Dwelling Size Category 23 Table 14: Computation of DUEs by Size and Dwelling Type 24 Table 15: Calculation of Fee per New Vehicle Trip (for Roads) and Per New Dwelling Unit Equivalent (for Roads and Transit) 25
Table 16: Fees for Residential Developments 26
Table 17: Updated Fees by Non-Residential Development Type 27 Table 18: Grant Funding for Completed Measure A Projects 29 Table 19: Expected Grant Funding Needs for SCTMF-Funded Projects 30
Figure index
Figure 1: Forecast Versus Actual Revenues 2
Figure 2: Steps Used in the 2006 Fee Calculation 6
Figure 3: Forecast Versus Actual Housing Starts in Sacramento County 7 Figure 4: Forecast for Development of Single-Family Dwellings 11 Figure 5: Forecast for Development of Multi-Family Dwellings 12 Figure 6: Forecast for Non-Residential Development 13
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of this report
California’s Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 to 66025) requires agencies that impose impact fees to periodically review the assumptions and calculations used in computing the fee. It further requires them to revise the calculation if necessary to maintain a nexus, i.e. a logical connection between the developments that will be required to pay the fee and the impact being mitigated. The agency is then required to make certain specific findings certifying that the fee is in conformance with the Act. As STA does not impose impact fees, it would instead recommend that local agencies participating in the Measure A Program adopt the nexus study and revised fee schedule, with the local agencies then taking individual actions to formalize adoption.
The purpose of this report is to review the assumptions and methodology used in computing the Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee (SCTMF), update them as needed, and recommend changes to the fee schedule that will enable it to accomplish the Program’s goals. The report is also intended to document this work and fulfill the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, including new requirements pursuant to the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 602 in 2021.
1.2 Background on the SCTMF Program
In 1988 the voters of Sacramento County approved a half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements in Sacramento County. The Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) was created as a countywide transportation agency to fiscally administer the program. Measure A, the 30-year extension of the 1988 sales tax, was approved by voters in 2004 and went into effect in April 2009 when the previous tax expired.
One component of Measure A was the introduction of a countywide transportation mitigation fee. This was enacted by the STA Board in Section VII of STA Ordinance 04-01. The stated goal was “to develop and implement a uniform transportation mitigation fee on all new development in Sacramento County that will assist in funding road and transit system improvements needed to accommodate projected growth and development.”
The expected proceeds of the fee were tentatively allocated as follows:
35% Local streets and roads for capital improvements and rehabilitation 20% Public transit for capital improvements and rehabilitation 20% Local interchange upgrades, safety projects, and congestion relief improvements on the local freeway system, including bus and carpool lane projects. 15% Smart Growth Incentive Program
10% Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation, including, but not limited to, habitat conservation, open space preservation, habitat replacement, and recreation, and overall environmental enhancement of transportation facilities to the benefit of local transit users and neighborhoods. Necessary open space preservation and natural habitat preservation programs shall be eligible uses of these funds.
A nexus study for the fee was completed in June 2006 which recommended the fee of $1,000 per single- family dwelling, with other developments to be charged based on their trip-generation rate relative to single- family dwellings. This study is described in detail in a later section of this report.
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 2
1.3 Implementation History
SCTMF fees were imposed, and revenues are collected, by local jurisdictions in Sacramento County based on the SCTMF as part of their development approval process. The revenues are then remitted to STA, which then distributes the proceeds to various eligible projects in accordance with direction from the STA Board.
Each of the seven-member jurisdictions (the six incorporated cities plus the County) have projects included in the Expenditure Plan, as do three additional agencies. These are Caltrans, Sacramento Regional Transit, and the Capitol Southeast Connector JPA.
Fees started to be collected in 2009 when Measure A went into effect. More than $80.5 million in fees have been collected to date. Table 1 shows the program revenues by fiscal year and jurisdiction. Revenues have followed a general upward trajectory over time, as the development industry in the region has recovered from the Great Recession in (late 2007 to mid-2009).
Table 2 shows the program expenditures by fiscal year and implementing agency. As of June 30, 2023, the program has made more than $68 million available to six different agencies for Measure A projects.
Although the SCTMF Program has successfully brought in tens of millions of dollars for transportation projects needed to accommodate continued growth, the program has not achieved its revenue goals. Figure 1 compares the revenues that were forecast in the 2006 nexus study with the amounts actually received. For the 2008-2023 period, the program brought in only 16% of the expected revenue. This is due in large part to unfortunate timing, with the program kicking off during the Great Recession. Real estate development was among the hardest hit during the recession and among the slowest to recover. With little development activity taking place to generate revenue, impact fee programs across California failed to generate the revenues expected from pre-recession forecasts, when development was booming.
Figure 1: Forecast Versus Actual Revenues
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 3
Table 1: Revenues by Year and Jurisdiction
Fiscal
Year
City of
Sacramento
Sacramento
County Elk Grove Folsom Rancho
Cordova Galt Citrus
Heights Total
FY 2009 $140,644 $75,381 $51,729 $388,909 $92,800 $784 $1,452 $751,700 FY 2010 $774,416 $540,256 $539,123 $160,098 $259,378 $32,697 $15,989 $2,321,958 FY 2011 $549,987 $476,898 $860,663 $235,420 $204,379 $0 $7,091 $2,334,437 FY 2012 $587,824 $864,400 $990,421 $151,321 $302,467 $0 $60,930 $2,957,362 FY 2013 $871,942 $925,576 $588,839 $372,038 $378,345 $17,152 $22,491 $3,176,382 FY 2014 $601,826 $768,585 $665,916 $504,350 $360,591 $629,402 $9,872 $3,540,542 FY 2015 $1,628,337 $901,922 $835,144 $563,908 $352,981 $246,253 $95,594 $4,624,139 FY 2016 $1,330,694 $1,053,408 $920,723 $387,388 $428,758 $127,781 $114,898 $4,363,650 FY 2017 $4,433,942 $1,709,179 $408,227 $309,544 $708,906 $188,900 $89,477 $7,848,174 FY 2018 $3,871,298 $1,009,173 $1,434,011 $833,234 $400,807 $52,510 $20,720 $7,621,753 FY 2019 $2,707,448 $1,233,164 $1,338,725 $782,022 $471,078 $80,266 $71,335 $6,684,037 FY 2020 $3,198,236 $1,479,587 $964,492 $878,685 $916,239 $96,852 $17,465 $7,551,556 FY 2021 $1,712,959 $2,850,723 $1,658,050 $1,165,476 $934,092 $376,875 $258,817 $8,956,993 FY 2022 $2,660,711 $1,448,899 $1,014,918 $1,175,200 $179,181 $1,385,171 $373,344 $8,237,425 FY 2023 $2,526,006 $1,796,877 $1,223,435 $1,609,388 $152,326 $1,528,205 $20,006 $8,856,242 Interest $256,077 $158,994 $74,692 $130,288 $20,238 $89,506 $10,944 $740,739 Total $27,852,348 $17,293,022 $13,569,106 $9,647,269 $6,162,567 $4,852,353 $1,190,426 $80,567,090 % of Total 35% 21% 17% 12% 8% 6% 1% 100%
Source: STA
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 4
Table 2: Expenditure by Years and Jurisdiction
Notes: Some cell values are negative. This indicates cases where money from the General Fund was used to reimburse earlier expenditures from the SCTMF Program.
Expenditures for Caltrans, SacRT, and Capitol Southeast Connector have occurred within multiple jurisdictions.
Fiscal
Year
City of
Sacramento
Sacramento
County Elk Grove Folsom Rancho
Cordova Galt Citrus
Heights Caltrans SacRT
Capitol
Southeast
Connector
Total
FY 2009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY 2010 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY 2011 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY 2012 $371,690 $382,219 $0 $0 $0 $0 $59,275 $1,400,667 $3,940,833 $1,370,479 $7,525,163 FY 2013 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,078 $0 $0 $20,078
FY 2014 $1,471,903 $1,084,917 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,556,820 FY 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY 2017 $8,578,391 $1,872,358 $0 $0 $666,782 $0 $0 $3,047,319 $106,607 $2,275,776 $16,547,233 FY 2018 $1,076,989 $614,425 $0 $0 $434,878 $0 $0 ($6,599,873) ($4,047,440) ($2,316,651) ($10,837,673) FY 2019 $716,073 $1,689,048 $0 $0 $1,322,520 $0 $0 $1,193,987 $0 $4,659,492 $9,581,120 FY 2020 $193,614 $1,867,750 $0 $0 $1,569,163 $0 $0 $937,911 $0 $7,144,332 $11,712,770 FY 2021 $483,507 $6,372,770 $0 $0 $2,756,887 $0 $0 $1,883,549 $0 $4,006,952 $15,503,666 FY 2022 $447,031 $4,334,452 $93,561 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $0 $0 $7,898,740 $13,373,785 FY 2023 $469,776 $24,244 $165,212 $1,966,518 $2,625,749 Total $13,808,974 $18,242,182 $258,773 $0 $6,750,230 $0 $659,275 $1,883,639 $0 $27,005,638 $68,608,711
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 5
2. Review of Previous Nexus Study
Section 66016.5(a)(4) of AB 602, which went into effect on July 1, 2022, states that “If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.” This chapter is intended to fulfill this requirement by reviewing the methodology and assumptions used in the original nexus study by David Taussig & Associates, dated June 2006, entitled “Sacramento Transportation Authority Development Impact Fee Study”.
