transportation committee agenda...transportation committee agenda monday, april 2, 2018 9:00 a.m....

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AGENDA

Monday, April 2, 2018 9:00 a.m.

CVAG Offices 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 119

Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-1127

Video Conferencing will be available at: City of Blythe City Hall

235 N. Broadway, Room A Blythe, California

THIS MEETING IS HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE. ACTION MAY RESULT ON ANY ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA.

1. CALL TO ORDER (Chair Robert Radi, Councilmember, City of La Quinta)

2. ROLL CALL

A. Member Roster P4

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS

This is the time and place for any person wishing to address the Transportation Committeeon items not appearing on the agenda to do so.

5. TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE/DIRECTOR COMMENTS

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

P5

P10

A. Approve the February 5, 2018 Transportation Committee Minutes

B. Approve the No-cost Change in Scope of Work for City of Cathedral City’sMid-block Pedestrian Crossing Project

6.1 ITEM(S) HELD OVER FROM CONSENT CALENDAR

7. DISCUSSION / ACTION

A. “Adopt a Link” Program for CV Link – Erica Felci P12

Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to establish the “Adopt a Link”program for CV Link and enter into a cooperative agreement with Renova Energy and anyother parties to cover the first segment’s operations and maintenance costs for threeyears.

B. TUMF Nexus Study – Eric Cowle P14

Recommendation: Approve the 2018 TUMF Nexus Study and provide staff direction on

TUMF fees for affordable housing development in the Coachella Valley.

C. Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Phase II Environmental and Engineering P61 Services Contract – Eric Cowle

Recommendation: Approve Advantec’s Environmental and Engineering ServicesContract for Phase II of CVAG’s Regional Signal Synchronization Project in the amount of$3,983,141 plus a 15% contingency of $597,471 for a not-to-exceed total of $4,580,612and authorize the Executive Director to make clarifying changes/revisions prior toexecution.

D. Avenue 50 and Jackson Street Intersection Improvements – Eric Cowle P107

Recommendation: Approve a Reimbursement Agreement with the City of Indio for theAvenue 50 and Jackson Street intersection project.

E. Contract Amendment for Additional Planning and Environmental Design Work for P119 CV Link – Martin Magaña

Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to execute Amendment #5 to thecontract with Alta Planning & Design, with a not-to-exceed amount of $995,000 foradditional planning and environmental design work for CV Link.

8. INFORMATION

a) Status of I-10 Interchange Projects P121

b) CVAG Regional Arterial Program - Project Status Report P122

c) CVAG Regional Bike/Pedestrian Safety Program Update P123

d) Transportation Committee Attendance Roster P124

9. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Meetings at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 119, Palm Desert:

Transportation Committee – Monday, May 7, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

Executive Committee – Monday, April 30, 2018 at 4:30 p.m.

10. ADJOURNMENT

ITEM 2A

Transportation Committee Members

City of Blythe Joseph De Coninck Councilmember

City of Cathedral City Greg Pettis Mayor Pro Tem

City of Coachella Steve Brown, Vice Chair Councilmember

City of Desert Hot Springs Scott Matas Mayor

City of Indian Wells Ty Peabody Councilmember

City of Indio Michael Wilson Mayor

City of La Quinta Robert Radi, Chair Councilmember

City of Palm Desert Jan Harnik Councilmember

City of Palm Springs Lisa Middleton Councilmember

City of Rancho Mirage Ted Weill Councilmember

County of Riverside, Executive Office V. Manuel Perez Supervisor

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Anthony Purnel Tribal Councilmember

Ex-Officio/Non-Voting Members

SunLine Transit (Ex Officio) Lauren Skiver General Manager

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 2018 PAGE 1

1. CALL TO ORDER

The Transportation Committee meeting was called to order on Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. by Chair Robert Radi, Councilmember, City of La Quinta at the CVAG conference room, suite 119, in Palm Desert.

2. ROLL CALL

A roll call was taken and it was determined that a quorum was present. MEMBERS/ALTERNATES PRESENT AGENCY Mayor Joseph DeConinck City of Blythe (via teleconference) Mayor Pro Tem Shelley Kaplan City of Cathedral City Councilmember Steve Brown City of Coachella Mayor Scott Matas City of Desert Hot Springs Councilmember Ty Peabody City of Indian Wells Mayor Michael Wilson City of Indio Councilmember Robert Radi City of La Quinta Mayor Jan Harnik City of Palm Desert Councilmember Lisa Middleton City of Palm Springs Councilmember Ted Weill City of Rancho Mirage Patty Romo County of Riverside Tribal Councilmember Anthony Purnel Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians General Manager Lauren Skiver SunLine Transit Agency (Non-Voting Member) ALSO PRESENT AGENCY Charlotte Radi Public Mark Diercks Transportation Engineer, City of Palm Desert Jesse Eckenroth Interim PW Director City of Ranch Mirage Diana Enriquez SunLine Transit Agency Troy Strange Desert Recreation District Tom Rafferty City of Indio Anita Petke Sunline Transit Agency Carlos Ortiz Advantec Brian McKinney City of La Quinta STAFF PRESENT Gary Leong Martin Magaña Eric Cowle

ITEM 6A

The audio file for this committee meeting can be found at http://www.cvag.org/audio.htm


Erica Felci Lance Albrecht Helen Carlson

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Councilmember Lisa Middleton led members in the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

5. TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE/DIRECTOR COMMENTS

Martin Magaña gave an update on Cap and Trade meeting, approval of $5.2 Million grant from Department of Transportation for CV Link. A ribbon cutting is scheduled February 23, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. for the Cathedral City segment.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAN HARNIK AND SECONDED BY MAYOR SCOTT MATAS TO:

A. APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 6, 2017 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES

B. APPROVE ONE-YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL TO DECEMBER 31, 2018

C. AUTHORIZE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO TAKE ANY NECESSARY ACTIONS TO ACCEPT TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE COMMUNITIES PLANNING GRANT AWARD AND ENTER INTO RELATED FUNDING AGREEMENTS

THE MOTION CARRIED ON ITEMS B AND C UNANIMOUSLY, AND CARRIED ON ITEM A WITH 11 AYES AND 1 ABSTENTION. MAYOR JOSEPH DECONINCK AYE MAYOR PRO TEM SHELLY KAPLAN AYE COUNCILMEMBER STEVE BROWN AYE MAYOR SCOTT MATAS AYE MAYOR TY PEABODY AYE MAYOR PRO TEM MICHAEL WILSON AYE MAYOR PRO TEM ROBERT RADI AYE MAYOR JAN HARNIK AYE COUNCILMEMBER LISA MIDDLETON AYE/ABSTAINED ON 6A COUNCILMEMBER TED WEILL AYE PATTY ROMO AYE

TRIBAL COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY PURNEL AYE In referencing Item C, Mayor Wilson proposed continued efforts to pursue funding for all communities. Member discussion ensued.


6.1 ITEM(S) HELD OVER FROM CONSENT CALENDAR

None.

7. DISCUSSION / ACTION A. ATP Cycle 4 – Erica Felci

Erica Felci provided a staff report. Member discussion ensued. B. Allocation of Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program Funding – Eric

Cowle Eric Cowle presented a staff report about Allocation of Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program Funding. Members were asked to consider and select one of two options (or select an alternative approach) for allocating $30 Million in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds.

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR WILSON AND SECONDED BY MAYOR SCOTT MATAS TO APPROVE OPTION 2. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 10 AYES AND 2 ABSTENSIONS. MAYOR JOSEPH DECONINCK AYE MAYOR PRO TEM SHELLY KAPLAN AYE COUNCILMEMBER STEVE BROWN AYE MAYOR SCOTT MATAS AYE MAYOR TY PEABODY ABSTAIN MAYOR MICHAEL WILSON AYE COUNCILMEMBER ROBERT RADI AYE MAYOR PRO TEM JAN HARNIK AYE COUNCILMEMBER LISA MIDDLETON AYE COUNCILMEMBER TED WEILL ABSTAIN PATTY ROMO AYE

TRIBAL COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY PURNEL AYE

C. Eric Cowle presented a staff report about Intersection Improvements at Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive. Member discussion ensued.

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR SCOTT MATAS AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER LISA

MIDDLETON TO APPROVE A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LA QUINTA FOR INTERESTION IMPROVEMENTS AT WASHINGTON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMUNT OF $1,395,555.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAYOR JOSEPH DECONINCK AYE MAYOR PRO TEM SHELLY KAPLAN AYE COUNCILMEMBER STEVE BROWN AYE MAYOR SCOTT MATAS AYE MAYOR TY PEABODY AYE


MAYOR PRO TEM MICHAEL WILSON AYE MAYOR PRO TEM ROBERT RADI AYE MAYOR PRO TEM JAN HARNIK AYE COUNCILMEMBER LISA MIDDLETON AYE COUNCILMEMBER TED WEILL AYE PATTY ROMO AYE

TRIBAL COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY PURNEL AYE D. Autonomous Shuttle Demonstration on CV Link in April 2018 – Eric Cowle

Mr. Cowle presented the staff report. Member discussion ensued.

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR MICHAEL WILSON AND SECONDED BY MAYOR MATAS TO APROVE A NOT-TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $25,000 TOWARD THE COST OF AN AUTONOMOUS SHUTTLE DEMONSTRATION OF CV LINK AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRETOR TO ENTER INTO THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 11 AYES AND 1 NAY

MAYOR JOSEH DECONINCK AYE MYOR PROTEM SHELLY KAPLAN AYE COUNCILMENBER STEVE BROWN AYE MAYOR SCOTT MATAS AYE MAYOR TY PEABODY NAY MAYOR PRO TEM MICHAEL WILSON AYE MAYOR PRO TEM ROBERT RADI AYE MAYOR PRO TEM JAN HARNIK AYE COUNCILMEMBER LISA MIDDLETON AYE COUNCILMEMBER TED WEILL AYE PATTY ROMO AYE TRIBAL COUNCILMEMBER ANTHONY PURNEL AYE

8. INFORMATION

a) Status of I-10 Interchange Projects

b) CVAG Regional Arterial Program - Project Status Report

c) Transportation Committee Attendance Roster d) Signal synchronization update and Non-Participating Notification from Rancho Mirage e) Bike/Ped safety program update

These items are placed in the agenda for member information.

9. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Meetings at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 119, Palm Desert: Transportation Committee – Monday, April 2, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.


Executive Committee – Monday, February 26, 2017 at 4:30 p.m.

