Yuba City City Council
March 3, 2026

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 19
Nexus Findings
This report has been prepared to establish the Roadway Fee Program fees in accordance with the procedural guidelines established in the Mitigation Fee Act, which are codified in California Government Code (CGC) Section 66000 et. seq.

The Mitigation Fee Act sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees.

In particular, CGC Section 66001 includes specific requirements for establishing a reasonable relationship or nexus between the development impact fee, and CGC Section 66016.5 (added in 2021 to address the newly enacted AB 602) includes additional requirements for development impact fees. The remainder of this chapter addresses the requirements of CGC Section 66001 and CGC Section 66016.5.

Ca l i for n ia Gove r nme n t Code
Se c t ion 66001
CGC Section 66001 requires that a “reasonable relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.”3 Specifically, each local agency imposing a development impact fee must make the following findings:
• Identify the purpose of the fee.
• Identify how the fee is to be used.
• Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. • Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
• Demonstrate how a reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

This section details these findings for each Roadway Fee Program component that is addressed in this report.
3 Public Needs & Private Dollars; William Abbott, Marian E. Moe, and Marilee Hanson, page 109.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 20
City Determination Affecting Roadway Facility Cost Allocations The City’s roadway facilities CIP includes approximately $39.7 million in costs for utility construction and relocation. These costs are related to new or expanded roadway construction where the adjacent utilities will have to be relocated or placed underground. A disproportionate majority of the utility construction and relocation expenditures are adjacent to planned residential development (as measured by lineal feet of street frontage). When frontage for parks, recreation and open space and public/semi-public uses are excluded, planned residential development represents approximately 79 percent of the street frontage while nonresidential uses represent the remaining 21 percent.

Before adjustment, residential development reflects approximately 63 percent of total dwelling unit equivalents from planned development. Thus, before adjustment, residential development would be allocated approximately $24.9 million, of the total $39.7 million in utility construction and relocation costs.

The roadway fee calculations in the Fee Calculations report adjust $24.9 million to a total of $31.3 million (increase of $6.4 million) to allocate 79 percent of the utility construction and relocation costs to residential development.

Roadways
Purpose of Fee
The purpose of the Roadway Fee Program streets fee is to provide funding to construct new roadway facility infrastructure required to serve the new City residents and employees.

Use of Fee
The Roadway Fee Program streets fees will be used to construct and expand roadway facilities needed to accommodate future traffic volumes projected as a result of new development. The Roadway Fee will be used to fund land acquisition and right of way costs, utility construction, roadway construction and soft costs.

Relationship Between Use of Fee and Type of Development The Roadway Fees will be used to construct roadway improvements needed to adequately serve an increased service population as the result of the new development. A reasonable relationship exists between the use of the Roadway Fees and the residential and commercial development on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the roadway system needed to serve the new residents and employees generated by the new development.

Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Development New residential and commercial development in the City will generate new residents and employees that will result in new vehicular trips and the need for additional roadway improvements to maintain adequate levels of service.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 21
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for roadway improvements and the type of new residential and nonresidential development projects because the roadway improvements must be constructed to accommodate the new development types that will place an increased demand on the roadway system.

Relationship Between Amount of Fee and Cost of Facility or Portion of Facility Attributed to Development on Which Fee is Imposed
The total cost of improvements funded by the Roadway Fees is allocated among the projected new residential and nonresidential land uses in the City at buildout based on the relative demand each land use is anticipated to place upon the improvements. Cost allocation factors based on trip generation and vehicle miles travelled are used to measure the relative demand generated by each land use and to allocate the roadway costs across all benefiting land uses in the City.

A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the Roadway Fees and the costs of the facilities attributable to the new residential and nonresidential development on which the fees are imposed because the fees are derived using appropriate cost allocation factors as measures of the proportional demand generated by each development type.

Administration
The administration component of the Fee Program funds City costs associated with fee program administration and implementation, including credit and reimbursement agreement negotiations and implementation, credit and reimbursement tracking, annual reporting requirements, periodic updates to the Nexus Study, and other related costs. Collection and implementation of the Roadway Fee is reliant upon funding from the administration component.

For each land use, the administration component is calculated as 2 percent of the roadway costs. Costs of the administration component are therefore based on each fee component, and associated nexus findings for the administration component are established by the nexus finding for the Roadway Fee documented above.

Ca l i for n ia Gove r nme n t Code
Se c t ion 660 16 .5 (AB 602)
As noted earlier in this document, this nexus analysis must consider the newly created CGC Section 66016.5. This section stipulates that a jurisdiction must calculate residential development impact fees proportionately to the square footage of the dwelling units, with the exception of water and sewer fees and any other fees for which specific findings can be made as to why the fees should not be enacted on a square foot basis.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 22
As described in this report, the residential roadway fees have been calculated by dwelling unit square foot ranges. Thus, the required findings detailed in CGC Section 66016.5 must be made for these residential roadway fees. The specific requirements and findings are detailed in the remainder of this chapter.

Requirements for Exceptions to Fee Proportional to Housing Square Footage
CGS Section 66016.5(a)(5)(A) states, among other things, that fees “imposed on a housing development project 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.” However, Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B) states that a nexus study “is not required to comply with this proportionality requirement if the local agency makes the following findings:
a) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project. b) 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.
c) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.”
Roadway Facilities
a) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.

The roadway costs are allocated to dwelling units on a trips basis in the form of VMT per unit, which relies on transportation factors (number of PM peak hour trip rate, length of trips), as well as on persons per household, as persons per household has a direct relationship to the number of daily trips. The persons per household data provided in this report supports identification of an increasing number of people per household and trips per household as a dwelling unit size increases. However, the data present limitations on both the lower/smaller unit size range and on the higher/larger unit size range. For example, regardless of how small a dwelling unit may be, the minimum assumed persons per unit would be 1. Similarly, as home size continues to increase, the data are not as conclusive that the number of persons per unit and daily trips per unit continue to increase in a linear or otherwise determinant fashion. For these reasons, deriving a fee directly calculated on residential building square footage alone is not an appropriate metric to calculate the Roadway Fees.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 23
b) 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.

As detailed in Chapter 2, the number of people per household, trips per household, and VMT per household show a pattern of increasing as unit size increases. Thus, implementing the fee based on ranges of building square feet for residential development bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development because units that fall in the lower building unit size range pay a lower fee than units that fall in a higher building unit size range, which is proportional to the estimated number of people per household by unit size within each size range.
c) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

Implementation of the Roadway Fee Program fees for residential development by building square foot range achieves the objective that smaller residential units would be charged a lower fee than larger units and ensures proportionality of fees based on relative demand for the facilities, as documented in this report.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 24
Fee Program Implementation and
Administration
This chapter identifies tasks that the City will complete when implementing the Roadway Fee Program.

The Roadway Fee Program fees presented in this report are based on the best improvement cost estimates, funding source information, administrative cost estimates, and land use information available at this time. If costs change significantly, if the type or amount of new development changes, if other assumptions significantly change, or if other funding becomes available (as a result of legislative action on state and local government finance, for example), the Roadway Fee Program should be updated accordingly.

After the fees presented in this report are established, the City will conduct periodic reviews of the public improvement costs and other assumptions used as the basis of this Nexus Study. Based on these reviews, the City may make necessary adjustments to the Roadway Fee Program through subsequent updates.

In f la t ion Ad jus tme n t
The costs in this report are shown in 2024 dollars based on the CIP prepared by MHM Engineers and Surveyors. To ensure that the Roadway Fee Program stays current with the prevailing cost of construction, the proposed fees will be automatically adjusted by the City annually to account for the inflation (or deflation) of construction, right-of-way acquisition, environmental, and design costs. Consistent with other City-administered fee programs, annual fee adjustments shall occur automatically on January 1 of each calendar year.

The Roadway Fee will be adjusted automatically by the percentage change in the average of the Engineering-News Record’s San Francisco and 20-City Construction Cost Indices for the 12-month period ending in October of the previous year, or equivalent, as determined by the Finance Director if these numbers are not available. For example, the adjustment for January 2025 will be determined by calculating the percentage change from October 2023 to October 2024 in the average of the ENR 20-city and San Francisco CCIs. The resulting value will be the adjustment factor that will be applied to the Roadway Fee in January 2025.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 25
Imp leme n t i ng O rd i na n ce s /Re so l u t io ns
The proposed Roadway Fee would be adopted by the City through one or more ordinances authorizing collection of the fees and through one or more fee resolutions establishing the fees. The fee will be effective 60 days following the City’s final action on the ordinances authorizing collection of the fee and on the fee resolutions establishing the fee. The new ordinances and resolutions should reference the automatic inflation adjustment factor discussed in this section.

Fee Adm i n i s tra t ion
The Roadway Fee will be collected from new development in the City subject to the fee at the time of building permit issuance; use of these funds may need to wait until a sufficient fund balance can be accrued. According to CGC Section 66000, the City is required to deposit, invest, account for, and expend the fees in a prescribed manner.

Fee Exemp t io n s , Red u c t io n s , and
Wa i v e r s
Public Agencies
All federal and state agencies, public school districts, and the City may be exempt from the Roadway Fee Program fees. Other non-City public agencies shall be subject to payment of the Roadway Fee Program fees.

Replacement/Reconstruction
Any replacement or reconstruction (no change in use) of any residential unit or any nonresidential structure that is damaged or destroyed as a result of fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, riot, or other calamity, or act of God shall be exempt from the Roadway Fee. However, if the replacement or reconstructed residential unit exceeds the documented total number of units or unit size of the damaged/destroyed residential structure, or the replacement or reconstructed nonresidential building exceeds the documented total floor area of the damaged/destroyed building, the excess units or building square footage is subject to the Roadway Fee.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 26
Additions/Alterations/Modifications/Temporary Facilities The following rules shall apply to additions, alterations, modifications, and temporary facilities:
1) Consistent with current State law, ADU and Junior ADU that are fewer than 750 building square feet shall not be assessed the Roadway Fee. 2) Additions to residential structures where the total square footage of the dwelling remains within a fee category range, provided no change in use occurs and a second full kitchen is not added, shall not be charged a fee.

If the square footage of the dwelling increases into a new fee category range, the difference of the two fee category ranges shall be collected before building permit issuance.
3) Except as otherwise provided, when an existing residential dwelling is converted into two primary units, or a new primary dwelling is added to the property, that new unit shall be assessed a fee consistent with the provisions of this Nexus Study.
4) Supporting use square footage in multi-unit residential projects, such as the office and recreation areas required to directly serve the multifamily project, shall not be subject to a fee. The residential unit fee will provide the full mitigation required in multi-unit residential projects. 5) Non-habitable residential structures, including decks, pools and spas, pool cabanas, sheds, and detached garages, shall not be assessed a fee.

An attached garage shall not count towards the square footage of the dwelling.

Accessory Dwelling Units
Fees on ADUs larger than 750 square feet require a two-part calculation. First the City will determine the total habitable building square footage of the proposed ADU and the primary residential unit on the lot on which the ADU is proposed.

The City will determine the ADU building square footage as a proportion of the primary residential unit. As an example, if the primary residential dwelling unit is 2,000 building square feet and the proposed ADU is 1,000 building square feet, then the ADU would be 50 percent of the primary residential unit. The City would then identify the Roadway Fee that will apply to the primary residential unit and apply 50 percent to that amount as the Roadway Fee applicable to the ADU. In this example, the categories would be the Single Family 1,500 – 2,499 sq. ft. category for streets and parks and open space fees and either low density residential or medium density residential for the other fee categories.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 27
Credit for Replacement of Existing Buildings
New development that replaces existing development is eligible for a fee credit to the extent the facilities to be funded by the new development are already provided to the existing development. For example, a 4-unit apartment complex that is replaced by an 8-unit apartment complex could receive up to a 50 percent credit in the fee (4/8 = 50 percent). The City’s Community Development Director will determine the amount of the fee credit at the time a site plan is submitted to the City.

Fee Cred i t and Re imb u r seme n t to
De ve l o pe rs
As is typical with development impact fee programs, many of the public infrastructure facilities are needed up front before adequate revenue from the fee collection would be available to fund such improvements. Consequently, some type of private funding may be necessary to pay for the public improvements when they are needed. This private financing may be in the form of land-secured bonds, developer equity, or other forms of private financing.

In cases where a private party (e.g., developer) has advance-funded an eligible Roadway Fee Program facility, the party will be due fee credits or reimbursements from the fee program. Note that the Roadway Fee administration component must be paid at the issuance of a building permit to provide the City with funding to administer the Roadway Fee Program. Roadway Fee credits or reimbursements will be provided under the following conditions:
• Developer-installed improvements shall be considered for reimbursement.

Only funds collected from the Roadway Fee shall be used to reimburse a developer who installed eligible Roadway Fee Program improvements identified in the Roadway CIP.
• The value of any developer-installed improvement for fee credit or reimbursement purposes shall be based on the lesser of the actual cost of eligible facilities (as determined at the sole discretion of the City via a review of the construction contract and payments made, plus an allowance determined by the City for soft costs directly associated with the facility design and construction) or the total eligible facility costs based on the cost schedule and estimate set forth in the CIP, subject to the automatic annual inflation adjustment described previously in this chapter. The Master Reimbursement Agreement governs how the Roadway Fee reimbursements will be provided. • All construction contracts, construction work, and requests for reimbursement are performed in conformance with the most current City policies governing such construction of eligible improvements and the Master Reimbursement Agreement.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 28
Impact Fee Program Adopt ion Proces s
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in CGC Section 66016 through CGC Section 66019. Adoption of this impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures, including holding a public hearing with at least 30 days’ notice for the hearing (Gov. Code § 66016.5(a)(7)). The City is required to post a public notice at least 30 days before the public hearing considering the fee. The City shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.

Mailed notice 14 days before the public hearing is required for those individuals who request such notification. Data, such as this Nexus Study and referenced material, must be made available at least 10 days before the public hearing.

Any new or increased fees would be effective 60 days after adoption.

Programm i ng Re ve nue s a n d Pro je c ts
wi th the Ca p ita l Imp ro vem e n t P la n
The City will update its Roadway CIP to identify specific projects and program fee revenues to those projects. Use of the Roadway CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues.

The City shall plan its CIP expenditures at least 5 years in advance and show where all collected development impact fee revenues will be spent. The City can hold funds in a project account for longer than 5 years, if necessary, to collect sufficient funds to complete a given project. See Compliance Requirements below for the specific CIP update requirements stated in CGC Section 62000.

Co mp l ian ce Requir ement s
The California Mitigation Fee Act (CGC Section 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection, accounting, refunds, updates, and reporting. The City must comply with the annual and 5-year reporting requirements. For facilities to be funded with a combination of impact fees and other revenues, the City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City must also identify when the other revenues are anticipated to be available to fund the project. The City’s compliance obligations regarding the act include the specific requirements detailed below.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 29
Earmarking of Fee Revenues
CGC Section 66006 mandates that the City deposit fees for the improvements in a separate capital facilities account or fund to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the City, except for temporary investments.

Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which they were collected.

Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose. The California Mitigation Fee Act is not clear as to whether depositing fees “for the improvements” refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., fire or police facilities). The City maintains discretion as to how it will collect and account for Roadway Fee fees, while maintaining compliance with CGC requirements.

Reporting
CGC Section 66006 requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the City must make available to the public the following information for each account established to receive impact fee revenues:
1) The amount of the fee.
2) The beginning balance and the ending balance of the account or fund. 3) The amount of the fees collected and interest earned. 4) Identification of each public improvement on which fee revenues were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fee revenues.
5) Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected for financing of an incomplete public improvement. 6) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvements on which the transfer or loan will be expended. 7) The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to CGC Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f).

The above-listed information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not fewer than 15 days after the statements are made public.

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 30
Findings and Refunds
CGC Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by CGC Section 66006, and every 5 years thereafter, the City must make all the following findings for any fee revenues that remain unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
1) Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put.
2) Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
3) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which the impact fees are to be used. 4) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Updating of the Impact Fee Nexus Study
According to CGC Section 66016.5(a)(8), impact fee nexus studies shall be updated at least every 8 years from the date of adoption. This requirement became effective on January 1, 2023.

In future updates, the City may use the impact fee nexus study template developed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50466.5 of the Health and Safety Code to update the nexus study.

Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan
CGC Section 66002 provides that if the City adopts a CIP to identify the use of impact fees, that program must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The City maintains two CIPs:
one includes the programming of all projects funded or partly funded by impact fee revenues (Roadway CIP prepared by MHM, a summary of which is contained in this nexus study in Appendix B) and an overall citywide 5-year CIP that is adopted annually during the City budget process.