2.1 Methodology Used
The methodology used in the 2006 fee calculation is shown in Figure 2. The key steps were:
1) Estimates for the existing residential and non-residential land uses in Sacramento County were provided by SACOG.
The study purposefully excluded neighborhood and community retail uses from the fee calculation.
The rationale was that trips to and from these uses would be made on local streets and thus would not contribute to traffic on the regional roads funded by the fee program. 2) Trip generation rates were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition. For the commercial retail land use category, a blended rate of 7 retail land use codes was used. The rates for retail uses were also adjusted to account for pass-by trips. 3) The number of units for each land use type, dwelling units for residential and square feet for non- residential, were multiplied by the ITE trip generation rates to estimate the daily number of vehicle trips generated in Sacramento County.
4) Forecasts for future growth were provided by SACOG and used to generate an estimate of the number of vehicle trips that would be generated in Sacramento County in the study’s horizon year (2039).
5) Future development’s fair share of the cost of roadway improvements was then calculated as its share of total trips generated in 2039, which was 31%.
6) A “Needs List” of projects was developed through consultation with Sacramento County, STA member cities, and Caltrans, and included in the Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP).
No further elaboration of this process was provided in the nexus study. However, the fact that the project list was approved by the voters, who agreed to tax themselves to pay for the projects, is strongly indicative of a consensus that the facilities listed are in fact needed. 7) A cost was assigned to every project on the Needs List. The nexus study did not state where the cost estimates came from, but it is likely that they were provided by whichever agency was tasked with implementing the project.
8) The percentage share of costs attributable to new development from Step 5 was applied to the project costs in Step 7 to find the total project costs attributable to new development. 9) This was divided by the growth in trips to find the allowable fee per new trip ($1,005/single-family dwelling).
10) The STA Board of Directors made a policy decision to limit the fee on new development to $1,000 per single-family dwelling.
11) The permissible fee rates from Step 9 were duly factored down pro rata so that the fee on single- family dwellings was $1,000.
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 6
12) Other sources of funding, including sales tax revenues, local agency fees, and State and federal programs, were identified as sources for the remaining funds required to implement the projects on the Needs List.
13) The final fee schedule was then submitted to the STA Board for approval.
Figure 2: Steps Used in the 2006 Fee Calculation
Key
Existing Land Uses Growth Forecast
Share of Future Deficiencies
Attributable to New
Development
Cost of Future
Projects
Project Costs Attributable to
New Development
Maximum Permissible Fee
per DUE
1 Input
Computation
Trip-Gen Rates
Recommended Fee
Board Policies
Other Sources of
Funds
Pro-Rate to
SFD = $1,000
Existing Daily Trips
4 Future Daily Trips
2 3
5 Needs List
6 7
8 910
11 1213
Measure A
Ordinance
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 7
2.2 Key Assumptions
As seen in Figure 2, the key assumptions in the 2006 study pertain to existing and proposed land uses, trip- generation rates, and project costs. These are discussed below.
Land Use Assumptions
The 2006 nexus study reported that its land use assumptions came directly from SACOG’s travel demand model; the origins of the data in the model were not discussed. Figure 3 compares the study’s assumed production of single-family housing (dark lines) and multi-family housing (amber lines). As shown in Figure 3, the 2006 study assumed that the average long-term monthly production of multi-family would approximately double the previous highest-ever single-month production. Contrary to this forecast, MFD production declined after 2006, resulting in a 4-or-5-fold overestimate of MFDs that would pay the fee. The 2006 study also assumed a reduction in single-family housing production, though the actual reduction was greater than the forecast reduction.
Figure 3: Forecast Versus Actual Housing Starts in Sacramento County
The discrepancy between the forecast and the actual housing production can mostly be attributed to the effects of the Great Recession on the local, state, and national real estate markets. Housing starts fell statewide by 68% between 2007 and 2009 and did not recover to pre-recession levels for 10 years.
Furthermore, SACOG’s belief at that time that residential development in the Sacramento region would focus on dense, infill development, including high levels of apartment development in Sacramento County, has not been fulfilled to the extent that had been hoped for in 2006.
Trip Generation Rates
The ITE Trip Generation Manual has been the standard industry source for vehicle trip data for generations.
The Trip Generation Manual contains data from field surveys of thousands of sites and is regularly updated to capture the effects of changes in travel behavior. The 2006 study’s use of this source was therefore in accordance with standard industry practice. The 2006 study used the 6th edition of the Trip Generation Manual; the current edition is the 11th.
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 8
Project Cost Estimates
The 2006 study does not state the source of the project cost estimates, beyond saying that the Needs List, “… is a compilation of projects and costs identified by the local agency planning and engineering departments.” No further details are provided in the report.
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 9
3. Updates of Key Inputs
The current nexus study offers an opportunity to update the key assumptions underpinning the nexus between new development and the fee. This process is described below.
3.1 Development Growth Forecasts
Land use forecasts are made for a variety of reasons, including preparation of a jurisdiction’s General Plan, air quality conformity forecasts, and planning for transportation and other infrastructure projects, to name just a few. STA therefore commissioned Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to develop growth forecasts specifically for use in the SCTMF nexus update study. The results were documented in a technical memorandum to STA.2
EPS’s development forecasts project short-term and longer-term land use changes for the total STA geography and by individual jurisdiction. The short-term projections focus on a 3-year period – fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024 – while the longer-term development projections identify anticipated development through the remainder of the program (i.e. through 2039).
EPS used several sources when developing their forecasts, including historical building permit data by land use; the development pipeline, including planned and proposed development projects, residential units, non- residential square footage, etc.; and population, household, and employment projections. This data was provided by the seven-member jurisdictions, SACOG, the California Department of Finance, the Construction Industry Research Board, the North State Building Industry Association, and several media outlets.
EPS grouped potential development into three categories:
1. Active Entitled Development. This category includes the remaining residential units and nonresidential square footage for projects that are delivering homes or building infrastructure, including only those residential units and nonresidential square footage where building permits have not yet been issued. Development projects in this category are either developing – with absorption anticipated to continue in the near term – or anticipated to start vertical construction within the next 3 to 5 years.
2. Planned Development. Planned development includes projects that have been approved and have tentative maps, but infrastructure has not yet been initiated. Development in this category is considered likely to develop within the next 5 to 20 years.
3. Conceptual Development. Development classified as conceptual for this analysis includes projects for which planning applications may have been submitted but not yet approved. This category also includes development concepts that may have been reported by the local jurisdiction, developers, or via third-party sources such as the Sacramento Business Journal or other news entities.
Development in this category may not occur within the next 20 years.
Growth forecasts at the county and city levels were used as control totals to limit the growth in the three categories described above to amounts reasonably foreseeable within the life of the SCTMF Program, considering past development performance.
Figure 4 charts the development of single-family dwellings since 2011 and the forecast going forward to the end of the SCTMF Program in 2039. Note the spike in construction in the City of Sacramento after a
2 Technical Memorandum: Sacramento Transportation Authority Development Forecasts, dated August 18, 2021
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 10
moratorium on development in Natomas3 was lifted, allowing many projects already in the development pipeline to proceed.
Figure 5 shows data for the same period for the development of multi-family housing. There was a surge in units between 2015 and 2020, especially in the Natomas, Downtown, and Midtown areas. This is forecast to drop as the stock of relatively easily developed lots becomes exhausted.
Figure 6 shows the corresponding graphs for non-residential development. In 2016 there was a spike in construction, again due to lifting the moratorium on development in Natomas, but also encompassing major developments in other locations, like Delta Shores.
In each case, the period between 2015 and 2020 appears to represent one-off occurrences of the release of pent-up demand. The forecasts going forward represent a return to long-term average conditions.
3.2 Traffic and Ridership Growth Forecasts
The development forecasts from the previous section must be converted into forecasts for the growth in traffic associated with new development in Sacramento County. The conversion from dwelling units (for residential development) and thousands of square feet (for non-residential developments) to trips was done using the trip generation rates found in the eleventh edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
The Trip Generation Manual has dozens of land use categories that do not directly correspond to the land use categories used in the land use forecast. For example, the Trip Generation Manual has trip generation rates for 76 types of retail and service establishments aggregated into a single “Commercial, Retail” category in the land use forecasts. This reflects the reality that a commercial building may host a variety of tenants over its service life, so attempting to forecast individual uses, for example, “hair salons,” would be speculative at best. Instead, some representative use sub-categories were combined to generate averages to represent large categories of development. Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, and Table 7 show the derivation of the average trip generation rates for the commercial/retail, industrial, warehouse/self-storage, and lodging categories, respectively. Table 7 shows the resulting rates used to forecast the growth in traffic attributable to future development in Sacramento County.