10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:08 a.m. Respectfully Submitted,

Helen Carlson Management Analyst

ITEM 6B

Staff Report

Subject: Cathedral City Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Scope Change Contact: Eric Cowle, Transportation Program Manager ([email protected]) Recommendation: Approve the no-cost change in scope of work for the City of Cathedral City’s mid-block pedestrian crossing project. Background: In September 2017, the Executive Committee approved reimbursement agreements for 10 projects as part of the inaugural round of the Bike and Pedestrian Safety program. Cathedral City’s Dinah Shore Mid-Block Crossing was one of these projects. Cathedral City’s project included the following language as part of the scope of work: The Scope of Services for this Project includes the installation of a HAWK crossing beacon on Dinah Shore Drive at Vaquero Road with necessary signing and striping. A HAWK crossing is designed to safely allow protected pedestrian crossings by stopping road traffic

only as needed. Having designed the entire project, Cathedral City is now requesting to provide an additional HAWK crossing beacon on Dinah Shore Drive at Via De Anza. An in-ground crossing system is already located at that intersection, and the City would like to improve it to the HAWK beacon standard. As the second crossing is within one-half mile of the planned mid-block crossing at Vaquero Road, replacing the old crossing with the new HAWK beacon makes sense. Staff is recommending amending the scope of work to include the following language: The Scope of Services for this Project includes the installation of HAWK crossing beacons on Dinah Shore Drive at Vaquero Road and at Via De Anza including the necessary signing and striping. Cathedral City understands that adding the second HAWK beacon will add to the project’s cost, but the City is not asking for any additional grant funding from CVAG. Financial Analysis: There is no change in cost to the Reimbursement Agreement with Cathedral City, which has already been approved for $180,000 in regional funding. This is a change in scope only. Attachments: Cathedral City request letter

mailto:[email protected]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_crossing

ITEM 7A

Staff Report

Subject: “Adopt a Link” Program for CV Link Contact: Erica Felci, Governmental Projects Manager ([email protected])

Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to establish the “Adopt a Link” program for CV Link and enter into a cooperative agreement with Renova Energy and any other parties to cover the first segment’s operations and maintenance costs for three years. Background: In February 2016, the CVAG Executive Committee unanimously received and filed the CV Link Conceptual Master Plan, which is the guiding document for the project’s development. The plan was developed over several years, during which time CVAG staff gave presentations to CVAG’s committees on operations and maintenance cost projections. At the direction of the Executive Committee, two workshops were held in the summer of 2015 to review the operations and maintenance cost projections. CVAG staff also conducted a survey on park and trail security issues and developed high and low projections for operational costs. The projections, as well as the results of the operations and maintenance workshops and the security issues survey, were provided in the Conceptual Master Plan. The Conceptual Master Plan also identified 22 ways to fund the operations and maintenance costs, which included public and private funding sources. One of those options outlined a concept for a donation program where an individual or private organization could “adopt” a section of CV Link and where “adopters would commit private funds and/or volunteer hours in exchange for recognition.” The first 2.3 miles of CV Link – spanning from Vista Chino Road in Palm Springs to Ramon Road in Cathedral City – officially opened on February 23, 2018. The segment was built under a 2015 cooperative agreement between CVAG and the City of Cathedral City, where the City had agreed to cover the operational costs of the first segment until the project was accepted by CVAG and incorporated into the rest of CV Link. As construction neared completion, Vincent Battaglia, founder and CEO of Renova Energy, presented CVAG and the City with an offer to “adopt” the first segment of CV Link and cover operational costs for the next three years. The Palm Desert-based corporation is the largest full-service solar and battery power company in the Coachella Valley, and employs more than 150 people. In addition to having their own employees volunteer their time along CV Link, Renova has expressed interest in partnering with DesertArc – which provides vocational training and employment to adults with developmental disabilities – to ensure CV Link is maintained to world-class standards. CVAG staff has had conversations with the City of Cathedral City, Renova and DesertArc about establishing a three-year partnership. Details of the agreement are being finalized. It is anticipated that Renova would cover the costs of routine upkeep, such as trash removal and maintaining the minimal landscaping at the access points. The City would continue to be responsible for removing graffiti and similar issues, and CV Link will be patrolled in a similar fashion to other trails across the Coachella Valley. CVAG will include


“Adopt a Link” signs along the segment, located roughly one per mile, to recognize the investment Renova is making into CV Link. CVAG anticipates that the cooperative agreement with Renova could be replicated as future segments of CV Link are constructed. In June 2015, the CVAG Executive Committee was presented with a letter from Goldenvoice – the concert promoter that turned Coachella and Stagecoach into world-renowned music festivals – expressing interest in partnering with CVAG to cover operational costs. And CVAG has received multiple inquiries about the “Adopt a Link” program since Renova’s intent was announced at the February 23 grand opening celebration for the first segment.

Fiscal Analysis: The costs of operating and maintaining a pathway like CV Link are far less than operating large parks or public facilities like a library, which come with significant staff costs. Still, to have companies step up with financial support speaks volumes not just about their commitment to CV Link but to giving back to the Coachella Valley. Renova’s adoption of the first segment will have a direct impact for the City of Cathedral City, which had agreements with CVAG and the City of Palm Springs to cover the operational costs of the first segment until the project was accepted by CVAG and incorporated into the rest of CV Link. The CVAG Conceptual Master Plan outlined a high and a low budget for the entire stretch of CV Link, from which per-mile costs can be estimated. However, a segment-specific budget was not developed.