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Roadway Facilities
Cost Estimate Detail
Appendix B: Summary of Capital
Improvement Program
Appendix C: Transportation Impact Fee
Comparisons
Appendix D: Development Impact Fee
Comparison

APPENDIX A:

Roadway Facilities Cost Estimate Detail
City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations, prepared by Fehr & Peers

City of Yuba City
Roadway Development Impact Fee
Calculations
March 2025
Prepared By:

Prepared for:

Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)
RS24-4369

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 Background.............................................................................................................................................................................1

2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS................................................................................................................. 2 Land Use Growth..................................................................................................................................................................2 Trip Generation .....................................................................................................................................................................3

3. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ......................................................................................... 4 Project Identification ...........................................................................................................................................................4 Cost Estimates .......................................................................................................................................................................6

4. NEXUS ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................ 7 Existing Deficiencies ............................................................................................................................................................7 Justification for Roadway Capacity Increases ............................................................................................................9 Fee Calculations ..................................................................................................................................................................10 Appendices
Appendix A: January 2024 City of Yuba City Fee schedule Appendix B: Detailed Information and Cost Estimates for Roadway Development Impact Fee Program

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

1. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND
The City of Yuba City roadway fee component of its Development Impact Fee program was most recently updated on January 1, 2024. The road fee currently stands at $6,654 per Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE). See Appendix A for current fee schedule. Over time, a number of adjustments to the road fees have been made by the City Council for different land use types and within different areas of the City (i.e., infill versus new growth areas).

At the recommendation of City staff, this report calculates impact fees in a standard manner and does not implement any of the fee adjustments previously established by the City Council. It is anticipated that these draft fees may undergo similar adjustments by the City Council.

In 2019-2020, the City retained Fehr & Peers to update its travel demand model, which had not undergone a full recalibration since 2004. As part of this effort, a review of land use growth assumptions and planned roadway improvements was conducted. Chapter 2 presents the anticipated land use growth, while Chapter 3 lists the roadway improvements needed to support that growth.

As documented in this report, the fee update process includes updating the City’s land use growth projections, updating the list of projects to be included in the roadway fee program, and updating the fee calculations.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS

LAND USE GROWTH
An important step in quantifying the nexus relationship is to determine the amount of new development anticipated in the planning horizon of the study. City staff provided anticipated land use growth for a “buildout condition”, which would occur after 20401. Table 1 displays the expected land use totals within the City for the primary trip-generating land uses under buildout conditions. The following key findings are derived from this table:
• The City is expected to add approximately 28,500 new dwelling units at buildout, which represents a 121 percent increase over current conditions.
• An anticipated 13 million square feet of non-residential growth would occur. The growth will be similar in magnitude to that of residential growth, representing a 114 percent increase over current conditions. Office and retail (including neighborhood, community, and regional) space totaling about 8.4 million square feet would be the largest contributor, representing 64 percent of the total non-residential growth.

TABLE 1: YUBA CITY FUTURE YEAR LAND USE TOTALS
Land Use Category Unit Base Year (2020) Buildout Condition Residential
Single-Family Residential DU 18,468 39,997
Multi-Family Residential DU 5,134 12,067
Retail
Neighborhood Commercial KSF 592 1,240
Community Commercial KSF 3,565 5,685
Regional Commercial KSF 1,235 2,353
Non-Retail
Office KSF 1,126 5,606
Light Industrial KSF 4,681 8,184
Manufacture 1 KSF - 1,193
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) 2 KSF 230 230
Notes:
1 Base year model classifies manufacturing uses as light industrial.

Per previous discussions with the City and EPS, it was decided that growth in PQP would be classified as office given similar trip rates.

DU = dwelling units. KSF = thousand square feet of occupied space.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
1 A “market absorption” scenario, corresponding to a 2040 condition, was also developed as part of the model update process. However, a full buildout scenario was selected for this fee program update so that all planned roadways would be included.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

TRIP GENERATION
Once the land use assumptions were established, the trip generation associated with those land uses was calculated. The PM peak hour time period was chosen as the basis for the fee calculations because most transportation facilities are designed to accommodate usage during this peak hour of travel demand.2 Trip generation rates from the updated City of Yuba City travel demand model were used as the basis for the trip generation estimates. To learn more about the model development process, contact City staff to obtain the City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report (Fehr & Peers, October 2020).

Table 2 indicates that the land use growth would generate approximately 47,640 PM peak hour trips. This represents about 12 percent more trips than generated by existing land uses within the City.

TABLE 2: PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION OF YUBA CITY FUTURE YEAR LAND USES Land Use Category Unit Land Use
Growth 1
PM Peak Hour
Trip Rate 2
PM Peak Hour
Trips
Residential
Single-Family Residential DU 21,529 1.17 25,189
Multi-Family Residential DU 6,933 0.61 4,229
Retail
Neighborhood Commercial KSF 648 2.56 1,659
Community Commercial KSF 2,120 2.56 5,427
Regional Commercial KSF 1,118 2.56 2,862
Non-Retail
Office KSF 4,480 1.32 5,914
Light Industrial KSF 3,503 0.45 1,576
Manufacture KSF 1,193 0.66 787
Total 47,643
Notes:
1 Represents growth between base year (2020) model and buildout model. 2 PM peak hour trip rates derived from City of Yuba City travel demand model.

DU = dwelling units. KSF = thousand square feet of occupied space.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
2 Calculations were also performed using daily trip generation rates. This alternate method did not appreciably change overall results. Thus, the more traditional PM peak hour time period was chosen.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

3. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
A series of model runs were performed to determine the preferred set of roadway network improvements that would provide adequate street capacity to handle traffic demands under buildout conditions. Much of the land use growth will occur in the western and southern portions of the City, where there are several large Specific Plans or Master Plans (e.g., Lincoln East, Harter, El Margarita, and Bogue Stewart) with approved land use plans. In addition to these plans, five distinct planning areas (North, Northwest, North Central, Southwest, and Southeast) are also contemplated. The net effect of the magnitude and location of growth is the need for substantial increases in east-west and north-south roadway capacity in the western part of the City.

Figure 1 shows the number of lanes and functional classification of roadways in the City of Yuba City under buildout conditions. Table 3 provides a summary of major roadway projects that would be included in the Roadway Development Impact Fee program. Appendix B contains a list of all projects to be included based on work by MHM Engineers and Surveyors in 2024. The status of state highway improvements within the program are as follows:
• SR 99/Pease Road Interchange – included with 15% of overall cost covered by fee program. This improvement is contained in the 2020 MTP/SCS with construction planned in 2036-2040. • SR 20/SR 99 Improvements – included with 100% funding for the widening of SR 20 from four to six lanes from SR 99 to west of Stabler Lane. The 2020 MTP/SCS shows an improvement consisting of the widening of SR 20 from four to six lanes from Walton Avenue to Rocca Way (east of SR 99), with construction planned in 2036-2040.
• SR 99 Widening (South of SR 20) – is fully excluded from the fee program and shown as a post2040 project in the 2020 MTP/SCS.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

Pease Rd
Plumas St
S GeorgeWashington Blvd
Hooper Rd
Harter Pky
NWalton Ave Stabler Ln SWalton Ave
E Onstott Frontage Rd
Clark Ave
Live Oak Blvd
2 2 2
2 4
2 2 2
2 2
4 4 2
2 4 4 4
4 20 4
2 4
4 4
2 2
2 Queens Ave
4 4
4 4
2 6
4 4
2 4
2 2 4
2 2 2
2 4
4 6 6 5
4 4 2
4 2

MARYSVILLE
4 2
2 2 2 4
4 2
4 2 2
YUBA CITY 4
4 4
2 4
2 4 4 4
4 4 4 4
2 2
4 4 4 2
4 2 2 4
4 2
99 2
2 4
2 Richland Rd
4 Lincoln Rd
4 4 4 4
4 2
2 2 2 2 4 4
2 2 2 4
2 2
2 2
Bogue Rd 4
4 4 4 4
2 4
4 2
2 4 2
2 2
2 2
X Roadway Number of Lanes
(Excluding turn pockets or
Functional Classification
Freeway Parkway Local Street
center turn lanes)
New Interchange
Highway
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
New/Widened Road
Figure 1
Number of Lanes and
Franklin Rd
StewartRd
Feather River
N:\2019 Projects\3764.00_CONF_Yuba_City_Impact_Fee_Study_Model_Update\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig0x_FClass_Cumulative_10.51.mxd S Township Rd
Western Pkwy
N GeorgeWashington Blvd
Tierra Buena Rd El Margarita Rd
Tharp Rd
Gray Ave
2

Functional Classification - Buildout Conditions

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF FUNDING ALLOCATED TO MAJOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT

PROJECTS IN ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
Type 1 General Description
East-West Roadway
Capacity Increase
Widening to four lanes: parts of Butte House Road, Bridge Street, Franklin Road, Lincoln Road, Lassen Boulevard, and Bogue Road.

Westerly extension of Bridge Street.

North-South Roadway
Capacity Increase
Widening to four lanes: parts of George Washington Boulevard, Walton Avenue, Harter Parkway, Tharp Road, and Garden Highway.

Extension as two or four lanes of Western Parkway and Harter (Tuly) Parkway.

State Highway
Improvements
New Interchange at State Route 99/Pease Road.

Widening of State Route 20 from four to six lanes from State Route 20 to west of Stabler Lane.

Notes:
1 This is a partial/summarized list. Improvements also planned on other streets (e.g., Pease Road, Township Road, etc.) to upgrade facility type, but are not necessarily considered capacity increases. See Appendix B for complete list of projects.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

COST ESTIMATES
For the purposes of the Roadway Development Impact Fee program, it is necessary to know the estimated cost of the roadway projects on the list. In 2024, cost estimates were developed for each project by MHM Engineers and Surveyors and include utility and construction costs, right-of-way costs, and engineering/administrative costs. As shown in Appendix B, the City’s Roadway Development Impact Fee program would cover $636,500,000 in improvement costs, the vast majority of which would be for Citymaintained facilities. An additional $147,067,196 in external funds is expected to be available to cover the remaining cost for improvements not covered by the fee program. The CIP improvements include new traffic signals at various city intersections, though roundabouts could also be constructed in lieu of signals at certain locations. The program also includes a new multimodal path along an abandoned rail line.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

4. NEXUS ANALYSIS

EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
An important part of a nexus analysis is to establish whether the transportation facilities that will be addressed by the projects in the fee program are currently deficient. If there are existing deficiencies at any of those locations, then an adjustment should be made in the fee calculations to ensure new development pays its fair share and is not charged to correct an existing problem.

As part of the Yuba City travel demand model update, a comprehensive analysis of City intersections was performed. A total of 25 intersections throughout the City were analyzed during AM and PM peak hours based on traffic counts collected in 2019 while schools were in session (and prior to the onset of the COVID19 Pandemic which altered travel behavior). The City of Yuba City uses Level of Service (LOS) as the primary roadway network performance measure, with a standard of LOS D or better at all intersections (excluding bridges over the Feather River or Caltrans facilities).

Table 4 shows existing operations at the 25 study intersections. As shown, all of the intersections currently operate at LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hours; this level of operation meets the City’s standards, thus indicating these locations are not currently deficient.

Because there are no existing deficiencies, it is reasonable to carry forward all the cost of the future improvements into the next stage of the fee calculations.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

TABLE 4: AM AND PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS – EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection Traffic Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) 1 LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) 1 LOS
Live Oak Blvd & Queens Ave Signalized 20.6 C 21 C
Harter Pkwy & Butte House Rd Signalized 19.3 B 11 B
Stabler Lane & Butte House Rd Signalized 24.2 C 25.8 C
Gray Ave & Butte House Rd Signalized 14 B 19.9 B
Walton Ave & Bridge St Signalized 22.2 C 24.8 C
Gray Ave & Bridge St Signalized 23.8 C 23.7 C
Clark Ave & Bridge St Signalized 30 C 29.7 C
Plumas St & Bridge St Signalized 19.7 B 21.8 C
Shasta St & Bridge St Signalized 18 B 22 C
Bridge Street & 5th St Bridge Signalized 53 D 42.3 D
Sutter St & 5th St Bridge SSSC 2

1.2 (17) A(B) 0.9 (16) A(C)
2nd St/Sutter St & Bridge Street Signalized 44 D 47.8 D George Washington Blvd & Franklin Rd AWSC 14.2 B 15.2 C Walton Ave & Franklin Rd Signalized 34 C 33.8 C
Franklin Ave & Gray Ave Signalized 11 B 14 B
Clark Ave & Franklin Ave Signalized 24.4 C 27.8 C
Plumas Blvd & Franklin Ave (W) AWSC 10.6 B 10.3 B
Garden Hwy & Franklin Ave Signalized 14.6 B 15.8 B
Walton Ave & Richland Rd SSSC 2

3.2(24.4) A(C) 2.9 (23) A(D)
George Washington Blvd & Lincoln Rd AWSC 9.7 A 9.8 A
S Walton Ave & Lincoln Rd Signalized 29.7 C 23.1 C
Garden Hwy & Lincoln Rd Signalized 9.7 A 11.8 B
George Washington Blvd & Bogue Rd AWSC 9.1 A 9.3 A
S Walton Ave & Bogue Rd AWSC 11.5 B 11.6 B
Garden Hwy & Bogue Rd Signalized 21.6 C 19.8 B
Notes:
1 Based on analysis methods from the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016). Release of 7 th Edition in 2022 did not alter calculation methods for intersection delay. 2 For SSSC intersections, the worst-case movement (in parentheses) and entire intersection (not in parentheses) are shown.

SSSC = Side-street stop control. AWSC = All-way stop-control.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

JUSTIFICATION FOR ROADWAY CAPACITY INCREASES
Table 5 compares existing and cumulative buildout daily traffic levels on a dozen street segments in Yuba City. Chosen segments consist of two-lane facilities counted in 2019 and planned to be widened to four lanes as part of the Roadway Development Impact Fee program.

TABLE 5: COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND CUMULATIVE BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ON

YUBA CITY ROADWAYS
Roadway Segment
Existing Conditions Cumulative Buildout Conditions
ADT 1 LOS 2 ADT 1 LOS Without
Widening 2
LOS With
Widening 2
Butte House Road west of Harter Parkway 13,800 D 30,500 F D George Washington Blvd south of SR 20 8,500 D 15,500 E A Harter Parkway north of SR 20 9,700 A 21,600 F B
Harter Parkway south of SR 20 5,500 A 29,700 F D
Walton Avenue north of Lincoln Road 11,900 B 27,200 F C Garden Highway north of Lincoln 17,800 B 31,700 F D
Franklin Road west of Walton Avenue 6,500 A 28,700 F C
Franklin Road east of SR 99 13,700 C 27,600 F C
Lincoln Road west of SR 99 10,800 D 24,500 F B
Lincoln Road east of SR 99 13,000 C 25,400 F C
Bogue Road west of SR 99 7,200 D 30,800 F D
Bogue Road east of SR 99 10,100 D 32,200 F D
Notes:
1 ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume (both directions). 2 LOS based on two-lane rural roadway or two- or four-lane moderate access control arterial (having capacity of 9,000 daily vehicles per lane, and using v/c ratios of 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0 to represents LOS D, E, and F condition thresholds, respectively).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Table 5 indicates that without the planned widenings, all but one of the twelve segments would degrade to LOS F under cumulative buildout conditions. With the planned widenings, they would each improve to LOS D or better. This result illustrates how the planned widenings are necessary to accommodate travel generated by planned land use growth.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

FEE CALCULATIONS
The road fees would be charged to all types of new development throughout the City. To allocate the fees equitably among different development types, the fee amounts charged to each land use category should reflect the relative effects of each category on the transportation system. This entails the use of different fee rates for different land use types. Table 6 shows the results of those calculations.

To calculate the fees, the product of each land use’s PM peak hour trip rate and average trip length was calculated and compared against the single-family rate, which is, by definition, one Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE). Using this method, a DUE factor per unit of land use is established. The number of units of land use growth is then multiplied by the DUE factor to yield the number of DUEs for each land use category. The roadway fee per unit of land use is then calculated by dividing the total cost responsibility by total number of DUEs for each land use category.3
Residential Cost Transfer for Utility Undergrounding
The City has decided that the cost of utility construction/relocation improvements for undergrounding should be borne in a manner proportionate to the amount of street frontage of each land use type.