The growth estimates for each category were then multiplied by their respective trip-generation rates to determine the growth in daily vehicle trips generated by new development (see Table 8). A similar calculation was done for the trips generated by existing land uses, with the existing land uses taken from SACOG’s SACSIM travel demand model. Table 8 shows that 5.6% of the trips generated in Sacramento County in 2039, when Measure A expires, would be attributable to new development.
Besides generating new vehicle trips, new development also generates new users for the transit system. This was computed as the percentage of dwelling units in the horizon year that would be built between 2022 and 2039. As seen in Table 8, 8.7% of transit riders in 2039 could be attributed to new development.
3 In the wake of the flooding of parts of New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina, the Federal government imposed a moratorium on development in the Natomas basin until the levees protecting it could be inspected and strengthened. The moratorium lasted 7 years. It was lifted in 2015.
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 11
Figure 4: Forecast for Development of Single-Family Dwellings
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Single-Family Housing Units
Sacramento
County
City of
Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
Sacramento
County
City of
Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 12
Figure 5: Forecast for Development of Multi-Family Dwellings
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Multi-Family Housing Units
Sacramento
County
City of
Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
Sacramento
County
City of
Sacramento
City of
Elk Grove
City of
Folsom
City of
Rancho
Cordova
City of
Citrus
Height
City of
Galt
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 13
Figure 6: Forecast for Non-Residential Development
5.8 MSF
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 14
Table 3: Computation of Average Rate for Commercial/Retail Uses
Table 4: Computation of Average Rate for Industrial Uses
Table 5: Computation of Average Rate for Warehouse/Self Storage Uses
Table 6: Computation of Average Rate for Lodging Uses
Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
Pass-by
Credit
Net Daily
Trip-Gen
Rate
Estimated
% Square
Footage
Weighted
Average
ADT's
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(1-B) (D) (E)=(C)*(D)
Shopping Center (>150k) 820 KSF 37.01 40% 22.21 40% 8.88 Convenience Store* 851 KSF 762.28 56% 335.40 11% 36.89
Fine Dining Restaurant 931 KSF 83.84 44% 46.95 15% 7.04 Fast-Food Restaurant 933 KSF 450.49 55% 202.72 5% 10.14 Automobile Sales (new
vehicles) 840 KSF 27.84 0% 27.84 6% 1.67
Home Improvement
Superstore 862 KSF 30.74 42% 17.83 15% 2.67
Drive-In Bank 912 KSF 100.35 35% 65.23 8% 5.22
Combined Rate 100.00% 72.52
* Pass-by rate taken from land use 945, Convenience Store/Gas Station The Estimated % Square Footage is from the 2006 Nexus Study, Appendix E.
ITE Description ITE
Code Unit
General Light Industrial 110 KSF 4.96
Industrial Park 130 KSF 3.37
Manufacturing 140 KSF 3.93
Average Rate 4.09
Daily Trip-
Gen RateUnitIndustrial Land Uses ITE
Code
Warehouse Uses ITE
Code Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
High-Cube Warehouse 154 KSF 1.40
Self Storage 151 KSF 1.45
Average Rate 1.43
Hotel 310 Room 7.99
Business Hotel 312 Room 4.02
Motel 320 Room 3.35
Average Rate 5.12
Lodging Land Uses ITE
Code Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 15
Table 7: Trip-Generation Rates Used for Forecast of Traffic Growth
Table 8: Growth in Trips Generated in Sacramento County
SCTMFP Land Use Code ITE
Code Unit Daily Trip-
Gen Rate
Residential, Single Family 210 DU 9.44
Residential, Multi-Family 220 DU 6.74
Commercial, Retail Mixed KSF 72.52
Commercial, Office 710 KSF 10.84
Industrial Mixed KSF 4.09
Hospital/Medical 610 KSF 10.77
Warehouse/Self Storage Mixed KSF 1.43
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 16
3.3 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios
For an impact fee to be collected, there must be a need for capacity improvements that are triggered by new development. Capacity deficiencies are identified using level of service (LOS) thresholds that are established in a jurisdiction’s general plan. The LOS policies of the 7 jurisdictions in Sacramento County are shown in Table 9.
Table 9: LOS Policies of Jurisdictions in Sacramento County Jurisdiction LOS Policy
Sacramento County “D" on rural roadways, “E” on urban roadways City of Sacramento* See note below
Elk Grove Not explicitly stated, but target delay at signalized intersections corresponds to LOS “D”
Folsom LOS “D”, with some exceptions allowed
Rancho Cordova LOS “D”, with some exceptions allowed
Citrus Heights LOS “E”, with some exceptions allowed
Galt LOS “C”, except “D” within ¼ mile of SR-99 interchanges *The City of Sacramento has adopted Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, which identify roadway volume service thresholds that approximate an equivalent LOS C/D threshold for roadway sizing.
As can be seen in Table 9, the predominant approach among Sacramento County jurisdictions is to maintain LOS “D” in most situations. This balances a reasonable degree of mobility with the need to keep the cost of infrastructure at an affordable level.
Table 10 shows the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for the Measure A roadway projects that have not yet been constructed. The volumes assume that the forecast new growth occurs and the capacity assumes that no improvements are made to the roadway network. For context, a V/C ratio between 0.9 and 1.0 indicates LOS “E” and a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 indicates LOS “F.” For every project on the list, new growth worsens the V/C ratio. And in every case but one, the V/C ratio would be worse than the acceptable threshold of 0.90, which is the upper limit of LOS “D”. Based on these results, we determined that new development causes or contributes to the deficiencies triggering every project listed in Table 10 except for A25SC.
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 17
Table 10: Volume-to-Capacity Ratios for Measure A Road Projects
Existing Existing +
Growth
A. LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
Antelope Road: Watt - Rosev ille Rd A01SC Sac County 1.31 1.32 Arden Way: ITS improv ements Ethan Way-Fair Oaks Blv d A05SC Sac County 1.15 1.22 Bradshaw Road: Grant Line-Folsom Blv d A06EG Elk Grove 1.39 1.50 Bradshaw Road: Calv ine-Old Placerv ille Rd A08SC Sac County 1.40 1.53 Elk Grov e Blv d: Big Horn-Waterman A11EG Elk Grove 1.11 1.30 Folsom Blv d: Watt Av e. - Bradshaw Rd A13SC Sac County 1.01 1.04 I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector A16JP1 CSCA JPA 1.09 1.26
Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 1 A17SC Sac County 1.01 1.03 Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 2 A19SC Sac County 1.12 1.16 Hazel Av enue: Phase 2 (Madison Av e - Placer Co. Line) A22SC Sac County 1.23 1.25 Madison Av enue: Phase 2 (Hazel Av e – Greenback Lane) A25SC Sac County 0.67 0.71 Madison Av enue: Phase 3 (Watt Av e – Sunrise Blv d) A26SC Sac County 1.44 1.48 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 2 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A28SC Sac County 1.43 1.66 Sheldon Road: Elk Grove-Florin - Bradshaw A30EG2 Elk Grove 0.98 1.17 Sunrise Blv d: Jackson Rd - Grant Line Rd A31SC Sac County 0.85 0.99 Sunrise Blv d: Madison Av e. - Gold Country Rd A33SC Sac County 1.17 1.22 Watt Av e: Antelope-Capital City Freeway A37SC Sac County 1.19 1.24 C. FREEWAY SAFETY AND CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 1 from Elk Grov e to US 50 A45CT1 Caltrans 1.05 1.17 I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 2 from US 50 to I-80 A45CT2 Caltrans 1.26 1.35 SR 50 Bus/carpool lanes (Sunrise to Downtown): Phase 2 A47CT Caltrans 1.06 1.10 I-5/I-80 IC upgrade & carpool lane connector w/ carpool lanes A51CT Caltrans 1.05 1.11 Richards Blv d./I-5 interchange upgrade A52CS City of Sac 0.95 1.02 E. SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM
I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv e A16JP3 CSCA JPA 1.16 1.33 F. TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv e A16JP4 CSCA JPA 1.16 1.33 Volume/Capacity Ratio
Project Name STA
Project # Jurisdiction
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 18
3.4 Project Cost Estimates
As can be seen in the Measure A project list in Table 11, since its passage, 19 Measure A projects have been completed and will need no further funding from the SCTMF Program. Additionally, 7 projects have been dropped from the list for one reason or another, and will also not need SCTMF Program funding.