ITEM 7B

Staff Report

Subject: TUMF Nexus Study Contact: Eric Cowle, Transportation Program Manager ([email protected]) Recommendation: Approve the 2018 TUMF Nexus Study and provide staff direction on TUMF fees for affordable housing development in the Coachella Valley. Background: TUMF Origins In 1987, the California Legislature passed a groundbreaking bill titled Assembly Bill 1600, also known as the “Mitigation Fee Act.” The bill outlined the legal requirements in which a development impact fee is charged by a local governmental agency to an applicant related to the approval of a development project. The fee was intended to pay for all or a portion of the costs of public facilities associated with that project. Two years later, in 1989, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside drafted and adopted Ordinance No. 673, which outlines the establishment of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program for the Coachella Valley. The fee would be imposed on future residential, commercial and industrial development within the jurisdiction. The TUMF program compliments the 20-year Measure A sales tax measure approved by the voters of Riverside County in November of 1988. Measure A was due to expire in 2009, but the Riverside County Transportation Commission adopted Ordinance 02-001 following a 30-year extension by the voters in 2002. Measure A is currently slated to expire in 2039. At the time of its adoption, the intention was for the TUMF to generate at least the equivalent of Measure A funding toward the Regional Arterial System. Today, TUMF revenue provides less than its intended share of match toward Measure A funding. The TUMF is required to be updated periodically. To accomplish this, a Nexus Study is conducted to lawfully link projected growth in the Coachella Valley to the current Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) Program. CVAG has utilized a five-year period for its updates, seeking to maintain the fee level at a fair and equitable level as conditions change. In 2006, CVAG conducted a TUMF Nexus Study to update the fee, with relatively small changes made. However, the fee was not fully implemented. In 2010, CVAG considered another update but elected not to move forward, given the economic downturn at that time. The current Nexus Study was initiated in 2015 and is now ready for adoption. As part of this update, a TUMF/ Nexus Advisory Sub-Committee was created that is representative of both CVAG’s membership and community stakeholders.


Transportation Project Prioritization Study It is CVAG’s responsibility to prepare and adopt a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Coachella Valley. This is accomplished through the creation of the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS), which identifies and prioritizes the needs of transportation projects in the region. The CVAG Executive Committee approved the most recent Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) in June 2016. The TPPS incorporated regional Active Transportation Projects (ATP) such as CV Link, consistent with the California Complete Streets Act (2008), and incorporated the Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) which established the cost of our Regional Transportation System. Collectively, the TPPS, ATP and RACE create the summary of needs and priorities for the ultimate regional transportation system used for the TUMF Nexus Study. TUMF Nexus The TUMF Nexus Study analyzes the relationship between the ultimate regional transportation system and the travel demand generated by future development. The result is a fee imposed onto new development to pay for its proportional contribution towards the future transportation system. With the TPPS and accompanying documents approved, CVAG’s consultant team went to work establishing the TUMF parameters and assumptions, which were presented at the December 2016 TUMF/Nexus Advisory Sub-Committee meeting. With the maximum fee as a starting point, CVAG policy then determines what percentage of maximum fee will actually be charged (based on economic and other considerations), with local match and other funding sources making up the difference. The consultant team provided an initial calculation of the maximum fee based upon the initial assumptions. The preliminary calculation of the maximum allowable fee was $751/trip, an increase of nearly 400% over the current rate of $192/trip. The Building Industry Association (BIA) and Desert Valley Builder’s Association (DVBA) had written letters suggesting the need to reevaluate whether the TPPS projects being included in the TUMF would realistically be built in the next few decades. At the October 12, 2017 TUMF/Nexus meeting, the Committee requested that staff work with individual jurisdictions to reduce the TUMF cost. This was done by monetizing external funding assumptions and re-evaluating whether individual projects are feasible within a 15-25 year timeframe. The revision eliminated nearly $1 billion from TUMF consideration. In aggregating the project “cuts,” there was a strong consensus that projects scoring at 7.5 points and below were uncertain. Eliminating the cost of these low-ranking projects from TUMF consideration added up to more than $600 million in reductions. It is proposed that the TPPS remain unchanged, and that the projects ranked at 7.5 points and below would only be removed from the TUMF calculation, which would remove them from regional funding consideration in the near-term. The TPPS would remain fully in place as a regional prioritization of projects, and would continue to be updated every five years, but there would no longer be an assumption that all the projects would be funded. Ordinance 88-1 which established Measure A, provided that “The Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee Schedule shall be established in order to generate at least the equivalent of Measure A funding…”. Cuts to the TPPS beyond the 7.5-point threshold would diminish the ratio of TUMF funding even further below the 50 percent ratio and could open the door to challenge.