According to MHM Engineers’ spreadsheet, those costs amount to $39.7 million. According to City calculations, residential uses are situated along 79% of the linear distance of all roadways included in the fee program. The remainder are spread among a variety of non-residential land uses including business/ technology, commercial, office park, and public/semi-public.

Table 6 indicates that residential land uses represent 24,581 of the 39,680 total DUEs (63%). However, residential represents 79% of the frontage along which utility construction/relocation improvements would be constructed. Unlike general street widening for capacity purposes, uses abutting the roadway would more directly benefit from the utility improvements (versus parcels situated elsewhere). To account for this, a CIP cost transfer of $6.4 million4from non-residential uses to residential uses was determined to be necessary. That increase was then spread in proportion to the total number of DUEs in each land use category. The values shown in Table 7 reflect this transfer. 3 Note that the calculations do not explicitly consider pass-by trips to retail uses. This is because the city’s travel demand model applies trip rates (2.56 trips per ksf of retail) that already reflect reductions for pass-by trips.

For example, the average weekday PM peak hour trip rate for a 160,000 square foot shopping center according to the ITE Trip Generation Manual is 3.75 trips per ksf. Rates used in the city’s model are 34% below that, as the model is not able to account for pass-by travel.
4 Calculated as follows: Proportionate Allocation ($39,700,000 * 78.8%) minus Current Allocation ($39,700,000 *

62.6%) = $6,420,738, split proportionally between single family and multi-family residential. Values do not match precisely due to rounding.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

TABLE 6: ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM FEE BY LAND USE TYPE (UNADJUSTED) Land Use
Category Unit
Land
Use
Growth
PM Peak
Hour Trip
Rate
Avg Trip
Length
DUE Factor
per Unit 1 DUEs 2 Total Responsibility 3
Unadjusted
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Single-Family
Residential DU 21,529 1.17 3.7 1.00 21,529 $ 345,339,830 $ 16,041 Multi-Family
Residential DU 6,933 0.61 3.4 0.48 3,322 $ 53,280,118 $ 7,685 Neighborhood
Commercial KSF 648 2.56 3.2 1.89 1,226 $ 19,669,811 $ 30,355 Community
Commercial KSF 2,120 2.56 3.1 1.83 3,886 $ 62,340,854 $ 29,406 Regional
Commercial KSF 1,118 2.56 4.3 2.54 2,843 $ 45,602,164 $ 40,789 Office KSF 4,480 1.32 3.5 1.07 4,781 $
76,692,910 $ 17,119
Light
Industrial KSF 3,503 0.45 3.8 0.40 1,384 $22,195,834 $ 6,336 Manufacture KSF 1,193 0.66 3.9 0.59 709 $ 11,378,479 $ 9,538 Total 39,680 $ 636,500,000 -
Notes:
1 Calculated as the ratio of the product of PM peak hour trip rate and average trip length against the single-family rate (i.e., the Dwelling Unit Equivalent). Example: multi-family is (0.61*3.4)/(1.17*3.7) = 0.48 2 Product of DUE factor per unit and number of added units or KSF by land use type. 3 Responsibility by land use type is that land use’s proportion of all DUEs divided by the total program cost. 4 In this context, ‘unadjusted’ refers to methodology not considering residential cost transfer for utility undergrounding.

DU = dwelling units. KSF = thousand square feet
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

TABLE 7: ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM FEE BY LAND USE TYPE (ADJUSTED) Land Use Category Unit DUEs 1 Unadjusted Impact
Fee per Unit 1
Transfer
Amount 2t
Adjusted Impact
Fee per Unit 2
Single-Family Residential DU 21,529 $ 16,041 + $5,562,533 $16,299 Multi-Family Residential DU 3,322 $ 7,685 + $858,205 $7,807 Neighborhood Commercial KSF 1,226 $ 30,355 - $530,918 $29,535 Community Commercial KSF 3,886 $ 29,406 - $1,682,673 $28,612 Regional Commercial KSF 2,843 $ 40,789 - $1,230,870 $39,688 Office KSF 4,781 $ 17,119 - $2,070,056 $16,657
Light Industrial KSF 1,384 $ 6,336 - $599,099 $6,165

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

Manufacture KSF 709 $ 9,538 - $307,122 $9,280
Notes:
1 Source: Table 6.
2 This adjusted fee considers the residential cost transfer for utility undergrounding.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

The net effect of the shift is an increase of about $250 per single-family dwelling unit and $125 per multifamily dwelling unit. Conversely, office would experience a $460 decrease per ksf, while commercial fees would be reduced between $800 and $1,100 per ksf depending on the type of commercial.

Table 8 compares the existing (2024) fees by land use type against the fees developed in this study. As shown, all fees would increase substantially under the premise that the fee program would fully fund all planned improvements.

TABLE 8: COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

FEE BY LAND USE TYPE
Land Use Category Unit Existing Impact Fee per Unit 1 Proposed Impact Fee per Unit 2 Single-Family Residential DU $6,654 $16,299
Multi-Family Residential DU $3,855 $7,807
Neighborhood Commercial KSF $5,592 $29,535
Community Commercial KSF $5,592 $28,612
Regional Commercial KSF $5,592 $39,688
Office KSF $4,025 $16,657
Light Industrial KSF $685 $6,165
Manufacture KSF -
3 $9,280
Notes:
1 Based on current fee schedule dated January 1, 2024.
2 Source: Table 7.

DU = dwelling units. KSF = thousand square feet
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

APPENDIX A:

JANUARY 2024 CITY OF YUBA CITY FEE SCHEDULE

APPENDIX B:

DETAILED INFORMATION AND COST ESTIMATES FOR ROADWAY

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM

APPENDIX B:

Summary of Capital Improvement Program
Roadway CIP

City of Yuba City Traffic Impact Fee Update
Major Planned Roadway Improvements in Accordance with the October 2024 Traffic Study Update Last Revised 3/7/07
Printed 3/20/2025
1 of 2

EAST-WEST ROADWAYS
1-1 Bogue Road Township Road to Western Parkway 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 2,385 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 44.9 108.0 63.1 150,490 $4.50 $0 $68,000 $746,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $954,000 $930 $730 $930 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $3,469,000 $520,350 $242,830 $693,800 $1,457,000 $0 $6,626,000 1-2 Bogue Road Western Parkway to South George Washington 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 2,660 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 48.7 108.0 59.3 157,740 $4.50 $30,000 $74,000 $814,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,064,000 $930 $730 $930 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,224,000 $633,600 $295,680 $844,800 $1,775,000 $0 $7,877,000 1-3 Bogue Road South George Washington to Harter Parkway 4-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 4-Lane Urban Edge 4-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 112.5' 15B 21 2,150 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 66.7 112.5 45.8 98,470 $4.50 $30,000 $48,000 $522,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $860,000 $1,360 $730 $1,360 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,674,000 $701,100 $327,180 $934,800 $1,963,100 $8,020,000 $8,020,000 1-4 Bogue Road Harter Parkway to Holcomb Avenue 4-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 4-Lane Urban Edge 4-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 112.5' 15B 21 1,850 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 68.4 112.5 44.1 81,590 $4.50 $30,000 $40,000 $438,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $740,000 $1,360 $730 $1,360 0 0.00 $0 $2,516,000 $377,400 $176,120 $503,200 $1,056,800 $4,751,000 $4,751,000 1-5 Bogue Road Holcomb Avenue to Sanborn Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 650 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 66.0 121.0 55.0 35,750 $4.50 $30,000 $20,000 $211,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $260,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $2,699,000 $404,850 $188,930 $539,800 $1,133,600 $4,304,000 $4,304,000 1-6 Bogue Road Sanborn Road to South Walton Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 3,325 70% 30% Assume 70.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 71.4 121.0 49.6 115,440 $4.50 $30,000 $55,000 $423,500 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,330,000 $1,460 $730 $1,241 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,639,000 $695,850 $324,730 $927,800 $1,948,400 $8,341,000 $8,341,000 1-7 Bogue Road South Walton Avenue to Kells Ranch Parkway 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,600 98% 2% Assume 98.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 62.5 121.0 58.5 91,730 $4.50 $15,000 $43,000 $461,580 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $640,000 $1,460 $730 $1,445 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,017,000 $602,550 $281,190 $803,400 $1,687,200 $6,806,000 $6,806,000 1-8 Bogue Road Kells Ranch Parkway to SR-99 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 900 98% 2% Assume 98.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 62.5 121.0 58.5 51,600 $4.50 $15,000 $25,000 $267,540 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $360,000 $1,460 $730 $1,445 33D 1.00 $4,250,000 $5,525,000 $828,750 $386,750 $1,105,000 $2,320,500 $8,474,000 $8,474,000 1-9 Bogue Road SR-99 to Railroad Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,530 61% 39% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 61.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

68.4 121.0 52.6 81,180 $4.50 $250,000 $62,000 $413,580 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,012,000 $1,460 $730 $1,175 30 2.00 $1,750,000 $5,314,000 $797,100 $371,980 $1,062,800 $2,231,900 $8,972,000 $8,972,000 1-10 Bogue Road Railroad Avenue to South Park Drive 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,155 50% 50% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 50.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

77.5 121.0 43.5 25,120 $4.50 $0 $12,000 $63,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $462,000 $1,460 $730 $1,095 0 0.00 $0 $633,000 $94,950 $44,310 $126,600 $265,900 $1,424,000 $1,424,000 1-11 Bogue Road South Park Drive to Garden Highway 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,595 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 77.5 77.5 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2-1 Lincoln Road Township Road to Western Parkway 2-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 7A 21 2,310 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 67.6 104.0 36.4 84,080 $4.50 $450,000 $83,000 $912,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $924,000 $1,520 $730 $1,520 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $4,762,000 $714,300 $333,340 $952,400 $2,000,100 $0 $8,599,000 2-2 Lincoln Road Western Parkway to George Washington 2-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 7A 21 2,725 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 67.8 104.0 36.2 98,650 $4.50 $275,000 $72,000 $791,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,090,000 $1,520 $730 $1,520 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $5,392,000 $808,800 $377,440 $1,078,400 $2,264,700 $0 $9,538,000 2-3 Lincoln Road George Washington to Harter Parkway 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,680 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 68.0 121.0 53.0 89,040 $4.50 $450,000 $86,000 $937,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $672,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,203,000 $630,450 $294,210 $840,600 $1,765,300 $7,578,000 $7,578,000 2-4 Lincoln Road Harter Parkway to Sanborn Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,840 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 75.0 121.0 46.0 130,640 $4.50 $30,000 $62,000 $680,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,136,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $5,897,000 $884,550 $412,790 $1,179,400 $2,476,800 $10,190,000 $10,190,000 2-5 Lincoln Road Sanborn Road to South Walton Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 3,330 25% 75% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 25.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

77.2 121.0 43.8 36,460 $4.50 $30,000 $20,000 $53,750 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,332,000 $1,460 $730 $913 0 0.00 $0 $760,000 $114,000 $53,200 $152,000 $319,200 $2,465,000 $2,465,000 2-6 Lincoln Road South Walton Avenue to SR-99 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,480 43% 57% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 43.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

73.8 121.0 47.2 50,330 $4.50 $500,000 $73,000 $344,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $992,000 $1,460 $730 $1,044 0 0.00 $0 $1,114,000 $167,100 $77,980 $222,800 $467,900 $2,918,000 $2,918,000 2-7 Lincoln Road SR-99 to Bunce Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,565 30% 70% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 30.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

78.8 121.0 42.2 32,470 $4.50 $725,000 $88,000 $288,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,026,000 $1,460 $730 $949 31 0.00 $850,000 $731,000 $109,650 $51,170 $146,200 $307,100 $2,353,000 $2,353,000 2-8 Lincoln Road Bunce Road to Garden Highway 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,150 10% 90% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 10.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

77.0 121.0 44.0 9,460 $4.50 $150,000 $20,000 $21,300 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $860,000 $1,460 $730 $803 0 1.00 $0 $173,000 $25,950 $12,110 $34,600 $72,700 $1,127,000 $1,127,000 2-9 Lincoln Road Garden Highway to Levee 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 3,200 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 121.0 121.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3-1 Franklin Road Township Road to Western Parkway 2-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 7A 21 2,180 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 66.5 104.0 37.5 81,750 $4.50 $380,000 $75,000 $823,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $872,000 $1,520 $730 $1,520 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $4,564,000 $684,600 $319,480 $912,800 $1,916,900 $0 $8,176,000 3-2 Franklin Road Western Parkway to George Washington 2-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 7A 21 2,695 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 69.1 104.0 34.9 94,060 $4.50 $24,000 $45,000 $493,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,078,000 $1,520 $730 $1,520 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $5,847,000 $877,050 $409,290 $1,169,400 $2,455,800 $0 $9,874,000 3-3 Franklin Road George Washington to El Margarita Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,690 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 72.1 121.0 48.9 131,540 $4.50 $144,000 $74,000 $810,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,076,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $5,678,000 $851,700 $397,460 $1,135,600 $2,384,800 $9,949,000 $9,949,000 3-4 Franklin Road El Margarita Road to Harter Parkway 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,675 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 69.4 121.0 51.6 86,430 $4.50 $360,000 $75,000 $824,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $670,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,196,000 $629,400 $293,720 $839,200 $1,762,400 $7,453,000 $7,453,000 3-5 Franklin Road Harter Parkway to North Harding Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 905 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 66.0 121.0 55.0 49,780 $4.50 $260,000 $49,000 $534,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $362,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 0 0.00 $0 $1,322,000 $198,300 $92,540 $264,400 $555,300 $2,774,000 $2,774,000 3-6 Franklin Road North Harding Road to North Walton Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 2,655 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 121.0 121.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $160 0 0.00 $0 $425,000 $63,750 $29,750 $85,000 $178,500 $604,000 $604,000 3-7 Franklin Road North Walton Avenue to SR-99 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,530 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 75.0 75.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $280,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3-8 Franklin Road SR-99 to Clark Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 2,630 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 66.0 121.0 55.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $730 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3-9 Franklin Road Clark Avenue to Plumas Blvd. 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 21 3,030 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 62.6 121.0 58.4 176,950 $4.50 $448,000 $125,000 $1,370,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,212,000 $160 $730 $160 31 2.00 $850,000 $2,185,000 $327,750 $152,950 $437,000 $917,700 $5,685,000 $5,685,000 3-10 Franklin Road Plumas Blvd. to Garden Highway 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Residential to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11A 21 2,950 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 68.1 121.0 52.9 156,060 $4.50 $448,000 $116,000 $1,267,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,180,000 $1,540 $730 $1,540 0 0.00 $0 $4,543,000 $681,450 $318,010 $908,600 $1,908,100 $8,899,000 $8,899,000 4-1 Bridge Street Western Parkway to George Washington 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 6B 0 2,750 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program - Requires piping 1,420 feet of Live Oak Canal

0.0 104.0 104.0 286,000 $4.50 $30,000 $132,000 $1,449,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,380 $730 $1,380 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $5,545,000 $831,750 $388,150 $1,109,000 $2,328,900 $0 $9,323,000 4-2 Bridge Street George Washington to El Margarita Road 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 6B 0 2,595 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 104.0 104.0 269,880 $4.50 $200,000 $142,000 $1,557,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,380 $730 $1,380 0 0.00 $0 $3,582,000 $537,300 $250,740 $716,400 $1,504,500 $0 $6,644,000 4-3 Bridge Street El Margarita Road to Harter Parkway 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 6B 0 1,630 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 104.0 104.0 169,520 $4.50 $300,000 $107,000 $1,170,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,380 $730 $1,380 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $4,000,000 $600,000 $280,000 $800,000 $1,680,000 $0 $6,850,000 4-4 Bridge Street Harter Parkway to North Harding Road 4-Lane Major Arterial New 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 8 0 995 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 121.0 121.0 120,400 $4.50 $380,000 $93,000 $1,015,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,740 $730 $1,740 0 0.00 $0 $1,732,000 $259,800 $121,240 $346,400 $727,500 $3,475,000 $3,475,000 4-5 Bridge Street North Harding Road to Tharp Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,345 30% 70% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 30.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

64.0 121.0 57.0 23,000 $4.50 $275,000 $38,000 $125,100 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $538,000 $1,460 $730 $949 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $2,133,000 $319,950 $149,310 $426,600 $895,900 $3,692,000 $3,692,000 4-6 Bridge Street Tharp Road to North Walton Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,315 55% 45% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 55.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