Member agencies were asked to provide their most recent cost estimates for the remaining projects. These estimates, shown in Column A of Table 11, were developed in different years and were adjusted to reflect current construction prices. Per STA policy, this adjustment used the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI) overall annual average. Table 12 shows how the construction cost inflator was developed from the price indices for all 20 cities reported in ENR’s survey of construction prices nationwide.
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 19
Table 11: Updated Project Costs
STA
Project # Jurisdiction Most Recent
Cost Estimate
Year of Most
Recent Cost
Estimate
Cost
Inflation
Factor
Updated
Project Cost
(A) (B) (C) = (A)*(B)
A. LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
Antelope Road: Watt - Rosev ille Rd A01SC Sac County $5,349,275 2019 1.18 $6,333,993 Antelope Road: Rosev ille Rd - I-80 A02CH Citrus Heights Completed Antelope Road: I-80 - Auburn Blv d A03CH Citrus Heights $26,000,000 2022 1.03 $26,702,045 Arden Way: ITS improv ements Ethan Way-Fair Oaks Blv d A05SC Sac County $4,944,101 2009 1.56 $7,706,291 Arden Way: ITS improv ements Del Paso-Ethan Way A04CS City of Sac Not Planned Bradshaw Road: Grant Line-Folsom Blv d A06EG Elk Grove $27,765,597 2022 1.03 $28,515,317 Bradshaw Road: Calv ine-Florin A07SC Sac County Completed Bradshaw Road: Calv ine-Old Placerv ille Rd A08SC Sac County $197,396,000 2009 1.56 $307,677,965 Brucev ille Road: Sheldon-Cosumnes Riv er Blv d A09CS City of Sac Not Planned Cosumnes Riv er Blv d: I-5-Franklin Blv d A10CS City of Sac Completed Elk Grov e Blv d: Big Horn-Waterman A11EG Elk Grove $6,348,910 2022 1.03 $6,520,342 Folsom Blv d: 65th-Watt A12CS City of Sac Not Planned
Folsom Blv d: Watt Av e. - Bradshaw Rd A13SC Sac County $40,698,159 2019 1.18 $48,190,055 Folsom Blv d Streetscape: Phase 1 (Bradshaw to Sunrise) A14RC1 Rancho Cordova Completed Folsom Blv d Streetscape: Phase 2 (Bradshaw to Sunrise) A14RC2 Rancho Cordova Completed Folsom Bridge Crossing A15FS Folsom Completed
I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector A16JP1 CSCA JPA $504,000,000 2022 1.03 $517,608,881 I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv eA16JP2 CSCA JPA Completed Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 1 A17SC Sac County $41,716,000 2022 1.03 $42,842,405 Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 2 A19SC Sac County $68,500,035 2019 1.18 $81,109,823 Greenback Lane: I-80-Manzanita Av e A20SC Sac County $15,000,000 2009 1.56 $23,380,258 Greenback Lane: (West City Limit to Fair Oaks Blv d) A18CH Citrus Heights Completed Hazel Av enue: Phase 1 (US 50 – Madison Av e) A21SC Sac County Completed Hazel Av enue: Phase 2 (Madison Av e - Placer Co. Line) A22SC Sac County $83,121,000 2019 1.18 $98,422,280 Hazel Av enue: (US Highway 50 – Folsom Blv d) A23SC Sac County $105,000,000 2022 1.03 $107,835,183 Madison Av enue: Phase 1 (Sunrise Blv d – Hazel Av e) A24SC Sac County $30,381,000 2022 1.03 $31,201,340 Madison Av enue: Phase 3 (Watt Av e – Sunrise Blv d) A26SC Sac County $90,411,746 2009 1.56 $140,923,332 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 1 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A27SC Sac County $53,000,000 2022 1.03 $54,431,093 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 2 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A28SC Sac County $180,111,556 2009 1.56 $280,736,981 Elk Grov e - Florin Rd (Calv ine Rd - Elk Grov e Blv d) A29EG1 Elk Grove Not Planned Elk Grov e - Florin Rd (Calv ine Rd - Sheldon Rd) A29EG2 Elk Grove $2,495,550 2022 1.03 $1,617,116 Elk Grov e - Florin Rd (Calv ine Road – Old Placerv ille Road) A29EG3 Elk Grove Not Planned Sheldon Road: Brucev ille-Elk Grov e-Florin A30EG1 Elk Grove Not Planned Sheldon Road: Elk Grove-Florin - Bradshaw A30EG2 Elk Grove 8,551,924 2022 1.03 $8,782,841 Sunrise Blv d: Jackson Rd - Grant Line Rd A31SC Sac County $33,883,638 2019 1.18 $40,121,087 Sunrise Blv d: (Gold Country Road-Jackson Rd)** A32RC Rancho Cordova Completed Sunrise Blv d: Madison Av e. - Gold Country Rd A33SC Sac County $43,518,800 2019 1.18 $51,529,932 Sunrise Blv d: Phase 2 (Greenback Lane – Oak Av e) A35CH Citrus Heights $8,300,000 2022 1.03 $8,524,115 Sunrise Blv d: Phase 1 (Oak Av e - Antelope Rd) A34CH Citrus Heights Completed Sunrise Blv d: Phase 3 (Antelope Rd – City Limit) A36CH Citrus Heights $6,400,000 2022 1.03 $6,572,811 Watt Av e: Antelope-Capital City Freeway A37SC Sac County $82,909,270 2019 1.18 $98,171,573 Project Name
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 20
Table 11: Updated Project Costs (continued)
STA
Project # Jurisdiction Most Recent
Cost Estimate
Year of Most
Recent Cost
Estimate
Cost
Inflation
Factor
Updated
Project Cost
(A) (B) (C) = (A)*(B)
B. TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Downtown Intermodal Station A38CS City of Sac $400,000,000 2023 1.00 $400,000,000 LRT extension (Meadowv iew Rd. to Cosumnes Riv Blv d) A39RT SacRT Completed Regional Rail Commuter Serv ice A40RT SacRT Not Planned LRT extension to Airport (planning/env iro/design only) A41RT SacRT $7,195,809 2022 1.03 $7,390,108 LRT improv ements in I-80 Corridor A42RT SacRT Completed C. FREEWAY SAFETY AND CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
Bus/carpool ramp connection (SR-50E to SR-99S) A43CT Caltrans $300,000,000 2022 1.03 $308,100,524 I-80 Bus/carpool lanes (I-5 to Capital City Fwy) A44CT Caltrans Completed I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 1 from Elk Grov e to US 50 A45CT1 Caltrans Completed I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 2 from US 50 to I-80 A45CT2 Caltrans $90,000,000 2022 1.03 $92,430,157 Ramp widenings for connectors between SR 50 and I-5 A46CT Caltrans $300,000,000 2022 1.03 $308,100,524 SR 50 Bus/carpool lanes (Sunrise to Downtown): Phase 1 A47CT Caltrans Completed SR 50 Bus/carpool lanes (Sunrise to Downtown): Phase 2 A47CT Caltrans $128,000,000 2022 1.03 $131,456,224 Central Galt/SR 99 interchange upgrade A48GT Galt Completed Consumnes Riv er Blv d./I-5 interchange upgrade A49CS City of Sac Completed GrantLine Road/SR 99 interchange upgrades A50EG Elk Grove Completed I-5/I-80 IC upgrade & carpool lane connector w/ carpool lanes A51CT Caltrans $177,000,000 2022 1.03 $181,779,309 Richards Blv d./I-5 interchange upgrade A52CS City of Sac $115,000,000 2022 1.03 $118,105,201 Sheldon Road/SR99 Interchange Upgrade A53EG Elk Grove Completed Watt Av e/SR50 interchange upgrade A54SC Caltrans Completed E. SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Promotion of transit oriented dev elopment
I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv e A16JP3 CSCA JPA $5,000,000 $5,000,000 F. TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM Env ironmental mitigation for Measure A transportation projects Open Space Acquisition
Natural habitat preserv ation
I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector, $5 million for the Cosumnes Riv er Permanent Open Space Preserv e A16JP4 CSCA JPA $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Total for All Projects > $3,582,819,108
Project Name
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 21
Table 12: Construction Cost Inflator
20-City Annual
Average
2009 8,570 1.56
2010 8,799 1.52
2011 9,070 1.47
2012 9,308 1.44
2013 9,547 1.40
2014 9,807 1.36
2015 10,035 1.33
2016 10,338 1.29
2017 10,737 1.24
2018 11,062 1.21
2019 11,281 1.18
2020 11,466 1.17
2021 12,133 1.10
2022 13,007 1.03
2023 13,358 1.00
Cost
InflatorYear
ENR Construction
Cost Index
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 22
4. Updated Fee Calculation
4.1 Consideration of Residential Floor Area
The State of California has instituted a new policy4 pertaining to fees on residential developments. California Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5), which is new with the enactment of AB 602, states that, “(A) 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. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (B) A nexus study is not required to comply with subparagraph (A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on 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. (C) This paragraph does not prohibit an agency from establishing different fees for different types of developments.”