The revised calculation of the fee now translates to $245/trip. This equates to $2,313 per single-family dwelling, only a 27% increase over the current fee of $192/trip which hasn’t been updated in over a decade. By comparison, the fee charged by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) is $8,873 for a single-family dwelling, nearly four times as much. Even if CVAG had used the original preliminary calculation of the maximum allowable fee of $751/trip, it would have equated to $7,089 per single-family dwelling. Streamlining TUMF CVAG’s TUMF program is based on a land use classification category with the daily trip generation rate for that land use taken from the International Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. Originally, CVAG’s TUMF Program had approximately 75 land use categories, but it was later reduced to the current 37 land uses for simplification. Based on the last TUMF update, CVAG has experienced a number of problems with some land uses, particularly the shopping center category. Shopping centers are defined as a development with three business establishments in one or more buildings with a minimum total floor area of 10,000 sq. ft., and the largest building is not larger than 50% of the floor area. Shopping centers are considered retail/services for the purpose of calculating TUMF. If a business establishment other than a restaurant is specifically listed in the TUMF formula and it's within a shopping center, TUMF is calculated as retail/services. For restaurants, a shopping center may include up to 25% restaurant use with no additional TUMF assessment. However, any restaurant use beyond the 25% will be assessed under the restaurant category (Low Turnover, High Turnover, Fast Food). By meeting this definition, specific high trip generating land uses such as convenience markets and fast food can pay at the general retail rate, which is approximately 10% of the convenience/fast food TUMF rate which is $54,611.26 per 1,000 sq. ft. There are a number of problems with the administration of the fee for “shopping centers,” including that neither the fee technicians nor the CVAG TUMF administrator know where all past shopping centers are located. Currently, there are small shopping centers that intend to build convenience stores with gas pumps and then expand at some future point in time. Tracking the timeline of these developments is difficult, and a high TUMF payment at first can be a burden for developers. With this TUMF update, there will be only one land-use category for retail development. The proposed new retail rate is 1/20th of the current rate for convenience markets, resulting in a dramatic reduction in the fee charged for that land use. Additional retail establishments on the same development would all be charged at the same, new rate per 1,000 SF. For convenience markets with fuel dispensers, an additional fee will continue to be added for each fuel dispenser. To distinguish between convenience stores where trip generation is primarily driven by the retail store and convenience stores where trip generation is driven primarily by the fuel dispensers, a calculation is made for the convenience store and the fuel dispensers, with the final rate set by the larger of the two calculations. While CVAG and WRCOG have different TUMF rates, this is the same methodology utilized by WRCOG in their determination of TUMF for convenience markets with fuel dispensers. The overall TUMF is greatly reduced for convenience stores with the new CVAG methodology and rate structure. As part of the current update, CVAG also consolidates land uses (industrial, office, retail) to simplify the process by charging a fee on a stand-alone building based on square footage. Other land uses including single-family and multi-family will be charged per unit and hotels will be charged per room.

As a comparison, WRCOG does not have a “shopping center” provision and also does not have separate, higher TUMF for convenience markets and fast food. They are considered retail uses and pay a flat rate. Exemptions CVAG’s current TUMF Program includes several exemptions: 1. Low and lower-income residential housing. 2. Public buildings (public schools and public facilities), unless they are primarily leased for-profit

enterprises. 3. Building used for religious purposes but excluding other commercial or residential properties or

businesses owned by a religious institution. 4. Solar facilities are not charged on arrays but buildings are charged specific rates (Industrial for

maintenance or storage buildings or Office Building for office space). Under the TUMF update, CVAG staff proposes that – with the exception of affordable income housing -- these exemptions be eliminated. No other exemptions will be allowed unless required by law, and all land uses that generate new trips will be subject to TUMF. Affordable Housing As part of its recommendation, CVAG staff is seeking guidance on how to address TUMF fees for affordable housing in the Coachella Valley. At their February 2018 meeting, the TUMF Nexus Sub-Committee raised concerns about TUMF for affordable housing as CVAG staff initially recommended no exemptions for any land use. The Sub-Committee directed staff to revisit this issue. There were some members of the Sub-Committee that suggested that affordable housing should “have some skin in the game.” Regional fee programs approach affordable housing fees in a variety of ways, including charging a full fee, allowing reductions of a stated percentage, and completely exempting fees. These are evenly implemented throughout programs in the state. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual does not include affordable housing as a land use. Programs that charge a fee often simply define a reduction of 20% or 50% of the fee for affordable housing, but don’t provide a methodology on how it was arrived at other than it was a policy decision. A case can be made for each scenario:

Full fee: Development adding trips to the system pays TUMF. Low-income housing development pays market rates for land, construction and all municipal fees. Having the full fee reflects the development’s impact to the transportation system. Fee reduction: Understanding that, at the margin, paying TUMF adds to the cost of the development for single-family homes and has the potential to keep families from qualifying for financing. A 50% reduction, for example, is consistent with the program by the Fresno Council of Governments. Reducing the fee ameliorates this situation. Exempt fee: Local anecdotal evidence suggests that for low-income single-family housing, families are relocating from poor, overcrowded living conditions in the Coachella Valley to new homes closer to employment. As their previous living situation is not likely to be backfilled with new families, the argument could be made that no new trips are added to the system, justifying an exemption.