74.1 121.0 46.9 33,920 $4.50 $275,000 $43,000 $259,050 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $526,000 $1,460 $730 $1,132 0 0.00 $0 $819,000 $122,850 $57,330 $163,800 $344,000 $1,949,000 $1,949,000 4-7 Bridge Street North Walton Avenue to SR-99 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,630 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

80.0 80.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $275,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $730 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4-8 Bridge Street SR-99 to Gray Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,330 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 80.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $275,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4-9 Bridge Street Gray Avenue to Cooper Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,870 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program
116.0 116.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $275,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4-10 Bridge Street Cooper Avenue to Shasta Street 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 3,040 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 100.0 100.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $275,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4-11 Bridge Street Shasta Street to Second Street 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,810 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 100.0 100.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $275,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5-1 Lassen Boulevard Harter Parkway to Tharp Road 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,010 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program
121.0 121.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $730 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5-2 Lassen Boulevard Tharp Road to North Walton Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,300 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program
121.0 121.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $730 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6-1 State Route 20 Stabler Lane to SR-99 6-Lane Highway Widen Highway add 2-outside lanes 6 Lane (SR 20 & 99) (CALTRANS) 19 21 2,615 100% 0% 5 buildings to be removed or modified incl gas station. 84.0 150.0 66.0 172,590 $4.50 $2,723,900 $351,000 $3,852,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,046,000 $1,450 $730 $1,450 33 1.00 $2,750,000 $6,542,000 $981,300 $457,940 $1,308,400 $2,747,700 $14,188,000 $14,188,000 7-1 Butte House Road Township Road to Western Parkway 2-Lane Collector Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 7A 21 2,350 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 66.0 104.0 38.0 89,300 $4.50 $50,000 $46,000 $498,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $940,000 $1,520 $730 $1,520 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $4,822,000 $723,300 $337,540 $964,400 $2,025,300 $0 $8,286,000 7-2 Butte House Road Western Parkway to Hooper Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 4,170 75% 25% Assume 75.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 71.4 121.0 49.6 155,120 $4.50 $20,000 $72,000 $593,250 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,668,000 $1,460 $730 $1,278 0 0.00 $0 $3,996,000 $599,400 $279,720 $799,200 $1,678,400 $0 $7,936,000 7-3 Butte House Road Hooper Road to Tierra Buena Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,450 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 67.5 121.0 53.5 38,790 $4.50 $312,725 $49,000 $268,500 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $580,000 $1,460 $730 $1,095 0 0.00 $0 $794,000 $119,100 $55,580 $158,800 $333,500 $1,976,000 $1,976,000 7-4 Butte House Road Tierra Buena Road to Harter Parkway 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,675 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 68.2 121.0 52.8 70,620 $4.50 $312,725 $64,000 $347,500 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,070,000 $1,460 $730 $1,095 32 1.00 $1,100,000 $2,565,000 $384,750 $179,550 $513,000 $1,077,300 $5,060,000 $5,060,000 7-5 Butte House Road Harter Parkway to Tharp Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 0 1,585 50% 50% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 50.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

76.0 121.0 45.0 35,660 $4.50 $50,000 $22,000 $116,500 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,460 $730 $1,095 0 0.00 $0 $868,000 $130,200 $60,760 $173,600 $364,600 $1,350,000 $1,350,000 7-6 Butte House Road Tharp Road to SR-99 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 3,860 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 84.0 84.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $20,000 $2,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7-7 Butte House Road SR-99 to Gray Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,450 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 84.0 84.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $50,000 $5,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8-1 Queens Avenue Tuly Parkway to Blevin Road 2-Lane Minor Arterial New 2-lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 6B 21 625 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 94.0 104.0 10.0 6,250 $4.50 $0 $3,000 $32,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $250,000 $1,380 $730 $1,380 36 1.00 $850,000 $1,713,000 $256,950 $119,910 $342,600 $719,500 $2,715,000 $2,715,000 8-2 Queens Avenue Blevin Road to SR-99 2-Lane Minor Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 4,340 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 94.0 94.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 31 0.00 $850,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 9-1 Jefferson Avenue Ruth Avenue to Water Tank Site 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 21 750 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 66.0 66.0 49,500 $4.50 $16,000 $24,000 $263,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $300,000 $1,170 $730 $1,170 0 0.00 $0 $878,000 $131,700 $61,460 $175,600 $368,800 $1,810,000 $1,810,000 9-2 Jefferson Avenue Water Tank Site to Harter Parkway 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 21 720 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 66.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $16,000 $2,000 $9,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $288,000 $1,170 $730 $950 30 1.00 $1,750,000 $2,092,000 $313,800 $146,440 $418,400 $878,700 $3,268,000 $3,268,000 9-3 Jefferson Avenue/ Poole
Boulevard
Harter Parkway to Tharp Road 4-Lane Major Arterial New 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 8 22 2,150 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 121.0 121.0 260,150 $4.50 $16,000 $119,000 $1,306,000 $600 Relocation 30KV - 60 KV Poles $1,290,000 $1,740 $730 $1,740 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $4,991,000 $748,650 $349,370 $998,200 $2,096,300 $9,684,000 $9,684,000 10-1 Pease Road Township Road to Western Parkway 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 2,090 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 56.0 108.0 52.0 108,680 $4.50 $16,000 $51,000 $557,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $836,000 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $1,944,000 $291,600 $136,080 $388,800 $816,500 $0 $4,154,000 10-2 Pease Road Western Parkway to Tierra Buena Road 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 5,390 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 108.0 58.0 312,620 $4.50 $16,000 $143,000 $1,566,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $2,156,000 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $5,013,000 $751,950 $350,910 $1,002,600 $2,105,500 $0 $10,841,000 10-3 Pease Road Tierra Buena Road to Tuly Parkway 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 22 2,610 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.3 108.0 57.7 150,600 $4.50 $300,000 $98,000 $1,076,000 $600 Relocation 30KV - 60 KV Poles $1,566,000 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $2,428,000 $364,200 $169,960 $485,600 $1,019,800 $6,090,000 $6,090,000 10-4 Pease Road Tuly Parkway to Stabler Lane 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 22 2,575 80% 20% Assume 80.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 92.2 108.0 15.8 32,550 $4.50 $420,000 $57,000 $499,200 $600 Relocation 30KV - 60 KV Poles $1,545,000 $930 $730 $890 0 0.00 $0 $1,834,000 $275,100 $128,380 $366,800 $770,300 $4,649,000 $4,649,000 10-5 Pease Road Stabler Lane to SR-99 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 22 2,150 40% 60% Assume 40.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 108.0 48.0 41,280 $4.50 $20,000 $21,000 $90,800 $600 Relocation 30KV - 60 KV Poles $1,290,000 $930 $730 $810 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $1,947,000 $292,050 $136,290 $389,400 $817,800 $4,146,000 $4,146,000 10-6 Pease Road SR-99 to Live Oaks Boulevard 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 2,750 60% 40% Assume 60.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 75.4 108.0 32.6 53,790 $4.50 $30,000 $28,000 $180,600 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,100,000 $930 $730 $850 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $2,653,000 $397,950 $185,710 $530,600 $1,114,300 $5,048,000 $5,048,000 11-1 Stewart Road South Walton Avenue to SR-99 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 2,560 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 108.0 48.0 61,440 $4.50 $30,000 $31,000 $169,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,024,000 $930 $730 $830 33C 1.00 $3,500,000 $4,563,000 $684,450 $319,410 $912,600 $1,916,500 $7,673,000 $7,673,000 11-2 Stewart Road SR-99 to Phillips Road 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 21 1,915 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 66.0 6.0 5,750 $4.50 $30,000 $6,000 $31,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $766,000 $1,170 $730 $950 0 0.00 $0 $910,000 $136,500 $63,700 $182,000 $382,200 $2,090,000 $2,090,000 11-3 Stewart Road Phillips Road to Railroad Avenue 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 21 685 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 66.0 6.0 2,060 $4.50 $30,000 $4,000 $22,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $274,000 $1,170 $730 $950 0 0.00 $0 $326,000 $48,900 $22,820 $65,200 $137,000 $759,000 $759,000 11-4 Stewart Road Railroad Avenue to Garden Highway 2-Lane Urban Edge New 2-Lane Urban Road Edge 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 14 21 4,970 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 108.0 48.0 119,280 $4.50 $30,000 $57,000 $312,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,988,000 $1,200 $730 $965 0 0.00 $0 $2,399,000 $359,850 $167,930 $479,800 $1,007,600 $5,707,000 $5,707,000 $12,728,350 $3,488,000 $31,872,750 $43,205,000 32.00 $51,250,000 $160,591,000 $24,088,650 $11,241,370 $32,118,200 $67,451,100 $198,416,000 $303,140,000

NORTH-SOUTH ROADWAYS

RIGHT OF WAY COST UTILITY CONSTRUCTION COST ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION COST SOFT COSTS Segment
Number Roadway Name Segment Limits Roadway Designation Project Scope Typical Street Cross Section Roadway
Case
Utililty
Case
Segment
Length
(Feet)
%of Segment in
Fee Program
%of Segment not
in Fee Program Segment Site Review Notes
Weighted
Existing
ROW
(Feet)
New ROW
(Feet)
Add'l Req'd
ROW
(Feet)
ROW
Acquisition
(SF)
ROW
$ / S.F.
($= 0 if
dedicated)
Imprvmnts to be
Acquired (i.e.
house, barn)
ROW Acquisition
Service Costs
(assume 10%)

SUBTOTAL
RightofWay
Acquisition Cost
Utility Cost per
Linear Ft Scope of Work

SUBTOTAL
Utility Cost
Roadway Cost
per Linear Ft
Typical Cost of
Residential Road
Factored
Roadway Cost
Signal
Case
Numberof Major
Intersections
(New Signalized
Only)
Intersections
Cost

SUBTOTAL
Roadway Cost
Professional
Services
(15.0%)
Yuba City
Admin.
(7.0%)
Contingency
(20.0%)

SUBTOTAL
Design,
Environmental &
Other Costs

TOTAL TOTAL
Marketplace Buildout
2024 AB 1600 2024 AB 1600
COST AB 1600 COST
12-1 Garden Highway Stewart Road to Diamond Pointe Way 4-Lane Parkway No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,390 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

73.0 73.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $730 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12-2 Garden Highway Diamond Pointe Way to Bogue 4-Lane Parkway No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 4,160 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 90.0 90.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12-3 Garden Highway Bogue Road to Lincoln Road 4-Lane Parkway No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 4,360 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 84.0 84.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12-4 Garden Highway Lincoln Road to Winship Road 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,460 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 60.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12-5 Garden Highway Winship Road to Percy Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 1,470 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 124.0 121.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $160 0 0.00 $0 $236,000 $35,400 $16,520 $47,200 $99,200 12-6 Garden Highway Percy Avenue to Franklin Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 3,575 100% 0% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 121.0 41.0 146,580 $4.50 $0 $66,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12-7 Garden Highway Franklin Road to Second Street 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 940 100% 0% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 77.0 121.0 44.0 41,360 $4.50 $0 $19,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 13-1 Wilbur Avenue Franklin Road to Bridge Street 2-Lane Collector No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,400 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 60.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 14-1 Clark Avenue Richland Road to Franklin Road 2-Lane Collector No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 3,300 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 55.0 55.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $325,000 $33,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 15-1 B Street Percy Avenue to Plumas Avenue 2-Lane Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 2-Lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 11C 0 670 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 55.0 104.0 49.0 32,830 $4.50 $325,000 $48,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $120 $730 $0 31 0.00 $850,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16-1 SR-99 SR-20 to Bogue Rd 6-Lane Highway Widen Highway add 2-outside lanes 6 Lane (SR 20 & 99) (CALTRANS) 19 0 15,855 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 142.0 150.0 8.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,450 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17-1 South Walton Avenue Stewart Road to Bogue Road 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 21 4,050 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 60.0 108.0 48.0 194,400 $4.50 $0 $88,000 $963,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,620,000 $930 $730 $930 see east-west roadways
$0 $3,767,000 $565,050 $263,690 $753,400 $1,582,200
17-2 South Walton Avenue Bogue Road to Lincoln Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 5,280 35% 65% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 35.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

69.0 121.0 52.0 96,100 $4.50 $0 $44,000 $166,950 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $2,112,000 $1,460 $730 $986 see east-west roadways
$0 $1,822,000 $273,300 $127,540 $364,400 $765,300
17-3 South Walton Avenue Lincoln Road to Franklin Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 5,310 50% 50% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 50.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

75.0 121.0 46.0 122,130 $4.50 $0 $55,000 $302,500 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $2,124,000 $1,460 $730 $1,095 31 2.00 $850,000 $4,608,000 $691,200 $322,560 $921,600 $1,935,400 17-4 North Walton Avenue Franklin Road to Bridge Street 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,820 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

75.0 75.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $730 see east-west roadways
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
17-5 North Walton Avenue Bridge Street to SR-20 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 3,440 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

94.0 94.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 see east-west roadways
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
17-6 Stabler Lane SR-20 to Butte House Road 4-Lane Major Arterial No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,330 0% 100% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 0.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

76.0 76.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $140,000 $14,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17-7 Stabler Lane Butte House Road to Queens Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 1,290 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 74.0 121.0 47.0 0 $4.50 $140,000 $14,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$336,000 $336,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$7,933,000 $7,933,000
$4,867,000 $4,867,000
$8,970,000 $8,970,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0

City of Yuba City Traffic Impact Fee Update
Major Planned Roadway Improvements in Accordance with the October 2024 Traffic Study Update Last Revised 3/7/07
Printed 3/20/2025
2 of 2

RIGHT OF WAY COST UTILITY CONSTRUCTION COST ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION COST SOFT COSTS Segment
Number Roadway Name Segment Limits Roadway Designation Project Scope Typical Street Cross Section Roadway
Case
Utililty
Case
Segment
Length
(Feet)
% of Segment in
Fee Program
% of Segment not
in Fee Program Segment Site Review Notes
Weighted
Existing
ROW
(Feet)
New ROW
(Feet)
Add'l Req'd
ROW
(Feet)
ROW
Acquisition
(SF)
ROW
$ / S.F.
($= 0 if
dedicated)
Imprvmnts to be
Acquired (i.e.
house, barn)
ROW Acquisition
Service Costs
(assume 10%)

SUBTOTAL
Right of Way
Acquisition Cost
Utility Cost per
Linear Ft Scope of Work

SUBTOTAL
Utility Cost
Roadway Cost
per Linear Ft
Typical Cost of
Residential Road
Factored
Roadway Cost
Signal
Case
Number of Major
Intersections
(New Signalized
Only)
Intersections
Cost

SUBTOTAL
Roadway Cost
Professional
Services
(15.0%)
Yuba City
Admin.
(7.0%)
Contingency
(20.0%)

SUBTOTAL
Design,
Environmental &
Other Costs
TOTAL
Marketplace
2024 AB 1600
COST
TOTAL
Buildout
2024 AB 1600
AB 1600 COST
17-8 Stabler Lane Queens Avenue to Bradley Estates 2-Lane Collector No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,190 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 76.0 76.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $140,000 $14,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17-9 Stabler Lane Bradley Estates to Jamie Drive 2-Lane Collector No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,830 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 76.0 76.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $140,000 $14,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17-10 Stabler Lane Jamie Drive to Pease Road 2-Lane Parkway No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,990 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 76.0 76.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $140,000 $14,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 18-1 Tharp Road Butte House Road to SR-20 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 2,835 40% 60% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 40.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