AB 602 applies to impact fee programs generally and was not tailored to fit circumstances specific to transportation impact fees. Web research revealed that there are currently no well-established sources for trip generation rates based on residential unit size. However, data on the number of persons per household can be obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey, and data on the number of trips by household size is available from NCHRP Report 716, Travel Demand Forecast: Parameters and Techniques. This data was combined, as shown in Table 13, to estimate trip generation rates by residential unit size. The residential unit size categories were determined in coordination with the working group including the local agencies that have adopted the SCTMF Program. The data is based on single-family homes; the average size for a single-family home in Sacramento County is 2,255 sq. ft.
As can be seen in Table 13, although the trip generation rate is related to the size of the residence, it is not directly proportionate to the floor area, as is assumed in Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A). We recommend that STA therefore find, pursuant to Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(i), that it would not be appropriate to use square footage directly as the metric of traffic impacts for the purposes of the SCTMF Program. It should instead find, pursuant to Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(ii), that the data supports fees based on the relationships shown in the bottom row of Table 13 for new very small, small, medium-small, medium, and large-sized homes. It should further find, pursuant to Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(iii), that these relationships would ensure that smaller units would not be charged disproportionate fees compared to larger units.
4 Assembly Bill 602, signed into law in September 2021.
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 23
CGC Section 66016.5(a)(5)(C) allows agencies to establish different fees for different types of developments. As a matter of policy, STA determined that fees on multi-family housing should be set lower than those of single-family dwellings, in recognition of their low trip generation rates. The rates for multi-family and senior age-restricted housing were therefore calculated based on their respective daily trip-generation rates found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The average size for multifamily units in Sacramento County is less than 1,200 sq. ft., so the ITE rate for them, which represents the average unit, was used to compute the “Small” values for these dwelling types. The ratios between the trip-generation rates for the size categories are found in the bottom row of Table 13.
Table 13: Computation of Average Trip Generation by Dwelling Size Category
Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips Number
of Units
Percent of
Units Trips
(A) (B) (C)=(B)*Σ(B) (D)=(A)*(C) (E) (F)=(E)*Σ(E) (G)=(A)*(F) (H) (I)=(H)*Σ(H) (J)=(A)*(I) (K) (L)=(K)*Σ(K) (M)=(A)*(L) (N) (O)=(N)*Σ(N) (P)=(A)*(O) 1 4.1 32,110 7,889 55% 2.26 8,648 36% 1.46 6,421 28% 1.15 6,264 20% 0.81 2,888 12% 0.50 2 8.2 40,531 3,737 26% 2.14 8,092 33% 2.74 8,027 35% 2.87 11,767 37% 3.04 8,908 38% 3.10 3 11.2 17,618 1,307 9% 1.02 3,449 14% 1.59 3,618 16% 1.77 5,546 17% 1.96 3,699 16% 1.76 4 16.1 15,389 834 6% 0.94 2,370 10% 1.57 2,837 12% 1.99 4,745 15% 2.41 4,602 20% 3.15 5 18.6 7,046 334 2% 0.43 1,078 4% 0.83 1,267 6% 1.03 2,205 7% 1.29 2,162 9% 1.71 6 18.6 2,625 106 1% 0.14 408 2% 0.31 485 2% 0.39 792 2% 0.46 834 4% 0.66 7+ 18.6 1,476 97 1% 0.13 214 1% 0.16 277 1% 0.22 443 1% 0.26 445 2% 0.35 Total 116,795 14,305 100% 7.06 24,258 100% 8.67 22,933 100% 9.42 31,760 100% 10.22 23,539 100% 11.23 Average
Persons
per
Household 2.07
Sources: Column (A) - NCHRP Report 716, Columns (B), (E), and (H) - American Housing Survey, 2021 National Household Demographics Notes: 1,601-2,400 sq.ft. is assumed to be the SFD Average unit size range, based on average size of single family homes in the United States from various sources including statisa.com Persons
per
Household
Trips per
Household Total
Very Small Small Medium-Small Medium Large
1.64 1.94 2.06 2.19 2.30
≤ 800 sq.ft 801 to 1,200 sq.ft 1,201 to 1,600 sq.ft 1,601 to 2,400 sq.ft > 2,400 sq.ft Trip-Gen Rate as a % of SFD
Average 69% 85% 92% 100% 110%
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 24
Table 13 was then used to compute the dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs) for different sizes of single-family, multi-family, and senior age-restricted housing. As with single-family dwellings, the use of size categories accords with the intent of Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B)(iii) that smaller units are not charged disproportionate fees compared to larger units.
Table 14: Computation of DUEs by Size and Dwelling Type
4.1.1 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
In addition to the considerations discussed above pursuant to AB 602, a separate piece of legislation, SB 13, passed in 2019, establishes a new system for assessing fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). It amended CGC Section 65852.2(3)(A)(f)(3) to read,
“A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”
Based on this subsection, if an ADU is smaller than 750 square feet it is exempt from the SCTMF. Fees on ADUs larger than 750 square feet require a two-part calculation. First, the SCTMF that would be charged to the primary dwelling unit is calculated, then the fee on the ADU is computed based on the ratio of its floor area to the primary dwelling unit. For example, if the primary dwelling unit were 2,000 sq. ft. and would be charged a fee of $800, then an ADU 1,000 sq. ft. in size on that property would be charged a fee of $400 (50% of the size, so 50% of the fee).
4.2 Computing the Maximum Allowable Fee
The methodology used to update the fee schedule repeated the first nine steps in the previous nexus study as shown in Figure 2, except that all inputs were updated as described in Chapter 3 of this report.
Table 15 shows how the updated project costs from Table 11 were combined with the updated forecast for new growth from Table 8 to compute the maximum allowable project cost attributable to each vehicle trip generated by new development in Sacramento County. Additionally, Table 15 computes the maximum allowable cost per DUE, based on the Fee per New Vehicle Trip and the trip generation rate of a single- family home from Table 7. Table 15 also reflects that the SCTMF has already spent some funds for projects that are in development but are not yet complete. This reduces the amount of funding needed from future development.
Very
Small
(≤ 800
sq.ft.)
Small
(801-1200
sq.ft.)
Medium-
Small
(1,201-
1,600
sq.ft.)
Medium
(1,601-
2,400
sq.ft.)
Large
(>2,400
sq.ft.)
Single-Family Residential 9.44 100% 0.69 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.10 Single-Family Residential, Senior 4.31 46% 0.32 0.39 0.42 0.46 0.50 Multi-Family Residential 7.32 78% 0.63 0.78 0.84 0.91 1.01 Multi-Family Residential, Senior 3.24 34% 0.28 0.34 0.37 0.40 0.44 Dwelling Type
ITE 11th
Edition Trip-
Gen Rate
(Daily)
Average Unit
as % of
Average SFD
Trip-Gen Rate
Dwelling Unit Equivalents
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 25
Table 15: Calculation of Fee per New Vehicle Trip (for Roads) and Per New Dwelling Unit Equivalent (for Roads and Transit)
4.3 Recommended Fee by Land Use Category
The next step is to compute the maximum allowable fee for each unit of new development. For residential uses, this is done by multiplying the DUE rates for each dwelling size shown in Table 14 by the fee per new DUE shown in Table 15.
Table 16 shows both the maximum allowable and proposed fee schedule for residential developments after the size adjustments shown in Table 14 were applied. Per the Measure A Ordinance, fees for uses that are not the average single-family unit (medium size) “shall be proportionate to the trip generation rate of the affected land use relative to the trip generation rate of a single family [sic] unit.” The DUEs presented in Table 14 take into account the trip generation rates proportionate to the average single-family unit. Therefore, the proposed road cost per DUE and proposed fee per unit shown in Table 16 is calculated based on the current fee for the medium size single-family unit (equal to 1.00 DUE).
One notable feature of the table that is worth explaining is that the fees for multi-family dwellings (MFDs) increased more than the rates for single-family dwellings (SFDs). The reason is that trip generation rates for SFDs have decreased since 2006 as the average household size and the average number of working adults have declined for this housing type. On the other hand, the trip generation rate for MFDs has risen over the same period as fewer growing families have been able to move into SFDs due to affordability issues. The result is that MFDs have a relatively greater impact on roadway congestion than in the past.
The fees for non-residential developments are shown in Table 17. The cost per new trip generated from Table 15 was multiplied by the trip generation rates from Table 7 to produce the maximum allowable fee for each land use type. As stated previously, one of the purposes of this nexus study is to ensure that proposed fees are defensible. In other words, that the proposed fees are less than the maximum allowable fees.