Legally, any reduction or exemption cannot be made up by charging higher fees to other land uses; it is simply lost revenue to the TUMF program. Staff recommends the committee consider the following rates and the associated loss of TUMF funding. Single-family dwelling

Full Rate: $2,313 per unit 50% Reduction: $1,156 per unit Exemption: $0

Multi- Family dwelling Full Rate: $1,793 per unit 50% reduction: $897 per unit Exemption: $0 Affordable housing dwelling units average 9.5% of all housing units in the Coachella Valley. Almost all of these units are multi-family. For the period of FY 2011/12-FY 2015/16, had affordable housing been assessed TUMF, the amount would have accounted for 4.5% of the total TUMF collected; in 2016/17 that would equate to $138,778 if charged the full current TUMF rates. Inflation CVAG’s current TUMF Program does not have an inflationary adjustment factor. As part of the TUMF update, CVAG is proposing an annual inflationary adjustment to the final TUMF fee. CVAG proposes to utilize the Consumer Price Index, similar to the inflation factor that was approved for the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). In discussions with stakeholders, representatives of both the BIA and DVBA expressed support for a fee adjustment but are opposed to an automatic annual adjustment. CVAG staff proposes the annual inflation factor since TUMF revenues have decreased drastically over the last ten years. While the economy is not back to its strength it was 10 years ago, the inflation adjustment will bring in some minimal revenues that would help further offset the cost of regional improvements. Incorporating an annual inflation adjustment may help to forestall the expensive necessity of a full TUMF Nexus Study The building industry organizations are not opposed to the inflation adjustment but would like it to be visited on annual basis and not be an automatic increase. Staff concurs that the inflation adjustment should be evaluated by the Executive Committee on an annual basis to determine whether or not to apply the inflation factor to the TUMF program. WRCOG’s TUMF Program also includes an inflation factor for the TUMF. The inflation factor is not automatic and is considered by its Executive Committee on an annual basis. Next Steps CVAG committees will review the TUMF Nexus Study in April and the handbook, ordinance and resolutions in May. Thereafter, jurisdictions will have the ability to adopt their own ordinances and resolutions for the program to go into effect. Fiscal Impact: Approval of the 2018 TUMF Nexus Study includes an increase in the overall trip rate from $192/trip to $245/trip. This increase will result in additional TUMF revenue to fund future regional transportation projects of the TPPS. Attachments: TUMF/Nexus Study

Draft Nexus Report

Transportation Uniform Mitigation

Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule

Update

Prepared for:

Coachella Valley Association of Governments

In Association with:

City of Cathedral City

City of Coachella

City of Desert Hot Springs

City of Indian Wells

City of Indio

City of La Quinta

City of Palm Desert

City of Palm Springs

City of Rancho Mirage

County of Riverside

Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

In Association with:

Michael Baker International

Fehr & Peers

Rodriguez Consulting Group

March 2018

EPS #144043

Table of Contents

1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS ................................................................................ 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

Summary of the TUMF Calculation ............................................................................. 3

2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND ........................................................................ 5

TUMF Boundary ...................................................................................................... 5

Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts................................................................. 6

3. TUMF PROJECTS AND COSTS ..................................................................................... 8

TUMF Project Selection ............................................................................................ 8

TUMF Project Costs ................................................................................................. 9

4. TUMF COST ALLOCATION ....................................................................................... 11

Application of Transportation Demand Model ............................................................. 11

TUMF Capacity Improvement Projects ...................................................................... 11

TUMF Operational, Safety, and ATP Projects .............................................................. 13

Summary of TUMF Cost Allocation ........................................................................... 13

5. OTHER FUNDING FOR TUMF PROJECTS ........................................................................ 15

Obligated Funds .................................................................................................... 15

Other External Funding .......................................................................................... 16

Developer Funded Improvements ............................................................................ 16

State and Federal Transportation Funding................................................................. 16

Local Match .......................................................................................................... 17

Measure A ........................................................................................................... 17

Summary of Other Funding Sources ........................................................................ 18

6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION ..................................................................... 20

Overview of Nexus Findings .................................................................................... 20

The TUMF Calculation ............................................................................................ 21

7. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION .............................................................. 24

Elimination of Land Use Exemptions......................................................................... 24

Simplification of Land Use Categories ....................................................................... 24

Application of Annual Inflation Adjustment ................................................................ 25

Appendices

APPENDIX A: TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF

APPENDIX B: Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1 Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation ................................................................ 3

Table 2 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories .............................. 4

Table 3 Estimated Growth in Trip Ends in CVAG Region (2015 – 2040) ............................... 7

Table 4 Summary of TUMF Projects and Total Costs ....................................................... 10

Table 5 TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies ..................................... 12

Table 6 Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development ............................. 14

Table 7 Summary of Obligated Funds Available to Off-set TUMF Costs .............................. 15

Table 8 Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off-set TUMF Costs .......................... 18

Table 9 Net TUMF Costs After Funding from Other Sources ............................................. 19

Table 10 Calculation of TUMF per Average Daily Trip (ADT) .............................................. 21

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

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

1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS

I nt ro duct ion

This Nexus Report provides the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and its

member jurisdictions with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of an

updated Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Impact fees are one-time charges on

new development approved and collected by jurisdictions to cover the cost of regional

transportation-related capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new growth.1

The fees are typically collected upon issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy.

Initially established in 1989, the CVAG TUMF is a one-time fee charged on all new development

occurring within the CVAG region designed to cover the “fair share” cost of regional serving

transportation projects and improvements needed to serve growth. The program relies on local

agencies (e.g., cities and the County) to collect TUMF as development occurs. The TUMF Nexus

Report establishes a nexus or reasonable relationship between the updated fee amount and the

proportion of transportation improvement costs attributable to new development.

This Nexus Report has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) with support from

a broader consultant team, led by Michael Baker International, that has been retained by the

CVAG to assist in developing key components of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The

analysis and methodology incorporate input from CVAG staff, it’s member jurisdictions, the TUMF

Nexus Advisory Committee, and other stakeholders.