63.0 121.0 58.0 65,770 $4.50 $80,000 $38,000 $165,600 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,134,000 $1,460 $730 $1,022 see east-west roadways
$0 $1,159,000 $173,850 $81,130 $231,800 $486,800 $2,946,000 $2,946,000 18-2 Tharp Road SR-20 to Lassen Avenue 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 1,310 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 76.0 121.0 45.0 58,950 $4.50 $80,000 $35,000 $381,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $160 0 0.00 $0 $210,000 $31,500 $14,700 $42,000 $88,200 $680,000 $680,000 18-3 Tharp Road Lassen Avenue to Bridge Street 4-Lane Major Arterial Pavement Delineation for Existing 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11B 0 2,040 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 76.0 121.0 45.0 91,800 $4.50 $80,000 $50,000 $544,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $160 $730 $160 see east-west roadways
$0 $327,000 $49,050 $22,890 $65,400 $137,400 $1,009,000 $1,009,000 18-4 Tharp Road Bridge Street to Franklin Road 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 0 2,070 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 66.0 16.0 16,560 $4.50 $80,000 $16,000 $85,500 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,170 $730 $950 see east-west roadways
$0 $984,000 $147,600 $68,880 $196,800 $413,300 $1,483,000 $1,483,000 19-1 Phillips Road Bogue Road to Newkom Ranch Way 4-Lane Major Arterial New 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 8 0 2,120 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 121.0 121.0 256,520 $4.50 $80,000 $124,000 $1,359,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,740 $730 $1,740 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $4,939,000 $740,850 $345,730 $987,800 $2,074,400 $8,373,000 $8,373,000 19-2 Phillips Road Newkom Ranch Way to Stewart Road 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 6B 0 1,995 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 104.0 104.0 207,480 $4.50 $80,000 $102,000 $1,116,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,380 $730 $1,380 see east-west roadways
$0 $2,754,000 $413,100 $192,780 $550,800 $1,156,700 $5,027,000 $5,027,000 20-1 Harter Parkway Bogue Road to Lincoln Road 2-Lane Parkway New 2-lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 6A 0 5,280 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 106.0 106.0 559,680 $4.50 $170,000 $269,000 $2,958,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,430 $730 $1,430 see east-west roadways
$0 $7,551,000 $1,132,650 $528,570 $1,510,200 $3,171,500 $13,681,000 $13,681,000 20-2 Harter Parkway Lincoln Road to Franklin Road 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 6,900 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 869,400 $4.50 $0 $392,000 $4,305,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $12,282,000 $1,842,300 $859,740 $2,456,400 $5,158,500 $21,746,000 $21,746,000 20-3 Harter Parkway Franklin Road to Bridge Street 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 1,840 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 231,840 $4.50 $0 $105,000 $1,149,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $3,276,000 $491,400 $229,320 $655,200 $1,376,000 $5,801,000 $5,801,000 20-4 Harter Parkway Bridge Street to Redhaven Avenue 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 1,600 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 201,600 $4.50 $0 $91,000 $999,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $2,848,000 $427,200 $199,360 $569,600 $1,196,200 $5,044,000 $5,044,000 20-5 Harter Parkway Redhaven Avenue to SR-20 4-Lane Parkway No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 1,760 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 see east-west roadways
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
20-6 Harter Parkway SR-20 to Jefferson Boulevard 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 8 0 1,750 10% 90% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 10.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program
121.0 121.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,740 $730 $831 see east-west roadways
$0 $146,000 $21,900 $10,220 $29,200 $61,400 $208,000 $208,000 20-7 Harter Parkway Jefferson Blvd. to Butte House Road 4-Lane Parkway Widen Existing 2-lane Residential to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 11A 20A 1,820 80% 20% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 80.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program
109.0 121.0 12.0 17,470 $4.50 $0 $8,000 $69,600 $0 No work required $0 $1,540 $730 $1,378 see east-west roadways
$0 $2,007,000 $301,050 $140,490 $401,400 $843,000 $2,920,000 $2,920,000 20-8 Tuly Parkway Butte House Road to Queens Avenue 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 535 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 95.5 126.0 30.5 16,320 $4.50 $0 $8,000 $82,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $953,000 $142,950 $66,710 $190,600 $400,300 $1,436,000 $1,436,000 20-9 Tuly Parkway Queens Avenue to Bradley Estates 2-Lane Parkway New 2-lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 6A 0 1,925 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 30.0 106.0 76.0 146,300 $4.50 $80,000 $74,000 $813,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,430 $730 $1,430 0 0.00 $0 $2,753,000 $412,950 $192,710 $550,600 $1,156,300 $4,723,000 $4,723,000 20-8 Tuly Parkway Bradley Estates to Heidi Way 2-Lane Parkway New 2-lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 6A 0 1,150 50% 50% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 50.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

98.7 106.0 7.3 4,200 $4.50 $0 $2,000 $10,500 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,430 $730 $1,080 0 0.00 $0 $621,000 $93,150 $43,470 $124,200 $260,900 $893,000 $893,000 20-9 Tuly Parkway Heidi Way to Lizanne Drive 2-Lane Parkway New 2-lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 6A 0 1,030 100% 0% This segment is in various stages of completeness with about 100.0% needing work and included in the Fee Program

0.0 106.0 106.0 109,180 $4.50 $0 $50,000 $542,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,430 $730 $1,430 0 0.00 $0 $1,473,000 $220,950 $103,110 $294,600 $618,700 $0 $2,634,000 20-10 Tuly Parkway Lizanne Drive to Pease Road 2-Lane Parkway New 2-lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 6A 0 2,610 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 106.0 106.0 276,660 $4.50 $0 $125,000 $1,370,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,430 $730 $1,430 0 0.00 $0 $3,733,000 $559,950 $261,310 $746,600 $1,567,900 $0 $6,671,000 21-1 El Margarita Road Harter Parkway to Franklin Road 2-Lane Minor Arterial New 2-lane Arterial Roadway 2-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 104' 6B 0 2,300 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 104.0 104.0 239,200 $4.50 $42,000 $112,000 $1,231,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,380 $730 $1,380 30 2.00 $1,750,000 $6,674,000 $1,001,100 $467,180 $1,334,800 $2,803,100 $10,709,000 $10,709,000 21-2 El Margarita Road Franklin Road to Imperial Way 2-Lane Minor Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 7 21 1,145 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 54.0 106.0 52.0 59,540 $4.50 $80,000 $35,000 $383,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $458,000 $1,490 $730 $1,490 0 0.00 $0 $1,707,000 $256,050 $119,490 $341,400 $717,000 $0 $3,265,000 21-3 El Margarita Road Imperial Way to Bridge Street 2-Lane Minor Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 7 21 800 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 40.0 106.0 66.0 52,800 $4.50 $80,000 $32,000 $350,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $320,000 $1,490 $730 $1,490 0 0.00 $0 $1,192,000 $178,800 $83,440 $238,400 $500,700 $0 $2,363,000 21-4 El Margarita Road Bridge Street to Spirit Drive 2-Lane Minor Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 7 21 2,530 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 54.0 106.0 52.0 131,560 $4.50 $80,000 $68,000 $741,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,012,000 $1,490 $730 $1,490 0 0.00 $0 $3,770,000 $565,500 $263,900 $754,000 $1,583,400 $0 $7,107,000 21-5 El Margarita Road Spirit Drive to SR 20 2-Lane Minor Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 7 21 770 50% 50% Assume 50.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 54.0 106.0 52.0 20,020 $4.50 $80,000 $18,000 $94,500 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $308,000 $1,490 $730 $1,110 33B 1.00 $3,750,000 $4,178,000 $626,700 $292,460 $835,600 $1,754,800 $6,336,000 $6,336,000 21-6 El Margarita Road North Colusa Frontage Road to Jefferson Blvd. 2-Lane Residential No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,400 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 54.0 54.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $80,000 $8,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $730 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 22-1 George Washington Blvd Bogue Road to Lincoln Road 2-Lane Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 2-Lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 7 21 5,280 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 106.0 26.0 137,280 $4.50 $60,000 $68,000 $746,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $2,112,000 $1,490 $730 $1,490 see east-west roadways
$0 $7,868,000 $1,180,200 $550,760 $1,573,600 $3,304,600 $0 $14,031,000 22-2 George Washington Blvd Lincoln Road to Franklin Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 5,340 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 121.0 41.0 218,940 $4.50 $360,000 $135,000 $1,481,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $2,136,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 see east-west roadways
$0 $7,797,000 $1,169,550 $545,790 $1,559,400 $3,274,800 $0 $14,689,000 22-3 George Washington Blvd Franklin Road to Bridge Street 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 1,905 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 121.0 41.0 78,110 $4.50 $40,000 $40,000 $432,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $762,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 see east-west roadways
$0 $2,782,000 $417,300 $194,740 $556,400 $1,168,500 $5,145,000 $5,145,000 22-4 George Washington Blvd Bridge Street to SR-20 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 3,230 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 84.0 121.0 37.0 119,510 $4.50 $120,000 $66,000 $724,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $1,292,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 see east-west roadways
$0 $4,716,000 $707,400 $330,120 $943,200 $1,980,800 $8,713,000 $8,713,000 23-1 Western Parkway Bogue Road to Lincoln Road 2-Lane Parkway New 2-lane Parkway Roadway 2-Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 106' 6A 0 5,280 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 106.0 106.0 559,680 $4.50 $0 $252,000 $2,771,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,430 $730 $1,430 see east-west roadways
$0 $7,551,000 $1,132,650 $528,570 $1,510,200 $3,171,500 $0 $13,494,000 23-2 Western Parkway Lincoln Road to Franklin Road 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 5,320 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 670,320 $4.50 $0 $302,000 $3,319,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $9,470,000 $1,420,500 $662,900 $1,894,000 $3,977,400 $0 $16,767,000 23-3 Western Parkway Franklin Road to Bridge Street 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 2,660 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 335,160 $4.50 $0 $151,000 $1,660,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $4,735,000 $710,250 $331,450 $947,000 $1,988,700 $0 $8,384,000 23-4 Western Parkway Bridge Street to SR-20 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 2,560 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 322,560 $4.50 $0 $146,000 $1,598,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $4,557,000 $683,550 $318,990 $911,400 $1,914,000 $0 $8,069,000 23-5 Western Parkway SR-20 to Jefferson Avenue 4-Lane Parkway No Work - Work Completed No Work 0 0 2,610 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 124.0 124.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $280,000 $28,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 23-6 Western Parkway Jefferson Avenue to Butte House Road 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 3,580 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 451,080 $4.50 $280,000 $231,000 $2,541,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $6,373,000 $955,950 $446,110 $1,274,600 $2,676,700 $0 $11,591,000 23-7 Western Parkway Butte House Road to Pease Road 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 0 4,430 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 558,180 $4.50 $0 $252,000 $2,764,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,780 $730 $1,780 see east-west roadways
$0 $7,886,000 $1,182,900 $552,020 $1,577,200 $3,312,200 $0 $13,963,000 24-1 Township Road Bogue Road to Lincoln Road 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 20A 5,280 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 108.0 58.0 306,240 $4.50 $10,000 $139,000 $1,528,000 $0 No work required $0 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $4,911,000 $736,650 $343,770 $982,200 $2,062,700 $0 $8,502,000 24-2 Township Road Lincoln Road to Franklin Road 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 20A 5,320 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 108.0 58.0 308,560 $4.50 $10,000 $140,000 $1,539,000 $0 No work required $0 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $4,948,000 $742,200 $346,360 $989,600 $2,078,200 $0 $8,566,000 24-3 Township Road Franklin Road to SR-20 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 20A 5,220 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 52.0 108.0 56.0 292,320 $4.50 $10,000 $133,000 $1,459,000 $0 No work required $0 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $4,855,000 $728,250 $339,850 $971,000 $2,039,100 $0 $8,354,000 24-4 Township Road SR-20 to Jefferson Avenue 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 20A 2,580 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 108.0 58.0 149,640 $4.50 $8,000 $69,000 $751,000 $0 No work required $0 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $2,400,000 $360,000 $168,000 $480,000 $1,008,000 $0 $4,159,000 24-5 Township Road Jefferson Avenue to Butte House Road 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 20A 4,415 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 108.0 58.0 256,070 $4.50 $12,000 $117,000 $1,282,000 $0 No work required $0 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $4,106,000 $615,900 $287,420 $821,200 $1,724,600 $0 $7,113,000 24-6 Township Road Butte House Road to Pease Road 2-Lane Urban Edge Widen Exist to 2-Lane Urban Edge - AG Half and Buffer Only 2-Lane Urban/Rural Edge - no parking - ROW 108' 16 20A 3,640 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 50.0 108.0 58.0 211,120 $4.50 $8,000 $96,000 $1,055,000 $0 No work required $0 $930 $730 $930 0 0.00 $0 $3,386,000 $507,900 $237,020 $677,200 $1,422,200 $0 $5,864,000 25-1 Oji Way Franklin Road to Kean Avenue 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 0 390 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 66.0 66.0 25,740 $4.50 $8,000 $0 $124,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,170 $730 $1,170 32 1.00 $1,100,000 $1,557,000 $233,550 $108,990 $311,400 $654,000 $0 $2,335,000 25-2 Oji Way Kean Avenue to Cinemark Parking Lot 2-Lane Collector New 2-lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 4 0 230 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 40.0 66.0 26.0 5,980 $4.50 $8,000 $0 $35,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,170 $730 $1,170 0 0.00 $0 $270,000 $40,500 $18,900 $54,000 $113,400 $0 $419,000 26-1 Sanborn Road McCune Avenue to Cherry Street 2-Lane Collector Widen Residential to 2-Lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 5 0 1,285 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 66.0 66.0 84,810 $4.50 $8,000 $38,965 $429,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,090 $730 $1,090 37 1.00 $650,000 $2,051,000 $307,650 $143,570 $410,200 $861,500 $3,342,000 $3,342,000 27-1 Civic Center Blvd. SR 20 to SR 99 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 21 1,780 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 224,280 $4.50 $8,000 $101,726 $1,119,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $712,000 $1,780 $730 $1,780 0 0.00 $0 $3,169,000 $475,350 $221,830 $633,800 $1,331,000 $6,331,000 $6,331,000 27-2 Civic Center Blvd. SR 99 to Gray Avenue 4-Lane Parkway New 4-Lane Parkway 4 Lane Parkway - No Parking - ROW 126' 12 21 1,350 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 126.0 126.0 170,100 $4.50 $8,000 $77,345 $851,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $540,000 $1,780 $730 $1,780 0 0.00 $0 $2,403,000 $360,450 $168,210 $480,600 $1,009,300 $4,804,000 $4,804,000 28-1 Royo Ranchero Drive Libby Lane to Colusa Frontage Road 2-Lane Collector Widen Residential to 2-Lane Collector Roadway - Parking 2-Lane Collector - Parking - ROW 66' 5 0 370 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 66.0 66.0 24,420 $4.50 $8,000 $0 $118,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $1,090 $730 $1,090 37 1.00 $650,000 $1,054,000 $158,100 $73,780 $210,800 $442,700 $0 $1,615,000 29-1 Sutter Street Lamon Way to North Colusa Frontage Road 4-Lane Major Arterial Widen Existing 2-lane Collector to 4-Lane Arterial Roadway 4-Lane Arterial - No Parking - ROW 121' 9 21 470 100% 0% Assume 100.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 121.0 121.0 56,870 $4.50 $8,000 $0 $264,000 $400 Relocation 12KV - 30 KV Poles $188,000 $1,460 $730 $1,460 35 1.00 $1,250,000 $1,937,000 $290,550 $135,590 $387,400 $813,600 $0 $3,203,000 Total Upgrade Existing and Develop New Roadways $3,776,000 $4,768,036 $48,771,150 $16,830,000 10.00 $12,100,000 $176,752,000 $26,512,800 $12,372,640 $35,350,400 $74,238,100 $143,456,000 $316,614,000 Interchange and Bridge
Items with reduced percent in fee program Utility Construction Cost Soft Costs Roadway Construction Cost Total $354,214,000 $636,505,000 Cost Per Dwelling Unit $13,647 $15,571
SR-20 /SR-99 Interchange N/A Construct 6 Lane Overcrossing and Connecting Ramps 0 0 0 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 0.0 0.0 422,968 $4.50 $1,800,000 $371,000 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $109,436,305 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SR-99/Pease Road Interchange N/A Construct 4-Lane Overcrossing and Connecting Ramps 0 0 0 12% 88% Assume 12.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,080,288 $4.50 $850,000 $572,000 $754,080 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $642 0 0.12 $67,999,257 $8,160,000 $1,224,000 $571,200 $1,632,000 $3,427,200 Widen & Retrofit 5th Street Bridge 4-Lane Major Arterial No work - completed 0 0 2,500 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 80.0 80.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Local Bridge to Marysville 4-Lane Major Arterial New 4-Lane Arterial 4-Lane Arterial - no parking - ROW 124' 0 0 0 0% 100% Assume 0.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 $4.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $0 $730 $0 0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Railroad Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path 18-Foot HMA/Concrete Path 38 0 15,300 25% 75% Assume 25.0% of the cost is part of the Fee Program 0.0 80.0 80.0 306,000 $5.75 $0 $176,000 $484,000 $0 No Improvements - Work Completed $0 $700 $730 $723 0 0.00 $0 $2,764,000 $414,600 $193,480 $552,800 $1,160,900 Total Interchange and Bridge Projects $2,650,000 $1,119,000 $1,238,080 $0 0.12 $177,435,562 $10,924,000 $1,638,600 $764,680 $2,184,800 $4,588,100 $0 $0
$12,342,000 $12,342,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $4,409,000
$12,342,000 $16,751,000

APPENDIX C:

Transportation Impact Fee Comparisons
Figure C-1 Single-Family Residential (2025$) ..................................................C-1 Figure C-2 Commercial/Retail Development (2025$) ....................... C-2 Figure C-3 Office Development (2025$)......................................... C-3 Figure C-4 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... C-4 Table C-1 Single-Family Residential (2025$) ................................. C-5 Table C-2 Commercial/Retail Development (2025$) ....................... C-6 Table C-3 Office Development (2025$)......................................... C-7 Table C-4 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... C-8

Figure C-1
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Single-Family Residential (2025$)
Prepared by EPS 1/5/2026 C-1 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 TIF Comparison_Copy for Yuba City_5.8.25 Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
Single-Family Residential Development [1][2][3]
Sacramento County - North Vineyard Station
City of Sacramento - Panhandle
City of Elk Grove - Southeast Policy Area
City of Folsom - Folsom Ranch
City of Rancho Cordova - Rio Del Oro
Placer County - Placer Vineyards
$13,900
$17,900
$21,90
$
$22,5
City of Roseville - Creekview Specific Plan
City of Lincoln - Independence
City of Rocklin - Whitney Ranch/Hwy 65
City of Manteca - Infill Development
City of Lodi - Infill Development
City of Davis - Infill Development
City of Woodland - Spring Lake
City of West Sacramento - Liberty
Yuba County - North Plumas Lake Area
City of Chico - Urban Area
City of Madera - Growth Area
City of Redding - Infill Development
City of Turlock - Morgan Ranch
City of Tulare - Infill Development $4,300
$10,700
$
$15,500
$15,400
$18
$
$20,900
- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000 Fee per Dwelling Unit
Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] All rates assumes a 2,400 Sq.Ft single family residential unit. [2] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. 8,800 $25,200
19,400
$35,400
$8,
9,100
100
$
,500
$10,200
$21,200
00 23,500
$44,300
0 Regional Jurisdiction-Specific Plan Area

Figure C-1
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Single-Family Residential (2025$)
Prepared by EPS 1/5/2026 C-2 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 TIF Comparison_Copy for Yuba City_5.8.25 [3] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.