The proposed fees, to comply with Measure A, are based on the escalated cost of $1,000 per SFD originally established in 2006. Accordingly, the proposed SFD fee in 2023 dollars is $1,574 per average SFD, which falls in the medium SFD size category in the revised fee schedule. Using the proposed fee per SFD ($1,574 per unit) we can calculate the proposed cost per trip to be $167 based on the daily trip generation rate for a single-family home (9.44). The proposed fee per unit is then calculated by multiplying the proposed cost per trip by the trip generation rate (column A). One noticeable aspect of Table 17 is that the percentage change in fee differs substantially for different development types. This arises from the fact that the trip generation rates for different land use categories have changed over time as travel behaviors and markets evolve.
Maximum
Permissible
SCTMF
Funding
SCTMF
Funding
Already Spent
Maximum
Permissible
Future SCTMF
Funding
(A) (B) (C) = (A) - (B)
Total for Local Arterial Program $107,274,039 $34,738,980 $72,535,059 Total for Connectors and Carpool Lanes $57,224,537 $870,874 $56,353,663 Total for Local Freeway Interchange Projects $12,652,662 $696,441 $11,956,221 Total for All Roadway Projects > $177,151,238 $36,306,295 $140,844,943 Total Number of Vehicle Trips from Future Growth > 760,097 Fee per New Vehicle Trip > $185
Fee per New Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) > $1,749
Total for All Transit Projects > $35,550,125 $12,095,221 $23,454,904 Forecast Number of New Dwelling Units > 55,825
Fee per New Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) > $420
Project Class
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 26
Table 16: Fees for Residential Developments
Dwelling
Unit
Equivalent
(DUE)
Maximum
Allowable
Road Fee
per DUE*
Maximum
Allowable
Transit Fee
per DUE*
Total
Maximum
Allowable
Fee per
DUE*
Maximum
Allowable
Fee per
Unit
Proposed
Cost per
DUE**
Proposed
Fee per
Unit
FY 24/25
Fee per
Unit
Change in
Fee
% Change
in Fee
(A) (B) (C) (D)=(B)+(C) (E)=(A)*(D) (F) (G)=(A)*(F) (H) (I)=(G)-(H) (J)=(I)/(H) Single-Family Residential 210
Very Small (≤ 800 sq.ft.) 0.69 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,499 $1,574 $1,088 $1,574 ($486) -31% Small (801-1200 sq.ft.) 0.85 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,839 $1,574 $1,334 $1,574 ($240) -15% Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) 0.92 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $2,000 $1,574 $1,451 $1,574 ($123) -8% Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) 1.00 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $2,169 $1,574 $1,574 $1,574 $0 0% Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) 1.10 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $2,384 $1,574 $1,730 $1,574 $156 10% Single-Family Residential, Senior 251
Very Small (≤ 800 sq.ft.) 0.32 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $685 $1,574 $497 $1,260 ($763) -61% Small (801-1200 sq.ft.) 0.39 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $840 $1,574 $609 $1,260 ($651) -52% Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) 0.42 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $913 $1,574 $663 $1,260 ($597) -47% Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) 0.46 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $990 $1,574 $719 $1,260 ($541) -43% Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) 0.50 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,089 $1,574 $790 $1,260 ($470) -37% Multi-Family Residential 220
Very Small (≤ 800 sq.ft.) 0.63 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,371 $1,574 $995 $1,101 ($106) -10% Small (801-1200 sq.ft.) 0.78 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,682 $1,574 $1,221 $1,101 $120 11% Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) 0.84 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,829 $1,574 $1,327 $1,101 $226 21% Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) 0.91 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $1,984 $1,574 $1,440 $1,101 $339 31% Large (>2,400 sq.ft.)*** 1.01 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $2,181 $1,574 $1,582 $1,101 $481 44% Multi-Family Residential, Senior 252
Very Small (≤ 800 sq.ft.) 0.28 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $607 $1,574 $440 $943 ($503) -53% Small (801-1200 sq.ft.) 0.34 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $745 $1,574 $540 $943 ($403) -43% Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) 0.37 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $810 $1,574 $587 $943 ($356) -38% Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) 0.40 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $878 $1,574 $637 $943 ($306) -32% Large (>2,400 sq.ft.)*** 0.44 $1,749 $420 $2,169 $965 $1,574 $700 $943 ($243) -26% Accessory Dwelling Units
Very Small (<750 sq.ft.)
Otherwise (>750 sq.ft.)
* Maximum Allowable Cost and Fee Calcaluated for Nexus Study ** Proposed Road Cost per DUE is equal to the medium-sized single family dwelling unit fee for FY 24/25 to comply with Measure A. *** No multi-family units of this size have been built in Sacramento County in the last 5 years Note: For residential uses that are anticipated to have unique trip generation characteristics, such as those near transit or those with restricted parking, see Operating Protocols for fee calculation procedures.
Fee is based on the ratio of the floor area of the ADU compared to the primary unit, times the fee that would be charged on the primary unit, if the primary unit was being newly built.
Exempt from fee
Development Type ITE
Code
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 27
Table 17: Updated Fees by Non-Residential Development Type
Trip
Generation
Rate
Maximum
Allowed
Cost per
Trip
Maximum
Allowed
Fee per
Unit
Proposed
Cost per
Trip
Proposed
Fee per
Unit
FY 24/25
Fee per
Unit
Change in
Fee
% Change
in Fee
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(B) (D) (E) (F) (G)=(E)-(F) (H)=(G)/(F) Office Use 710 KSF 10.84 $185 $2,009 $167 $1,807 $1,890 ($83) -4% Retail Use* KSF NA $2,624 $2,361 $2,362 ($1) 0%
Industrial Use 110 KSF 4.96 $185 $919 $167 $827 $1,260 ($433) -34% Hotel/Motel Mixed sleeping room 5.12 $185 $949 $167 $854 $912 ($58) -6% Extended Stay Hotel/Motel 320 sleeping room 3.35 $185 $621 $167 $559 $810 ($251) -31% Hospital 610 KSF 10.77 $185 $1,996 $167 $1,796 $2,639 ($843) -32% Service Station** 944 Fuel Pump 20.64 $185 $3,825 $167 $3,442 $2,047 $1,395 68% Supermarket* KSF NA $2,624 $1,078.0 $2,362 ($1,284) -54% Warehouse/Self-Storage Mixed KSF 1.43 $185 $264 $167 $238 $394 ($156) -40% Assisted Living Facility 254 bed 2.60 $185 $482 $167 $434 $454 ($20) -5% Congregate Care 253 unit 2.21 $185 $410 $167 $368 $333 $35 11% Child Day Care 565 Student 4.09 $185 $758 $167 $682 $725 ($43) -6% Private School (K-12) 532 Student 2.48 $185 $460 $167 $414 $410 $4 1% Auto Repair/Body Shop* KSF NA $2,624 $2,361 $2,362 ($1) 0% Gym/Fitness Center* KSF NA $2,624 $2,361 $2,362 ($1) 0% Drive-through Car Wash* KSF NA $2,624 $2,361 $2,362 ($1) 0% All Other Trip $185 $167 $167 ($0) 0%
* Fee set by Board policy at 1.5 times the rate for Single-Family Dwellings for 1 KSF of retail ** Trip generation rate includes a reduction for pass-by trips, per ITE Development Type ITE Code Unit
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 28
4.4 Funding from Other Sources
As was discussed in the earlier sections, the SCTMF will provide only a portion of the funding required to implement the Measure A project list. The remainder must come from some other source. As is always the case with decades-long programs like the SCTMF, funding opportunities come and go with the passage of individual infrastructure funding acts, so there is always a degree of uncertainty regarding future funding.
That said, the amount of grant funding provided to the Measure A projects that have been completed provides a general idea of grant funding that may be available in the future.
Table 18 shows the amount of grant funding used for individual projects that have now been completed.
These have been grouped into four programs because the amount of grant funding often differs depending on the type of project. For example, Table 18 shows that local arterial projects have on average received 60% grant funding while transit capital improvements have received 80% grant funding.
Table 19 compares the amount of grant funding needed with the grant funding that has been historically available. In most cases, the amount needed and the amount received are roughly consistent. The sole exception is the Local Freeway Interchange Congestion Relief Upgrades program, where STA may need to seek additional funding from local jurisdictions if sufficient grant funding does not materialize.
4.4.1 Funding from Local Jurisdictions
Local funding (jurisdiction funding) is all funding identified for a project that is not grant funding or SCTMF funding. However, this may include Measure A sales tax funding.