Institutional Context

The CVAG TUMF program is a component of Riverside County’s Measure A. Measure A is a one-

half percent sales tax program that provides funding for a wide variety of transportation projects

and services throughout Riverside County. It was originally approved by voters of Riverside

County in 1988 and given a 30-year extension in 2002. Cities and the county in the Coachella

Valley must participate in the TUMF program to assist in the financing of the priority regional

arterial system in order to receive local Measure A funds.

If a city or the county chooses not to levy the TUMF, the funds they would otherwise receive

from Measure A for local streets and roads is added to the Measure A funds for the Regional

Arterial Program. A portion of the Measure A revenues for the Coachella Valley area is returned

to the cities and the county in the Coachella Valley to assist with the funding of local street and

road improvements. These funds supplement existing federal, state, and local funds. Local street

improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments are typically paid for by

the developers.

Other key components of the RTP that have been updated as part of this study process, and

used as critical inputs in the TUMF update, include:

1 New development includes any construction activity that requires a building permit and creates

additional impacts on a jurisdictions regional transportation infrastructure once completed (e.g.,

through additional travel demand or “trips”).

Draft TUMF Nexus Report

March 27, 2018


Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS): The TPPS identifies and prioritizes

the regional arterial transportation projects in the CVAG region.

Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE): The RACE provides costs estimates for the

projects included in the TPPS.

Active Transportation Plan (ATP): The Regional ATP defines the bicycle, pedestrian, and

low speed electric vehicle (LSEV) networks designed to provide a multimodal compliment

and/or alternative to automobiles. The Regional ATP projects are included in the TPPS.

The TPPS, RACE, and ATP were formally approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on June 27,

2016. Since the TPPS, RACE, and ATP provide the underlying basis for the TUMF program, these

updates have necessitated update of the TUMF program to reaffirm the nexus between projected

development and needed transportation system improvements. The reevaluation of the TUMF

nexus also provides the opportunity to address important policy issues including, fee land use

categories, exemptions, cost indexing, and other factors, as described further in Chapter 7.

Legal Context

A Nexus Report provides a legal basis and necessary technical analysis to support a schedule of

transportation impact fees consistent with Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code

Section 66000 et seq.). The Mitigation Fee Act allows jurisdictions to adopt, by resolution, the

Transportation Impact Fee consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings

provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments

of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling ordinance.

Impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of constructing capital and

infrastructure improvements required to serve new development and growth in the jurisdictions

in which it is charged. As such impact fees must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection,

between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. Impact

fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other

facilities and infrastructure. In addition, impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover

the cost of existing needs/ deficiencies in the transportation capital improvement network.

In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development

project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;

2. Identify how the fee is to be used;

3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of

development project for which the fee is being used;

4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development

project for which the fee is imposed; and

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

facility.

These statutory requirements have been followed in establishing this TUMF, as documented in

subsequent chapters. If the transportation impact fee is adopted, this Nexus Study and the

technical information it contains should be maintained and reviewed periodically by CVAG to


March 27, 2018


ensure accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent

that transportation improvement requirements, costs, and development potential changes over

time, the TUMF will need to be updated. Further information on the implementation and

administration of the TUMF is provided in Chapter 7.

Summar y o f the TUMF Ca lcu la t io n

Table 1 shows summarizes the TUMF calculation per trip consistent with nexus requirements

and the associated analysis contained in this Technical Report. These transportation impact fees

are designed to cover the cost of regional transportation improvements required to support new

development after existing deficiencies and known other funding sources have been taken into

account. The fees apply to all new residential and non-residential projects, except those

exempted by State or federal law or other means.

Table 1 Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation

While per trip sets the basis for the TUMF, individual land use categories will pay different fees

depending on their trip rates per unit. Table 2 provides an illustrative calculation of the fee level

for various land use categories. The actual land use categories and their specific application,

including various discounts, will be included in the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter 7.

Net TUMF Cost See Table 9 = a $263,335,000

Growth in ADT (2015 - 2040) See Table 3 = b 1,074,520

Avg. TUMF / ADT = a / b $245

Category Source Formula Amount


March 27, 2018


Table 2 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories

Land Use Category

Residential

Single Family Detached $2,310 per dwelling

Multi-Family $1,790 per dwelling

Non-Residential

Industrial $1,220 per 1,000 sq. ft.

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

Retail2 $6,010 per 1,000 sq. ft.

[1] Based on a TUMF of $245 per ADT.

[2] Includes a discount of 35% percent to account for pass-through trips.

Fee Per Unit1


2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND

This chapter documents the land use and travel demand assumptions and forecasts that underlie

the TUMF calculations. These factors drive the traffic generation and attraction in the CVAG

region and, in turn, are critical in determining how to allocate new transportation improvement

costs between existing and new development.

TUMF Bo undar y

The TUMF boundaries define the geography (i.e. cities and unincorporated areas) where new

development will be subject to the TUMF. In order to assure accurate and timely implementation

of the TUMF program, the applicable boundary should be easily identified and understood by

developers and jurisdictions responsible for fee collection. Good boundary devices are easily

identified, stay relatively constant over time, and can be related to data collection or analysis

zones in order to facilitate future analysis updates.