Figure C-2
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Commercial/Retail Development (2025$)
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 C-3 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 TIF Comparison_Copy for Yuba City_5.8.25 Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
Commercial/Retail Development [1][2]
Sacramento County - North Vineyard Station
City of Sacramento - Panhandle [3]
Elk Grove - Southeast Policy Area
Folsom - Folsom Ranch
Rancho Cordova - Rio Del Oro
Placer County - Placer Vineyards
$2,800
$18,300
$18,700
$23,300
$49,800
$64,800
Roseville - Creekview Specific Plan
City of Lincoln - Independence
City of Rocklin - Whitney Ranch/Hwy 65
City of Manteca - Infill Development
City of Lodi - Infill Development
City of Davis - Infill Development
City of Woodland - Spring Lake
City of West Sacramento - Liberty
Yuba County - North Plumas Lake Area
City of Chico - Urban Area
City of Madera - Growth Area
City of Redding - Infill Development
$8,300
$8,500
$6,400
$14,700
$14,000
$20,600
$20,800
$21,100
$23,100
$32,000
$40,700
$38,600
City of Turlock - Morgan Ranch
City of Tulare - Infill Development $10,200
$17,300
- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 Fee per 1,000 Sq.Ft.

Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide.

Regional Jurisdiction-Specific Plan Area

Figure C-2
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Commercial/Retail Development (2025$)
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 C-4 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 TIF Comparison_Copy for Yuba City_5.8.25 [2] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.
[3] Panhandle does not have planned commercial development, so there are no plan area fees shown.

Figure C-3
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Office Development (2025$)
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 C-5 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 TIF Comparison_Copy for Yuba City_5.8.25 Sacramento County - North Vineyard Station
City of Sacramento - Panhandle [3]
Elk Grove - Southeast Policy Area
Folsom - Folsom Ranch
Rancho Cordova - Rio Del Oro
Placer County - Placer Vineyards
Roseville - Creekview Specific Plan
City of Lincoln - Independence
City of Rocklin - Whitney Ranch/Hwy 65
City of Manteca - Infill Development
City of Lodi - Infill Development
City of Davis - Infill Development
City of Woodland - Spring Lake [3]
City of West Sacramento - Liberty
Yuba County - North Plumas Lake Area
City of Chico - Urban Area
City of Madera - Growth Area
City of Redding - Infill Development
City of Turlock - Morgan Ranch
City of Tulare - Infill Development
Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
Office Development [1][2]
$2,200
$18,100
$
$23,300
$26,400
$21,400
$9,300
$7,900
$5,200
$6,800
$22,500
$6,400
$9,500
$8,100
$10,500
$11,400
$4,000
$32,400
$42,400
$41,000
- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000 Fee per 1,000 Sq.Ft.

Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. [2] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.
[3] Panhandle and Spring Lake do not have planned office development, so there are no plan area fees shown. 14,200
Regional Jurisdiction-Specific Plan Area

Figure C-4
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Industrial Development (2025$)
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 C-4 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 TIF Comparison_Copy for Yuba City_5.8.25 Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
Industrial Development [1][2][3]
Sacramento County - North Vineyard Station
City of Sacramento - Panhandle
Elk Grove - Southeast Policy Area
Folsom - Folsom Ranch
Rancho Cordova - Rio Del Oro
Placer County - Placer Vineyards
Roseville - Creekview Specific Plan
City of Lincoln - Independence
City of Rocklin - Whitney Ranch/Hwy 65
City of Manteca - Infill Development
City of Lodi - Infill Development
City of Davis - Infill Development
$1,100
$500
$4,000
$3,700
$5,600
$7,000
$7,300
$7,200
$5,800
$9,500
$9,200
$11,100
City of Woodland - Spring Lake
City of West Sacramento - Liberty
Yuba County - North Plumas Lake Area
City of Chico - Urban Area
City of Madera - Growth Area
City of Redding - Infill Development
City of Turlock - Morgan Ranch
City of Tulare - Infill Development
$800
$2,000
$1,300
$5,200
$4,600
$4,100
$6,100
$22,700
- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000
Fee per 1,000 Sq.Ft.]
Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] Most projects do not have planned industrial development, so there are no industrial plan are fees shown for those projects. [2] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. [3] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.

Regional Jurisdiction-Specific Plan Area [1]

Prepared by EPS 1/5/2026 C-5 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 TIF Comparison_Copy for Yuba City_5.8.25 Table C-1
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Single-Family Residential (2025$)
Jurisdiction [1] Plan Area
Single-Family Fee per Dwelling Unit
Jurisdiction-Specific Plan Area Regional [2] Total [3]
Sacramento County North Vineyard Station - $4,280 $9,520 $13,900 City of Sacramento Panhandle $2,237 $13,975 $1,605 $17,900 City of Elk Grove Southeast Policy Area $16,087 - $5,722 $21,900 City of Folsom Folsom Ranch $9,551 $33,105 $1,605 $44,300 City of Rancho Cordova Rio Del Oro $21,879 - $1,605 $23,500 Placer County Placer Vineyards - $7,299 $15,113 $22,500 City of Roseville Creekview Specific Plan $8,852 - $11,992 $20,900 City of Lincoln Independence $5,671 - $15,477 $21,200
City of Rocklin Whitney Ranch/Hwy 65 $3,774 $622 $5,737 $10,200 City of Manteca Infill Development $10,428 - $8,017 $18,500 City of Lodi Infill Development $1,048 - $8,017 $9,100
City of Davis Infill Development $8,093 - - $8,100
City of Woodland Spring Lake $10,173 $25,140 - $35,400
City of West Sacramento Liberty $17,735 - $1,638 $19,400 Yuba County North Plumas Lake Area - $7,096 $3,577 $10,700 City of Chico Urban Area $11,784 - $3,687 $15,500
City of Madera Growth Area $951 - $24,179 $25,200
City of Redding Infill Development $7,319 - $1,405 $8,800 City of Turlock Morgan Ranch - $11,739 $3,592 $15,400
City of Tulare Infill Development $4,279 - - $4,300
Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] All rates assumes a 2,400 Sq.Ft single family residential unit. [2] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. [3] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.

Single-Family

Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 C-6 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 TIF Comparison_Copy for Yuba City_5.8.25 Table C-2
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Commercial/Retail Development (2025$)
Jurisdiction Plan Area
Commercial Fee per 1,000 Bldg. Sq.Ft.

Jurisdiction-Specific Plan Area Regional [1] Total [2]
Sacramento County North Vineyard Station - $38,740 $11,038 $49,800 City of Sacramento Panhandle [3] $340 - $2,408 $2,800
Elk Grove Southeast Policy Area $14,481 - $3,809 $18,300 Folsom Folsom Ranch $14,440 $47,882 $2,408 $64,800
Rancho Cordova Rio Del Oro $16,250 - $2,408 $18,700
Placer County Placer Vineyards - $8,426 $14,857 $23,300 Roseville Creekview Specific Plan $11,259 - $9,300 $20,600 City of Lincoln Independence $25,292 - $15,394 $40,700
City of Rocklin Whitney Ranch/Hwy 65 $6,038 $1,131 $13,591 $20,800 City of Manteca Infill Development $8,229 - $6,457 $14,700 City of Lodi Infill Development $1,767 - $6,457 $8,300
City of Davis Infill Development $8,448 - - $8,500
City of Woodland Spring Lake $12,632 $19,350 - $32,000
City of West Sacramento Liberty $19,215 - $1,867 $21,100 Yuba County North Plumas Lake Area - $4,275 $2,080 $6,400 City of Chico Urban Area $22,690 - $15,830 $38,600
City of Madera Growth Area $254 - $22,844 $23,100
City of Redding Infill Development $12,003 - $1,930 $14,000 City of Turlock Morgan Ranch - $14,799 $2,407 $17,300
City of Tulare Infill Development $10,170 - - $10,200
Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. [2] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.
[3] Panhandle does not have planned commercial development, so there are no plan area fees shown.

Commercial/Retail

Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 C-7 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 TIF Comparison_Copy for Yuba City_5.8.25 Table C-3
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Office Development (2025$)
Jurisdiction Plan Area
Office Fee per 1,000 Bldg. Sq.Ft.

Jurisdiction-Specific Plan Area Regional [1] Total [2]
Sacramento County North Vineyard Station $0 $22,870 $9,443 $32,400 City of Sacramento Panhandle [3] $330 - $1,843 $2,200
Elk Grove Southeast Policy Area $15,260 - $2,791 $18,100 Folsom Folsom Ranch $6,360 $34,189 $1,843 $42,400
Rancho Cordova Rio Del Oro $12,350 - $1,843 $14,200
Placer County Placer Vineyards - $26,245 $14,715 $41,000 Roseville Creekview Specific Plan $13,711 - $9,578 $23,300 City of Lincoln Independence $11,115 - $15,188 $26,400
City of Rocklin Whitney Ranch/Hwy 65 $6,604 $1,131 $13,572 $21,400 City of Manteca Infill Development $2,739 - $6,540 $9,300 City of Lodi Infill Development $1,284 - $6,540 $7,900
City of Davis Infill Development $5,192 - - $5,200
City of Woodland Spring Lake [3] $6,745 - - $6,800
City of West Sacramento Liberty $19,976 - $2,515 $22,500 Yuba County North Plumas Lake Area - $4,275 $2,080 $6,400 City of Chico Urban Area $5,270 - $4,140 $9,500
City of Madera Growth Area $254 - $7,762 $8,100
City of Redding Infill Development $8,197 - $2,281 $10,500 City of Turlock Morgan Ranch - $7,090 $4,237 $11,400
City of Tulare Infill Development $3,980 - - $4,000
Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. [2] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.
[3] Panhandle and Spring Lake do not have planned office development, so there are no plan area fees shown.

Office

Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 C-8 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 TIF Comparison_Copy for Yuba City_5.8.25 Table C-4
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Industrial Development (2025$)
Industrial Fee per 1,000 Bldg. Sq.Ft.

Jurisdiction Plan Area Jurisdiction-Specific Plan Area
[1] Regional [2] Total [3]
Sacramento County North Vineyard Station - - $5,594 $5,600 City of Sacramento Panhandle $230 - $844 $1,100
Elk Grove Southeast Policy Area $5,472 - $1,503 $7,000
Folsom Folsom Ranch $6,360 - $844 $7,300
Rancho Cordova Rio Del Oro $6,280 - $844 $7,200
Placer County Placer Vineyards - - $5,712 $5,800
Roseville Creekview Specific Plan $6,984 - $4,029 $11,100 City of Lincoln Independence $3,459 - $5,949 $9,500
City of Rocklin Whitney Ranch/Hwy 65 $3,396 $242 $5,556 $9,200 City of Manteca Infill Development $1,000 - $2,993 $4,000 City of Lodi Infill Development $653 - $2,993 $3,700
City of Davis Infill Development $480 - - $500
City of Woodland Spring Lake $5,197 - - $5,200
City of West Sacramento Liberty $20,909 - $1,753 $22,700 Yuba County North Plumas Lake Area - $90 $700 $800
City of Chico Urban Area $2,640 - $1,900 $4,600
City of Madera Growth Area $387 - $3,687 $4,100
City of Redding Infill Development $6,002 - - $6,100
City of Turlock Morgan Ranch - - $1,932 $2,000
City of Tulare Infill Development $1,290 - - $1,300
Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] Most projects do not have planned industrial development, so there are no industrial plan are fees shown for those projects.
[2] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. [3] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.

Industrial

APPENDIX D:

Development Impact Fee Comparisons
Figure D-1 Single-Family Residential (2025$).................................................. D-1 Figure D-2 Commercial/Retail Development (2025$) ....................... D-2 Figure D-3 Office Development (2025$)......................................... D-3 Table C-1 Single-Family Residential (2025$) ................................. D-4 Table C-2 Commercial/Retail Development (2025$) ....................... D-5 Table C-3 Office Development (2025$)......................................... D-6 Table C-4 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-8 Table C-5 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-10 Table C-6 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-12 Table C-7 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-14 Table C-8 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-16 Table C-9 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-18 Table C-10 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-20 Table C-11 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-22

Figure D-1
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
D-1
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 $140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
Yuba City - Proposed Yuba City Countywide Elk Grove Lincoln Chico West Sacramento Woodland Sutter County Yuba County Saracramento Placer County Butte County Yolo County Fee Comparison - Single-Family Development (2025$)
Source: City of Yuba; City of Sacramento; other public agencies; EPS Developer Fee per Unit Processing Fees Citywide Fees County/Other Agency Fees School District Fees Plan Area Fees

Figure D-2
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
D-2
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 $80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Fee Comparison - Retail Development (2025$)
Source: City of Yuba; City of Sacramento; other public agencies; EPS Commercial Fee per 1,000 Sq.Ft.

Processing Fees Citywide Fees County/Other Agency Fees School District Fees Plan Area Fees

Figure D-3
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
D-3
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 $70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Yuba City - Proposed Yuba City Countywide Elk Grove Lincoln Chico West Sacramento Woodland Sutter County Yuba County Saracramento Placer County Butte County Yolo County Fee Comparison - Office Development (2025$)
Source: City of Yuba; City of Sacramento; other public agencies; EPS Office Fee per 1,000 Sq.Ft Processing Fees Citywide Fees County/Other Agency Fees School District Fees Plan Area Fees

Table D-1
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Fee Comparison - Single-Family Development (2025$)
D-4
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Sutter County Yuba County Saracramento Placer County Butte County Yolo County Item [1] Yuba City - Proposed Yuba City Countywide Elk Grove Lincoln Chico West Sacramento Woodland
Source Table D-5 Table D-5 Table D-6 Table D-7
Fee per Unit
Table D-8 Table D-9 Table D-10 Table D-11
Processing Fees $8,000 $8,000 $10,500 $3,700 $9,500 $6,400 $2,100 $3,600 Citywide Fees $55,000 $45,500 $0 $28,500 $37,200 $24,900 $43,900 $46,700 County/Other Agency Fees $1,500 $1,500 $70,900 $39,300 $18,900 $5,400 $37,400 $5,500 School District Fees $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $17,300 $16,300 $12,500 $12,500 $14,800 Plan Area Fees - - - $34,000 - $0 $100 $58,800
Total Fees $77,000 $67,500 $93,900 $122,800 $81,900 $49,200 $96,000 $129,400 Source: City of Yuba; City of Sacramento; other public agencies; EPS [1] All rates are rounded to the nearest hundred.