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 29
Table 18: Grant Funding for Completed Measure A Projects
Primary Project Sub Project Total Project Cost Third Party Grant Expenditures
Antelope Road Watt Ave to Auburn Blvd. Roseville Rd. to I-80 Phase 1 12,397,000 6,200,000 Bradshaw Rd. Grantline Rd. to Folsom Blvd. Calvine Rd. to Florin Rd. Phase 1 19,547,000 - Folsom Blvd: 65th St. to Sunrise Blvd. Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 1 4,759,152 3,659,000 Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 2 14,667,761 10,805,860 Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 3 6,836,770 2,724,000 Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 4 5,062,000 4,838,000 Bradshaw Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. Phase 5 6,100,000 5,500,000 Folsom Bridge Crossing Folsom Bridge Crossing 145,851,098 100,152,288 Consumnes River Permanent Open Space Preserve Consumnes River Permanent Open Space Preserve 5,000,000 - Greenback Ln. I/80 to Auburn/Folsom Rd. West City Limit to Fair Oaks Blvd. 19,176,000 16,188,000 Sunrise Blvd. Placer Co. to Grant Line Rd. Folsom Blvd to White Rock Rd 7,735,000 - Sunrise Blvd. Placer Co. to Grant Line Rd. Oak Ave. to Antelope Rd. Phase 1 5,178,000 650,000 Sunrise Blvd. Placer Co. to Grant Line Rd. Greenback Ln. to Oak Ave Phase 2 2,250,000 840,800 254,559,781 151,557,948
Percent of Grant Funding 60%
South Sac LRT Extension South Sac LRT Extension 270,000,000 240,312,246 DNA LRT Extension DNA LRT Extension 49,000,000 14,711,845 LRT I-80 Corridor Improvements LRT I-80 Corridor Improvements 247,200 - 319,247,200 255,024,091
Percent of Grant Funding 80%
I-80 I-5 to Capital City Freeway I-80 I-5 to Capital City Freeway 63,259,688 62,537,000 Hwy 50 Bus/Carpool Lanes Surise Blvd. to Downtown Sunrise Blvd. to Downtown Phase 1 100,406,202 67,612,969 163,665,890 130,149,969
Percent of Grant Funding 80%
Cosumnes Blvd. I-5 Interchange Cosumnes Blvd. I-5 Interchange 85,315,164 31,009,376 Central Galt Interchange Central Galt Interchange 50,641,711 13,962,875 Grantline Rd. Hwy 99 Interchange Upgrade Grantline Rd. Hwy 99 Interchange Upgrade 77,400,000 - Sheldon Rd. Hwy 99 Interchange Upgrade Sheldon Rd. Hwy 99 Interchange Upgrade 73,470,838 20,801,000 Watt Ave. Hwy 50 Interchange Watt Ave. Hwy 50 Interchange 38,318,000 26,962,680 325,145,713 92,735,931
Percent of Grant Funding 29%
Local Freeway Interchange Congestion Relief Upgrades Total Rail Transit Improvements Total
Regional Bus/Carpool Lane Connectors/Extensions Total
LOCAL FREEWAY INTERCHANGE CONGESTION RELIEF UPGRADES
A. LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
B. TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
C. FREEWAY SAFETY AND CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
Local Arterial Program Total
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 30
Table 19: Expected Grant Funding Needs for SCTMF-Funded Projects
STA Project # Jurisdiction Updated
Project Cost
% Attributable
to Regional
Growth
Maximum
Permissible Fee
Cost Based on %
Attributable
Funding from
Local
Jurisdiction
Funding
Needed from
Other Sources
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(B) (D) (E)=(A)-(C)-(D)
A. LOCAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM
Antelope Road: Watt - Rosev ille Rd A01SC Sac County $6,333,993 5.6% $354,704 $2,066,509 $3,912,780 Antelope Road: I-80 - Auburn Blv d A03CH Citrus Heights $26,702,045 5.6% $1,495,315 $0 $25,206,731 Arden Way: ITS improv ements Ethan Way-Fair Oaks Blv d A05SC Sac County $7,706,291 5.6% $431,552 $2,000,000 $5,274,738 Bradshaw Road: Grant Line-Folsom Blv d A06EG Elk Grove $28,515,317 5.6% $1,596,858 $11,933,654 $14,984,805 Bradshaw Road: Calv ine-Old Placerv ille Rd A08SC Sac County $307,677,965 5.6% $17,229,966 $131,578,000 $158,869,999 Elk Grov e Blv d: Big Horn-Waterman A11EG Elk Grove $6,520,342 5.6% $365,139 $4,886,659 $1,268,544 Folsom Blv d: Watt Av e. - Bradshaw Rd A13SC Sac County $48,190,055 5.6% $2,698,643 $13,673,000 $31,818,412 I-5/SR 99/SR 50 Connector* A16JP1 CSCA JPA $517,608,881 5.6% $28,986,097 $25,000,000 $463,622,783 Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 1 A17SC Sac County $42,842,405 5.6% $2,399,175 $16,716,000 $23,727,230 Greenback Lane: (Fair Oaks Blv d – Main Av e) – Phase 2 A19SC Sac County $81,109,823 5.6% $4,542,150 $45,750,000 $30,817,673 Greenback Lane: I-80-Manzanita Av e A20SC Sac County $23,380,258 5.6% $1,309,294 $5,000,000 $17,070,964 Hazel Av enue: Phase 2 (Madison Av e - Placer Co. Line) A22SC Sac County $98,422,280 5.6% $5,511,648 $58,121,000 $34,789,632 Madison Av enue: Phase 1 (Sunrise Blv d – Hazel Av e) A24SC Sac County $31,201,340 5.6% $1,747,275 $19,021,000 $10,433,065 Madison Av enue: Phase 3 (Watt Av e – Sunrise Blv d) A26SC Sac County $140,923,332 5.6% $7,891,707 $60,277,511 $72,754,114 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 1 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A27SC Sac County $54,431,093 5.6% $3,048,141 $29,723,000 $21,659,951 S Watt/Elk Grov e-Florin Road: Phase 2 (Folsom Blv d – Calv ine Rd)A28SC Sac County $280,736,981 5.6% $15,721,271 $144,000,000 $121,015,710 Sheldon Road: Elk Grove-Florin - Bradshaw A30EG2 Elk Grove $8,782,841 5.6% $491,839 $5,541,646 $2,749,356 Sunrise Blv d: Jackson Rd - Grant Line Rd A31SC Sac County $40,121,087 5.6% $2,246,781 $22,589,092 $15,285,214 Sunrise Blv d: Madison Av e. - Gold Country Rd A33SC Sac County $51,529,932 5.6% $2,885,676 $29,027,039 $19,617,217 Sunrise Blv d: Phase 2 (Greenback Lane – Oak Av e) A35CH Citrus Heights $8,300,000 5.6% $464,800 $0 $7,835,200 Sunrise Blv d: Phase 3 (Antelope Rd – City Limit) A36CH Citrus Heights $6,400,000 5.6% $358,400 $0 $6,041,600 Watt Av e: Antelope-Capital City Freeway A37SC Sac County $98,171,573 5.6% $5,497,608 $55,550,000 $37,123,965 Total for Local Arterial Program $1,915,607,834 $107,274,039 $682,454,109 $1,125,879,686 Percent of Grant Funding Needed > 59%
Historical Level of Grant Funding > 60%
C. FREEWAY SAFETY AND CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM
Bus/carpool ramp connection (SR-50E to SR-99S) A43CT Caltrans $308,100,524 5.6% $17,253,629 $290,846,895 I-5 Bus/Carpool Lanes: Phase 2 from US 50 to I-80 A45CT2 Caltrans $92,430,157 5.6% $5,176,089 $8,500,000 $78,754,068 Ramp widenings for connectors between SR 50 and I-5 A46CT Caltrans $308,100,524 5.6% $17,253,629 $290,846,895 SR 50 Bus/carpool lanes (Sunrise to Downtown): Phase 2 A47CT Caltrans $131,456,224 5.6% $7,361,549 $124,094,675 I-5/I-80 IC upgrade & carpool lane connector w/ carpool lanes A51CT Caltrans $181,779,309 5.6% $10,179,641 $0 $171,599,668 Total for Connectors and Carpool Lanes $1,021,866,739 $57,224,537 $8,500,000 $956,142,201 Percent of Grant Funding Needed > 94%
Historical Level of Grant Funding > 80%
Project Name
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 31
Table 19: Expected Grant Funding Needs for SCTMF-Funded Projects (continued)
STA Project # Jurisdiction Updated
Project Cost
% Attributable
to Regional
Growth
Maximum
Permissible Fee
Cost Based on %
Attributable
Funding from
Local
Jurisdiction
Funding
Needed from
Other Sources
(A) (B) (C)=(A)*(B) (D) (E)=(A)-(C)-(D)
Local Freeway Interchange Congestion Relief Upgrades
Richards Blv d./I-5 interchange upgrade A52CS City of Sac $118,105,201 5.6% $6,613,891 $25,000,000 $86,491,310 Hazel Av enue: (US Highway 50 – Folsom Blv d) A23SC Sac County $107,835,183 5.6% $6,038,770 $71,456,000 $30,340,413 Total for Local Freeway Projects $225,940,384 $12,652,662 $96,456,000 $116,831,723 Percent of Grant Funding Needed > 52%
Historical Level of Grant Funding > 29%
B. TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 80%
Downtown Intermodal Station A38CS City of Sac $400,000,000 8.7% $34,905,242 $12,000,000 $353,094,758 LRT extension to Airport (planning/env iro/design only) A41RT SacRT $7,390,108 8.7% $644,884 $0 $6,745,225 Total for All Transit Projects > $407,390,108 $35,550,125 $12,000,000 $359,839,983 * The project cost for this project includes projects A16JP3 and A16JP4, which are mitigation components for project A16JP1. Percent of Grant Funding Needed > 88% Historical Level of Grant Funding > 80%
Project Name
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 1
5. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The Mitigation Fee Act, as set forth in the California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66008, establishes the framework for mitigation fees in the State of California. The Act requires agencies to make five findings with respect to a proposed fee. These are described in the sections below.