Table D-2
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Fee Comparison - Retail Development (2025$)
Sutter County Yuba County Saracramento Placer County Butte County Yolo County Item [1] Yuba City - Proposed Yuba City Countywide Elk Grove Lincoln Chico West Sacramento Woodland
Source Table D-5 Table D-5 Table D-6 Table D-7 Table D-8 Table D-9 Table D-10 Table D-11 Fee per 1K Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Processing Fees $2,800 $2,800 $500 $400 $1,500 $1,200 $9,700 $1,800 Citywide Fees $30,900 $8,000 $0 $15,900 $43,500 $29,200 $20,000 $20,300 County/Other Agency Fees $400 $400 $13,700 $8,100 $14,000 $15,900 $34,400 $1,300 School District Fees $900 $900 $1,200 $900 $400 $900 $900 $900 Plan Area Fees - - - $5,300 - $0 $100 $45,000
Total Fees $35,000 $12,100 $15,400 $30,600 $59,400 $47,200 $65,100 $69,300 Source: City of Yuba; City of Sacramento; other public agencies; EPS [1] All rates are rounded to the nearest hundred.

D-5
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25

Table D-3
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Fee Comparison - Office Development (2025$)
Sutter County Yuba County Saracramento Placer County Butte County Yolo County Item [1] Yuba City - Proposed Yuba City Countywide Elk Grove Lincoln Chico West Sacramento Woodland
Source Table D-5 Table D-5 Table D-6 Table D-7 Table D-8 Table D-9 Table D-10 Table D-11 Fee per 1K Bldg. Sq. Ft.

Processing Fees $4,300 $4,300 $1,000 $900 $2,500 $1,600 $14,800 $2,400 Citywide Fees $21,600 $9,000 $0 $14,500 $26,700 $9,200 $18,200 $15,200 County/Other Agency Fees $500 $500 $18,300 $11,300 $13,700 $4,200 $26,200 $2,000 School District Fees $900 $900 $1,200 $900 $400 $900 $900 $900 Plan Area Fees - - - $8,000 - $0 $100 $45,000
Total Fees $27,300 $14,700 $20,500 $35,600 $43,300 $15,900 $60,200 $65,500 Source: City of Yuba; City of Sacramento; other public agencies; EPS [1] All rates are rounded to the nearest hundred.

Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026
D-6
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25

Table D-4
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
City of Yuba - Proposed
D-7
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
R-3
$170.80
M
$177.05
B
$268.41
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/OTHER AGENCY FEES
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

Processing Fees
Building Permit Service $3,971 $1,239 $1,879
Plan Check Fee $1,986 $806 $1,221
Fire Department Plan Review $477 $491 $744
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee $18 $7 $11 California Environmental Quality Act [1] $1,000 $4 $29
Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee (SMIP) $57 $50 $75
GIS/Technology Fee $419 $168 $255
Subtotal Processing Fees $7,928 $2,765 $4,214
City Development Impact Fees
DIF - Parks and Recreation $4,610 - -
DIF - Animal Control $73 - -
DIF - Fire Protection $1,019 $158 $198
DIF - Library Services $683 - -
DIF - Police Protection $895 $139 $175
DIF - Roads (Proposed) [2] $16,299 $28,612 $16,657
DIF - Civic Center $386 $60 -
DIF - Corp. Yard $609 $95 -
DIF - Adminstration $711 $267 -
County General Government $1,158 $186 $265
Courts & Criminal Justice $1,098 $176 $251
Health & Social Service $1,340 $215 $307
Air Quality $15 $60 $60
West Yuba City Sewer Trunk Line [3][4] $2,133 $17 $122
Sewer Connection $7,044 $57 $408
Water Connection $9,331 $299 $2,133
Water Service Tie-In $5,499 $57 $405
Water Meter $745 $10 $74
Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement $1,274 $455 $455 Subtotal City Development Impact Fees $54,922 $30,864 $21,510

Table D-4
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
City of Yuba - Proposed
D-8
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
R-3
$170.80
M
$177.05
B
$268.41
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/OTHER AGENCY FEES
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

County/Other Agency Fees
Drainage Fee - Gilsizer County Drainage District [5] $442 $184 $184 Sutter County Drainage Zone Fee - Zone 1 $992 $146 $243 Subtotal Other County/Agency Fees $1,434 $330 $427
Yuba City Unified School District (YCUSD) $12,408 $840 $840 Plan Area Fees - - -
TOTAL $76,692 $34,798 $26,990
Building Permit Fee Summary
Processing Fees $7,928 $2,765 $4,214
Citywide Fees $54,922 $30,864 $21,510
County/Other Agency Fees $1,434 $330 $427
School District Fees $12,408 $840 $840
Plan Area Fees - - -
Total $76,692 $34,798 $26,990
Source: Yuba City, Sutter County; YCUSD; EPS.
[1] According to the City of Yuba City's FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule, minor development are developments which do not require mitigations or are generally not considered to have any potential significant impacts. [2] The proposed roadway development impact fee includes three different commercial types, each with a different rate. This analysis assumes the rate for a community commercial use. [3] The general boundaries of West Yuba City Sewer Trunk service area are Pease Road to the north, Bogue Road to the south, Township Road to the west and variable locaitons, west of State Route 99, to the east. [4] The West Yuba City Sewer Trunk Line special connection fee is charged in addition to other sewer fees (connection/extension/service). See Yuba City Muni. Code § 5 Section 6-5.508. [5] Rate shown applies to new impervious area within the Gilsizer Drainage District only. Rates vary by drainage district. As of FY 2025–26, the Sutter County Water Agency has 10 districts, two of which (Districts 1 and 11) are within the Gilsizer Drainage District and have their own fee rates.

Table D-5
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
City of Yuba
D-9
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/OTHER AGENCY FEES
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

Processing Fees
Building Permit Service $3,971 $1,239 $1,879
Plan Check Fee $1,986 $806 $1,221
Fire Department Plan Review $477 $491 $744
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee $18 $7 $11 California Environmental Quality Act [1] $1,000 $4 $29
Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee (SMIP) $57 $50 $75
GIS/Technology Fee $419 $168 $255
Subtotal Processing Fees $7,928 $2,765 $4,214
City Development Impact Fees
DIF - Parks and Recreation $4,610 - -
DIF - Animal Control $73 - -
DIF - Fire Protection $1,019 $158 $198
DIF - Library Services $683 - -
DIF - Police Protection $895 $139 $175
DIF - Roads $6,806 $5,720 $4,117
DIF - Civic Center $386 $60 -
DIF - Corp. Yard $609 $95 -
DIF - Adminstration $711 $267 -
County General Government $1,158 $186 $265
Courts & Criminal Justice $1,098 $176 $251
Health & Social Service $1,340 $215 $307
Air Quality $15 $60 $60
West Yuba City Sewer Trunk Line [2][3] $2,133 $17 $122
Sewer Connection $7,044 $57 $408
Water Connection $9,331 $299 $2,133
Water Service Tie-In $5,499 $57 $405
Water Meter $745 $10 $74
Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement $1,274 $455 $455 Subtotal City Development Impact Fees $45,430 $7,972 $8,970

Table D-5
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
City of Yuba
D-10
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/OTHER AGENCY FEES
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

County/Other Agency Fees
Drainage Fee - Gilsizer County Drainage District [4] $442 $184 $184 Sutter County Drainage Zone Fee - Zone 1 $992 $146 $243 Subtotal Other County/Agency Fees $1,434 $330 $427
Yuba City Unified School District (YCUSD) $12,408 $840 $840 Plan Area Fees - - -
TOTAL $67,199 $11,906 $14,450
Building Permit Fee Summary
Processing Fees $7,928 $2,765 $4,214
Citywide Fees $45,430 $7,972 $8,970
County/Other Agency Fees $1,434 $330 $427
School District Fees $12,408 $840 $840
Plan Area Fees - - -
Total $67,199 $11,906 $14,450
Source: Yuba City, Sutter County; YCUSD; EPS.
[1] According to the City of Yuba City's FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule, minor development are developments which do not require mitigations or are generally not considered to have any potential significant impacts. [2] The general boundaries of West Yuba City Sewer Trunk service area are Pease Road to the north, Bogue Road to the south, Township Road to the west and variable locaitons, west of State Route 99, to the east. [3] The West Yuba City Sewer Trunk Line special connection fee is charged in addition to other sewer fees (connection/extension/service). See Yuba City Muni. Code § 5 Section 6-5.508. [4] Rate shown applies to new impervious area within the Gilsizer Drainage District only. Rates vary by drainage district.

As of FY 2025–26, the Sutter County Water Agency has 10 districts, two of which (Districts 1 and 11) are within the Gilsizer Drainage District and have their own fee rates.

D-11
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Table D-6
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
Yuba County - Plumas Lake Specific Plan (South)
Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350 .

CITY/COUNTY/OTHER AGENCY FEES
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft
Processing Fees
Building Permit Service Fees [1] $10,404 $338 $482
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee $18 $7 $11 Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee $57 $50 $75
Fire Plan Review Fee - $4 $26
Fire Safe Planning Fees - $2 $16
CDSA Processing - $0 $3
Planning - Environmental Review - $11 $79
Planning - Planned Development - $22 $159
Planning - Permit Review - $7 $53
CDSA Support & Tech Surcharge - $3 $23
Public Water System - $6 $41
Sewage Disposal - $4 $25
Public Works - $1 $5
Subtotal Processing Fees $10,480 $455 $998
County/Other Agency Fees per Unit
PLSP/NASA Traffic Impact Fee $7,144 - -
SYTIA Traffic Impact Fee $3,601 $2,080 $2,080
Linda Fire Protection District Fire Impact Fee $2,928 - - Olivehurst Public Utility District Fire Impact Fees - $1,928 $1,928 Yuba County Wide Development Impact Fee $12,096 $577 $823 Reclamation District 784 Drainage Impact Fee $4,304 $3,144 $5,240 Olivehurst Public Utility District Wide Water Capacity Fee $8,873 $226 $1,615 Olivehurst Public Utility District Wide WWTF Capacity Fee $6,820 $682 $682 PLSP Sewer Collection System Capacity Fee $3,352 $924 $1,539 Three Rivers Levee Fee [2] $13,024 $3,571 $3,571
PLSP Park Impact Fee $8,695 $530 $800
Subtotal County/Other Agency Fees per Unit $70,836 $13,662 $18,279

D-12
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Table D-6
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
Yuba County - Plumas Lake Specific Plan (South)
Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/OTHER AGENCY FEES
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

School District Fees
Plumas Lake Elementary School District (PLESD), $7,440 $840 $840 Wheatland Union High School District (WUHSD) - South $4,968 $340 $340 Subtotal School District Fees $12,408 $1,180 $1,180
Plan Area Fees - - -
TOTAL $93,724 $15,297 $20,457
Building Permit Fee Summary
Processing Fees $10,480 $455 $998
Citywide Fees - - -
County/Other Agency Fees $70,836 $13,662 $18,279
School District Fees
Plan Area Fees
Total
$12,408
-
$93,724
$1,180
-
$15,297
$1,180
$20,457
Source: Yuba County; PLESD, WUHSD, & MJUSD; EPS.
[1] The single family building permit fee shown is the County's estimate of a southern PLSP production home with sprinklers [2] According to the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority Levee Impact Fee Nexus Study, the fee will escalate annually by the percentage increase in the average of the San Francisco and 20-Cities CCI as published by ENR.

D-13
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Table D-7
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
City of Elk Grove - Southeast Policy Area (SEPA)
Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/SPECIAL DISTRICT FEES
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

Processing Fees [1]
Building Permit - Production Repeat [2] $1,233 $93 $275 Plan Review Fee - Production Repeat [2] $1,850 $56 $165 Master Plan Review $34 $0 $2
General Plan Update Fee $101 $41 $62
Technology Fee $177 $71 $107
Construction and Demolition Fee $177 $71 $107
Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee $57 $50 $75
California Building Standards Commission Fee $18 $7 $11 Subtotal Processing Fees $3,647 $388 $804
City Development Impact Fees
Capital Facilities Fee [3] $5,614 $1,630 $2,040
Affordable Housing Fee $6,396 $1,050 $1,050
Cosumnes CSD Fire Fee - Zone 1 $2,596 $2,190 $2,190
Cosumnes CSD Fire Sprinkler System Fee $721 $9 $65
Roadway Fee - Zone 1
Swainson's Hawk Mitigation Fee [4]
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees
$13,113
-
$28,440
$10,970
-
$15,849
$9,120
-
$14,465
County/Other Agency Fees per Unit
SASD Sewer Collection Impact Fee (Expansion) $3,209 $1,031 $1,719 SASD Sewer Treatment Impact Fee (New Communities) $6,479 $657 $328 SASD IT Recovery Fee $100 $0 $3
Zone 40 Water Development Fee - Pre-Approval Portion [5] $3,229 - - Zone 40 Water Development Fee - Building Permit Portion $18,295 $689 $4,920 Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee (Measure A) $1,631 $2,447 $1,873 I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Fee - District 4 [6] $4,193 $1,432 $968 Active Transportation Fee $2,113 $1,770 $1,460
Subtotal County/Other Agency Fees per Unit $39,249 $8,026 $11,271

D-14
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Table D-7
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
City of Elk Grove - Southeast Policy Area (SEPA)
Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350 per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

Elk Grove Unified School District (EGUSD) $17,208 $840 $840 Plan Area Fees per Unit
Park Fee $13,097 $102 $170
Trail Fee $12,066 $451 $1,360
SEPA/LRSP Phase 3 Drainage Fee (Basin S6) [7] $4,668 $2,513 $4,189 Recycled Water Fee $4,101 $2,190 $2,190
Subtotal Plan Area Fees per Unit $33,931 $5,256 $7,909
TOTAL $122,476 $30,359 $35,289
Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Costs per Unit
Processing Fees $3,647 $388 $804
Citywide Fees $28,440 $15,849 $14,465
County/Other Agency Fees $39,249 $8,026 $11,271
School District Fees $17,208 $840 $840
Plan Area Fees $33,931 $5,256 $7,909
Total Estimated Infrastructure Costs per Unit $122,476 $30,359 $35,289 Source: City of Elk Grove; EGUSD; Sacramento County; various agencies; EPS. [1] Processing fees exclude mechanical, electrical, plumbing and other similar review fees. [2] Major Category Permit Fee is $2,230 plus $62 for each additional 100 sq. ft. or fract No changes plus 10% for 2-story homes, plus $350 + $17.50 per 100 garage square feet over 401 total. [3] Includes facilities for City Administration, Police, Corp Yard, Animal Shelter, Library, and Transit. [4] Analysis assumes the Swainson's Hawk Mitigation Fee, required at improvement plan, has been satisfied. According to the City of Elk Grove, projects may have to pay an impact fee of $12,925 per impacted habitat acreage. [5] SCWA caps the intial payment of 15% to a maximum of $200,000 per subdivision. [6] According to the 2016 Nexus Study for the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program, District 4 is the entire City of Elk Grove.
[7] With the creation of the City’s SEPA and LRSP P3 drainage fee program (the “Drainage Fee Program”), the County’s Zone 11A fee program is no longer needed. Thus, in 2019, the City of Elk Grove detached SEPA from SCWA’s Zone 11A program.

Table D-8
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
City of Lincoln - Liberty

D-15
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/SPECIAL DISTRICT FEES
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

Processing Fees
Building Permit Fee $4,042 $639 $1,038
Plan Check Fee - Production Units $758 $120 $195
Technology Fee $162 $26 $42
Fire Building Permit Fee $3,032 $479 $779
Energy Plan Check Fee $202 $32 $52
Residential Solar Fee $450 - -
General Plan Maintenance Fee $349 $140 $212
Permit Issuance Fee $77 $0 $2
Building Occupancy Fee $169 $1 $5
Incremental Fee $88 $2 $14
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee $18 $7 $11 Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee $57 $50 $75
Subtotal Processing Fees $9,403 $1,495 $2,425
City Development Impact Fees [1]
City Transportation Fee $6,642 $29,624 $13,019
City Wastewater Collection $4,319 $2,332 $2,332
City Wastewater Treatment $7,895 $4,263 $4,263
City Water Transmission $2,025 $810 $810
City Water Storage $1,050 $420 $420
City Drainage (South of Auburn Ravine) $1,057 $518 $518 City Fire $709 $475 $475
City Police $775 $519 $519
City Administrative $1,132 $272 $272
City Solid Waste $699 $49 $49
City Parks and Trails $5,902 $1,416 $1,416
City Park Recreational Facilities $776 $186 $186
City Water Connection Fee $3,075 $98 $703
Water Meter Fee $570 $15 $108
Park Tax [2] $261 $2,459 $1,566
Refuse Container Fee $85 - -
Cemetery District Fee $206 - -
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees $37,181 $43,458 $26,657

Table D-8
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
City of Lincoln - Liberty

D-16
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/SPECIAL DISTRICT FEES
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

County/Other Agency Development Impact Fees
SPRTA Fee - Lincoln $4,006 $5,921 $7,760
SPRTA Tier II Fee $8,678 $6,958 $4,591
PCWA Regulated Capacity & Transmission Charge $3,430 $420 $670 Placer County Capital Facilities Impact Fee $2,788 $670 $670 Subtotal County/Other Agency Development Impact Fees $18,903 $13,969 $13,691 Western Placer Unified School District (WPUSD) $16,224 $340 $340 Plan Area Fees - - -
TOTAL $81,711 $59,263 $43,113
Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Costs
Processing Fees $9,403 $1,495 $2,425
Citywide Fees $37,181 $43,458 $26,657
County/Other Agency Fees $18,903 $13,969 $13,691
School District Fees
Plan Area Fees
Total Estimated Infrastructure Costs
$16,224
-
$81,711
$340
-
$59,263
$340
-
$43,113
Source: City of Lincoln; Placer County Water Agency; Western Placer Unified School District; EPS. [1] City development impact fees are zone area 1.
[2] Assume 0.006 employee per sq. ft. for office and 0.002 employee per Sq.ft. for retail.

Table D-9
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
City of Chico
D-17
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/OTHER AGENCY FEES
Processing Fees
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

Plan Check and Inspection [1] $2,279 $1,099 $1,262
Fire Plan Check Processing Fee $100 $1 $4
Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPPP) Review and Inspections $1,382 $6 $39 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) Review and Inspections $996 $4 $28 California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee $18 $7 $11 Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee $57 $50 $75
Fire Sprinkler - Plan Review $693 $8 $57
Fire Department - Administrative Processing Fee $106 $0 $3 Fire Department - Basic Inspection Fee $186 $1 $5
Sewer Application Fee $245 $1 $7
Engineering Fees- Basic Fee $305 $1 $9
Subtotal Processing Fees $6,367 $1,177 $1,500
City Development Impact Fees
Park Neighborhood Facility Improvement $1,752 - -
Park Community Improvement $3,230 - -
Park Linear/Greenways Acquisition $493 - -
Park - Bidwell Park Land Acquisition $77 - -
Street Facility Improvement $11,488 $22,120 $5,130
Street Maintenance Equipment $296 $570 $140
Bikeway Improvements $794 $1,530 $350
Adminstration Building $59 - -
Fire Protection $458 $850 $760
Police $524 $2,570 $280
Storm Drain Facility - Mud-Sycamore Creek $1,448 $745 $1,241 Water Pollution Control Plant Capacity $1,926 $335 $558 Sewer Trunkline $2,300 $400 $667
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees $24,844 $29,120 $9,126

Table D-9
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
City of Chico
D-18
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/OTHER AGENCY FEES
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

County/Other Agency Fees
Butte County FP - Criminal Justice [2] $300 - -
Butte County FP - General Government Countywide [2] $580 - - Butte County FP - Health & Social Services [2] $110 - - Butte County FP - Library [2] $230 - -
Butte County FP - Jail [2] $465 - -
Butte County FP - CUA Street Improvement [2] $3,687 $15,830 $4,140 Subtotal Other County/Agency Fees $5,372 $15,830 $4,140 Chico Unified School District (CUSD) $12,408 $840 $840
Plan Area Fees - - -
TOTAL $48,990 $46,966 $15,607
Building Permit Fee Summary
Processing Fees $6,367 $1,177 $1,500
Citywide Fees $24,844 $29,120 $9,126
County/Other Agency Fees $5,372 $15,830 $4,140
School District Fees $12,408 $840 $840
Plan Area Fees - - -
Total $48,990 $46,966 $15,607
Sources: City of Chico, Butte County, CUSD; EPS.
[1] Master plan or production homes may have building fees reduced by up to 50% when the building is the same size and configuration.
[2] Assume rates for Chico urban area.

D-19
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Table D-10
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
City of West Sacramento - Liberty Specific Plan
Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dwelling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/SPECIAL DISTRICT FEES
Processing Fees [1]
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

Building Permit Construction Fee $515 $5,333 $8,204
Plan Review Fee $335 $3,466 $5,332
Technology Fee $68 $704 $1,083
Planning Site Plan Approval $150 $1 $4
Encroachment Permit Application Fee $250 $1 $7
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee $0 $7 $11 Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee $0 $50 $75
Fire Prevention Plan Check and Inspection Permit Fees $95 $50 $53 Engineering Permit and Site Plan Review Fee $85 $0 $2
Water & Sewer Connection Permit Application Fee [1] $250 $1 $7 Engineering Application Fee $160 $1 $5
Engineering Inspection Fee $132 $1 $4
Subtotal Processing Fees $2,040 $9,614 $14,787
City Development Impact Fees
Water Capacity Charge [2] $11,944 $501 $1,790
Drainage Fee (Zone NC-10) $5,534 $11,944 $5,863
Park Impact Fee - Neighborhood Facilities (Zone 1) $2,171 - - Park Impact Fee - Community Facilities (Zone 1) $11,131 $1,450 $2,040 Fire Sprinklers Protection - $48 $341
Fire Facilities (Zone 1) $1,577 $956 $1,591
Police Facilities (Zone 1) $1,548 $938 $1,562
Corporation Yard Facilities (Zone 1) $1,181 $715 $1,191 City Hall Facilities (Zone 1) $863 $523 $871
Childcare Impact Fee $810 $607 $810
In-Lieu Flood Protection Fee - Zone 3 $1,265 $2,250 $2,100 Housing Trust Fund Program $5,809 - -
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees $43,833 $19,932 $18,160

D-20
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Table D-10
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
City of West Sacramento - Liberty Specific Plan
Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dwelling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/SPECIAL DISTRICT FEES
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

County/Other Agency Fees
SASD Sewer Collection Impact Fee (Expansion) $3,209 $1,031 $1,719 SASD Sewer Treatment Impact Fee (New Communities) $6,479 $657 $328 Traffic Fee - Zone 1B (Southport District 1) $17,735 $28,744 $19,976 I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation In-Lieu Fee (District 2) $1,867 $3,544 $3,505 County Facilities and Services Authorization $3,613 - - Yolo County Facilities Fee $4,407 $334 $666
Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Fee [3] - - -
Subtotal Other County/Agency Fees $37,310 $34,310 $26,194 Washington Unified School District (WUSD) $12,408 $840 $840 Southport Framework Plan Fee $81 $26 $43
TOTAL $95,672 $64,722 $60,025
Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Costs
Processing Fees $2,040 $9,614 $14,787
Citywide Fees $43,833 $19,932 $18,160
County/Other Agency Fees $37,310 $34,310 $26,194
School District Fees $12,408 $840 $840
Plan Area Fees $81 $26 $43
Total Estimated Infrastructure Costs $95,672 $64,722 $60,025 Source: City of West Sacramento Book of Fees; Yolo County; Washington Unified School District; EPS. [1] Assumes one application for both water and sewer connection per unit. [2] Assume 2 2" meter for commercial and 1 2" meter for office. [3] Analysis assumes the Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Fee, has been satisfied. Per the Yolo Habitat Conservancy, projects may be required to pay $16,672 per acre of converted habitat lands. Additional charges may apply for wetlands.

Table D-11
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
Spring Lake Specific Plan - City of Woodland

D-21
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350

CITY/COUNTY/OTHER AGENCY FEES
Processing Fees
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.

Building Inspection and Plan Review Fee - Production Homes [1] $1,696 - - Building Inspection Fees - $785 $1,050
Building Plan Review - $510 $683
Building Permit Processing Charge/Application $8 $0 $2
Green Building Plan Review $138 $1 $1
Green Building Plan Inspection $276 $1 $1
Seismic/Strong Motion (SMIP) $57 $50 $75
California Building Standards Commission Fee $18 $7 $11 Electrical Permit Processing $58 $0 $0
Electrical Inspection $200 $126 $126
Plumbing Permit Processing $58 $0 $0
Pluming Inspection $400 $123 $123
Mechanical Permit Processing $58 $0 $2
Mechanical Inspection $200 $123 $123
Solar Energy Permit Fees - SP Plan Review and Inspection $280 $2 $17 Energy Compliance Inspections $85 $39 $53
Fire Sprinklers Plan Check and Review $36 $6 $41
Subtotal Processing Fees $3,568 $1,774 $2,307
City Development Impact Fees
Roads $10,264 $12,746 $6,806
Wastewater $7,789 $3,179 $1,907
General City $1,040 $695 $868
Fire $3,526 $2,056 $2,350
Police $852 $567 $708
Library $650 - -
Water $6,683 $171 $1,222
Parks & Recreation $9,606 - -
Administration $303 $144 $95
Agricultural Mitigation [2] $2,143 $689 $1,148
Fiscal Deficit Fee [3] $1,553 - -
Fire Operations & Maintenance Fund (due at final map) [3] $798 - - Habitat Education (due at final map) [3] $58 - -
Offsite Affordable Housing Fee (due at final map) [3] $1,139 - - Public Transit Fee (due at final map) [3] $252 - -
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees $46,656 $20,247 $15,104

Table D-11
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
Spring Lake Specific Plan - City of Woodland

D-22
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25

Table D-11
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
Spring Lake Specific Plan - City of Woodland

D-23
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 DIF Comparison_12.11.25 Residential Non-Residential
Item Single Family Retail Office
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 2,400 250,000 35,000
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.) 450 - -
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR 7.00 0.50 0.30 Acre per Unit 0.14 - -
Building Valuation
Construction Type VB IIB IIB
Building Valuation Group R-3 M B
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $170.80 $177.05 $268.41 Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) $69.64 - -
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit $441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350 County/Other Agency Fees
County Facilities and Services Authorization (effective 9/13/16) $3,118 $500 $666 Yolo County HCP Fee (effective 3/27/23) $2,315 $744 $1,240 Subtotal Other County/Agency Fees $5,433 $1,244 $1,906
Woodland Joint Unified School District (WJUSD) $14,712 $840 $840 SLIF Plan Area Fees
Roadway $25,366 $20,000 $20,000
Water $2,875 $2,000 $2,000
Sewer $3,705 $3,000 $3,000
Drainage $13,149 $10,000 $10,000
Fire Station $1,057 $1,000 $1,000
Parks $10,439 $8,000 $8,000
On-going Admin Costs $1,896 $1,000 $1,000
Public Transit Fee (due at final map) $252 - -
Subtotal SLIF Plan Area Fees $58,739 $45,000 $45,000
TOTAL $129,108 $69,104 $65,157
Building Permit Fee Summary
Processing Fees $3,568 $1,774 $2,307
Citywide Fees $46,656 $20,247 $15,104
County/Other Agency Fees $5,433 $1,244 $1,906
School District Fees $14,712 $840 $840
Plan Area Fees $58,739 $45,000 $45,000
Total $129,108 $69,104 $65,157
Source: City of Woodland; Yolo County; WJUSD; EPS
[1] Applies to ICC R-3 single family residential production homes only. [2] Estimated amount. Different requirements for different development and mitigation land. [3] Based on Spring Lake Specific Plan fees.

ATTACHMENT 3

COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE

BY LAND USE TYPE
Proposed Impact Fee Including Administration Fee2
Land Use Category Existing Impact
Fee1
<1,500
SQFT
1,500 - 2,499
SQFT
2,500+ SQFT Nonresidential
per KSF
Single-Family Residential $6,940 per DU $14,990 $16,625 $18,284 Multi-Family Residential $4,021 per DU $7,182 $7,965 $8,760 Duplex $7,332 per DU Categorize as Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential -
Senior
$3,843 $4,263 $4,688
Multi-Family Residential -
Senior
$2,944 $3,264 $3,590
Mobile Home $4,231 per DU $7,431 $8,242 $9,064
Neighborhood Commercial $5,833 per KSF $30,126
Community Commercial $5,833 per KSF $29,184
Regional Commercial $5,833 per KSF $40,482
Office $4,198 per KSF $16,990
Light Industrial $715 per KSF $6,288
Manufacture $9,466
Notes:
1Based on current fee schedule dated January 1, 2026.

DU = dwelling unit SQFT = square feet KSF = thousand square feet 2City Administration Fee is 2%
Sources: Fehr & Peers, EPS, and City of Yuba City

ATTACHMENT 4

February 20, 2026
Doug Libby, Director of Development Services
and Joshua Wolfe, Director of Public Works
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, California 95993
RE: Draft AB 1600 Development Impact Fee Study (Roads)- Public Review and Comment Period Mr. Libby and Mr. Wolfe,
On behalf of the North State Building Industry Association (NSBIA), I am writing to express our serious concern regarding the magnitude and timing of the proposed increase to the City of Yuba City’s Roadway Development Impact Fees as outlined in the recently released Roadway Facilities Nexus Study and related fee update materials.

NSBIA and our members fully recognize the need for critical transportation and roadway infrastructure to support planned growth and maintain acceptable levels of service. Reliable and well-planned transportation investments are essential to both residents and the long-term economic health of the city. We recognize the City’s need to update its fee program, and we sincerely thank staff for proactively communicating with our organization about this process.

However, the scale and immediacy of the proposed fee increases raise significant concerns. The proposed fees represent a substantial and abrupt jump from the existing fee schedule—more than doubling in almost all residential categories. Such a sudden increase would have an immediate and material impact on the ability of homebuilders to deliver new housing within the city.

Many active and near-term projects were entitled, financed, and underwritten based on the City’s current fee structure. Applying the full proposed increase to those projects would introduce unforeseen costs that cannot easily be absorbed or mitigated. In practical terms, this creates a real risk that projects will be delayed, redesigned, or abandoned altogether, directly reducing near-term housing production and slowing economic activity. At a time when housing supply remains constrained, these impacts would be felt quickly and acutely.

NSBIA strongly believes these outcomes can be avoided while still addressing the City’s longterm infrastructure needs. In the spirit of collaboration and maintaining a strong working relationship with the City of Yuba City, we respectfully propose two implementation strategies that would significantly mitigate the impacts to homebuilders while still bringing the city up to the fee levels this study calls for.
1536 Eureka Road o: 916 677 5717
Roseville, CA 95661 northstatebia.org

First, we would request “grandfathering in” current active projects. Those with approved entitlements as of the date of fee adoption should be allowed to proceed under the existing roadway fee schedule. This approach respects reasonable reliance interests and ensures that projects already in progress are not destabilized by sudden cost shifts.

Second, rather than implementing the full increase at once, we recommend a four-year phasein period whereby one-quarter of the total fee increase is applied annually, in addition to an annual inflation adjustment. This measured approach allows the development community to adjust responsibly, enables accurate project underwriting, and still moves the City toward full funding of its roadway capital program.

Our hope is that you will adopt these strategies as a staff recommendation to the City Council in order to help ensure that fee implementation is structured in a way that does not unintentionally stall housing production or undermine feasibility. We value the City’s willingness to engage with stakeholders and would view this as an important component of a productive and constructive partnership.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input and for your continued communication with our organization. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this matter further. We look forward to working collaboratively with you and the City Council to arrive at a solution that supports both infrastructure delivery and the continued ability to build homes in Yuba City.

Sincerely,
Jeff Short
Government & Public Affairs Director
North State Building Industry Association

CITY OF YUBA CITY
Future Agenda Items
- Councilmember Cole
- Councilmember Kirchner
- Councilmember Shaw
- Vice-Mayor Pasquale
- Mayor Boomgaarden

CITY OF YUBA CITY
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda
City Manager’s Report

CITY OF YUBA CITY
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda
City Council Reports
- Councilmember Cole
- Councilmember Kirchner
- Councilmember Shaw
- Vice-Mayor Pasquale
- Mayor Boomgaarden
Adjournment