5.1 Purpose of the Fee
Identify the purpose of the fee
The Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee is imposed on new development to ensure that it pays its fair share of roadway improvements, the need for which is triggered in whole or in part by new development.
5.2 Use of Fee Revenues
Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified
The projects to be funded through the SCTMF were approved by the voters of Sacramento County through Measure A. The projects expected to receive SCTMF revenues in the future are listed in Table 19.
5.3 Use/Type-of-Development Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed
To determine the “use” relationship, the development being assessed an impact fee must be reasonably shown to derive some use or benefit from the facility being built using the fee. In the case of the SCTMF, the projects to be funded were selected because they performed a regional function and the need for the project was at least partially attributable to new development. The growth in vehicle trips and the increases in congestion at project sites (see Table 10) are evidence that new development contributes to the need for roadway improvements.
The fact that the projects that will be funded by the SCTMF are high-priority roads and transit means that all of the county’s new residents and businesses will benefit in important ways from the maintenance of a reasonable level of service. Most drivers in the new developments can be expected to use these roads regularly, and those that do not will nevertheless benefit because good traffic conditions on the SCTMF-funded roads will keep drivers from diverting to other roads and causing congestion in other parts of the county. Even residents or workers in the new developments who do not drive at all will benefit from access to goods and services made possible in part by the serviceability of the county road network.
5.4 Need/Type-of-Development Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed
To determine the “need” relationship, the facilities to be financed must be shown to be needed at least in part because of the new development. This was determined by analyzing the forecast traffic demand with the expected degree of new development and comparing that with the demand without
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 1
new development. As is shown in Table 10, all of the projects that will receive SCTMF money are designed to address capacity deficiencies due at least in part to new development.
5.5 Proportionality Relationship
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed
The “proportionality” relationship requires rough proportionality between the fee charged to each type of development and the cost of the facility being financed. In the case of the SCTMF, the differences in the traffic generated by different types of development were factored into the fee to be charged for each type, as described in Table 17. Within each land use category, the size of the project, i.e. the number of dwelling units constructed or size of the building, is accounted for in assessing the fee. This ensures that projects that generate a lot of traffic and therefore have a greater traffic impact will pay more than other projects that have less impact.
5.6 Residential Floor Area
CGC§ 66016.5(a)(5)(B): A nexus study is not required to comply with subparagraph (A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
(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.
CGC§ 66016.5(a)(5) subparagraph (A), which is new as part of AB 602, requires fees on housing development to be proportionate to the square footage of proposed units of the development unless the agency chooses to make the three findings described above. During the course of this study, we found that while the traffic impacts from residential developments are related to the floor area of the unit, the relationship is not one of direct proportionality. We therefore recommend that STA make the following findings with respect to the SCTMF Program:
• That square footage, applied as a direct proportion, is not an appropriate metric for calculating traffic impact fees for residential developments, based on substantial evidence showing that the number of vehicle trips generated by residential units is not directly proportional to the floor area (see Table 13). • That an alternative basis of calculating traffic impact fees, based on the expected number of trips generated by very small, small, medium-small, medium, and large units, but not directly proportional to floor area, would bear a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. This alternative method is supported by substantial evidence from the American Housing Survey and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). • That the differences in trip generation characteristics between single-family residences, multi-family residences, mobile homes in mobile home parks, and age-restricted senior residences, as determined through surveys collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, justify using separate fee levels for these different types of units. • That differentiating between very small, small, medium-small, medium, and large units within each category of housing would ensure that smaller developments are not charged fees disproportionate to their traffic impacts.
GHD | Sacramento Transportation Authority | 12578763 | 2024 Nexus Study Update Report 1
ghd.com The Power of Commitment
Exhibit A
Sacramento Countywide Transportation Mitigation Fee Program Fee Schedule
Effective January 1, 2025
Single-Family Residential
Very Small (≤800 sq.ft.) $1,088 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq.ft.) $1,334 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) $1,451 per unit
Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) $1,574 per unit
Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) $1,730 per unit
Single-Family Residential, Senior
Very Small (≤800 sq.ft.) $497 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq.ft.) $609 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) $663 per unit
Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) $719 per unit
Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) $790 per unit
Multi-Family Residential
Very Small (≤800 sq.ft.) $995 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq.ft.) $1,221 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) $1,327 per unit
Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) $1,440 per unit
Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) $1,582 per unit
Multi-Family Residential, Senior
Very Small (≤800 sq.ft.) $440 per unit
Small (801-1,200 sq.ft.) $540 per unit
Medium-Small (1,201-1,600 sq.ft.) $587 per unit
Medium (1,601-2,400 sq.ft.) $637 per unit
Large (>2,400 sq.ft.) $700 per unit
Accessory Dwelling Units
Very Small (<750 sq.ft.) Exempt from fee
Otherwise (>750 sq.ft.) Fee is based on the ratio of the floor area of the ADU compared to the primary unit, times the fee
that would be charged on the primary unit, if the
primary unit was being newly built.
Office Use $1,807 1,000 square feet
Retail Use $2,361 1,000 square feet
Industrial Use $827 1,000 square feet
Hotel/Motel $854 sleeping room
Extended Stay Hotel/Motel $559 sleeping room
Hospital $1,796 1,000 square feet
Service Station $3,442 Fuel Pump
Supermarket $1,078 1,000 square feet
Warehouse/Self-Storage $238 1,000 square feet
Assisted Living Facility $434 bed
Congregate Care $368 unit
Child Day Care $682 Student
Private School (K-12) $414 Student
Auto Repair/Body Shop $2,361 1,000 square feet
Gym/Fitness Center $2,361 1,000 square feet
Drive-through Car Wash $2,361 1,000 square feet
Normalized Cost per Trip
(All Other Uses) $167 Per Weekday Trip
City Administrative Fee
Per building permit: 2% of the total SCTMFP Fee
Exemptions:
a. Accessory Dwelling Units less than 750 square feet.
b. The rehabilitation or reconstruction of any residential or non -residential structure where there is no net increase in square footage. Any increase in square footage shall pay the established applicable fee rate for that portion of square footage that is new.
c. New low-income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 and very low-income housing as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50105. d. Projects intended for public use where the applicant is one of the Partici pating Agencies.
e. Any development project that is subject of a valid development agreement entered into pursuant to CGC Section 65864 prior to April 1, 2009, that includes a provision exempting it from future fees or fee increases; provided, however, that i f the term of such a development agreement is extended after April 1, 2009, the SCTMFP shall be imposed.
f. Any development project for which an application for a vesting tentative map authorization by CGC Section 66498.1 was deemed complete prior to April 1 , 2009.
Notes:
1. For developments that do not fall into the land use categories above, the normalized cost per trip rate should be used to determine the fee based on the daily trips generated by the development.
2. Calculation of Fee for Mixed Use Projects. For Projects that include two or more different types of uses, the amount of the fee imposed on the entire Development Project shall be proportionally determined based on the relative footprint associated with the various uses.
3. Reduced Fees for Reduced Trip Generation. Developments in infill areas or with reduced parking availability, as defined by the Entity, may be subject to reduced fees at the discretion of the Entity. The Entity shall provide the rationale for reduced fees based on a supporting Traffic Study stamped by a licensed Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer.
4. Fees for Transit Oriented Development. In accordance with the CGC Section 66005.1, the SCTMFP must provide for an adjustment of the fee for developments that meet certain characteristics typically associated with a Transit Orient Development (TOD). To qualify for the reduction, a development must have all of the following characteristics (see CGC Section 66005.1.(a)):
a. Be a housing development located within one-half mile of a transit station with direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a barrier-free walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length. b. Convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, are located within one- half mile of the housing development.
c. The housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than one onsite parking space for zero to two bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units, whichever is less.
5. Re-purposing/Reuse of existing buildings. Fee applicable only to net increase in average daily trips compared to prior established use.