As part of an update to the TUMF in 2005 (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005), the CVAG TUMF

Boundary Determination established a roughly defined area within which there exists a

“reasonable relationship” between new development and traffic conditions on TUMF roadways.

Formal boundary lines were defined based on the results of the analysis in relation to easily

administered features. This boundary is illustrated in Figure 1 and includes the CVAG core, as

well as outlying areas along the I-10 east, SR74 south, SR86 south, and SR111 south corridors.

The boundary corresponds to several easily defined features:

The Riverside County line to the north and south,

Joshua Tree National Park to the northeast,

Township line 10E-11E to the east, and

The WRCOG/CVAG border to the west.


March 27, 2018


Figure 1 CVAG TUMF Boundary

Tr ave l Demand A ssumpt io ns and For ecast s

Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees must establish a reasonable

relationship, or nexus, between the cost of new capital facilities and improvements allocated to

future development and the contribution of growth to the need for these facilities. For

transportation impact fees, recently updated and adopted traffic models are generally used as a

key tool to estimate the allocation of costs of new transportation facilities between existing and

future development.

Based on direction from the CVAG Executive Committee, the Riverside County Traffic Analysis

Model (RIVTAM) has been used to calculate the TUMF. Specifically, as part of this study process,

the RIVTAM model has been updated to reflect the latest 2040 socio-economic forecasts and

roadway network assumptions in the CVAG region consistent with SCAG’s 2016 Regional

Transportation Plan (RTP). In addition to the Federal Transportation Improvement Program

(FTIP) and projects identified in the 2016 RTP, the TPPS projects were also added to the model

to estimate the daily trips generated in the CVAG region by Year 2040.2

Table 3 shows the estimated growth in the number of daily vehicle trips ends in the CVAG

region between existing (2015) and 2040 based on the updated RIVTAM model. As shown, the

2 For transportation modeling purposes, even projects not included in the TUMF calculation but

included as part of the RTP or FTIP are considered to be part of the regional network in 2040.


March 27, 2018


existing 2015 vehicle trip ends were estimated to be 3,141,640 and the total growth was

estimated to be an additional 1,074,520 trip ends over the next 25 years, or by 2040.3 Based

on this projection, the future growth in trip ends will represents about 25 percent of total trips in

2040. In other words, future growth is expected to account for roughly 25 percent of total trips

ends within the CVAG region by 2040. This proportion is used to allocate a portion of the cost for

TUMF eligible projects to future growth, as described further in subsequent chapters.

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

3 Trip ends are those that either start or end in the CVAG region. Through trips (i.e. those that pass

through but do not stop in the CVAG region), are excluded from this calculation as described further in

Chapter 4.

2015 2040 (with TPPS) TotalGrowth as % of

2040 totalAverage

Annual

Total for CVAG Regional

Network3,141,640 4,216,160 1,074,520 25.5% 1.2%

Source: F&P; RIVTAM

Avg. Daily Trip (ADT) Ends in Year: 2015 - 2040 Growth in ADT


3. TUMF PROJECTS AND COSTS

This chapter documents the transportation facilities included in the TUMF as well as their

estimated cost. Development impact fees are derived from a list of planned regional

transportation capital improvement projects and associated costs that are needed in part or in

full to accommodate new growth. Consequently, the capital improvements included in the fee

program need to be described in sufficient detail to generate cost estimates.4

TUMF Pro jec t Se lec t io n

As noted in Chapter 1, the TPPS, as well as the RACE and ATP provide the core elements of the

TUMF calculation by providing the list of potentially eligible projects and their corresponding

costs. Updates to these documents were prepared by the consultant team, led by Michael Baker

International, and formally approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on June 27, 2016.

While the projects included in the TPPS represent the universe of transportation facilities and

improvements potentially eligible for funding through TUMF, not all of them need to be included

in the program. A key component of the TUMF study process is to identify which of these eligible

projects should be included in the TUMF based on both nexus and policy considerations.

Accordingly, as part of this study, CVAG obtained input from member jurisdictions and the TUMF

Nexus Committee to consider options for reducing the cost of the TUMF program.

The policy direction resulting from this consultation was to identify and remove projects from

TUMF consideration where there was uncertainty in the likelihood of that project moving forward

in the next 15-25 years. After meeting with each of the individual jurisdictions, CVAG found that

nearly all projects scoring below 7.5 points on the TPPS met the criteria and thus should be

“removed” from TUMF consideration. Jurisdictions pointed out that these projects may become

more certain in the future, when the TUMF Nexus study is repeated.

CVAG, with concurrence from its members and the TUMF Nexus Committee, determined that the

regional priority in the TPPS necessitated the inclusion of projects scoring above 7.5 points. By

removing TPPS projects scoring 7.5 points and lower, jurisdictions acknowledge that regional

funding will not be available for those projects until or unless the TUMF project list (those TPPS

projects scoring above 7.5 points) is amended.

The ATP includes a comprehensive listing of all active transportation projects within the

jurisdictions of the CVAG member agencies that were determined to have regional significance.

Specifically, it includes local and regional bike plans as well as pedestrian improvement to transit

hubs. In addition, the TPPS includes other regional transportation projects, such as CV Link, that

correspond to long-term planning efforts and cannot analyzed in the same way as traditional

TPPS projects. These projects were tested for regional significance based on factors that were

agreed upon as part of the RTP study process. Based on CVAG committee direction, ATP and

4 Impact fees programs do not, in themselves, represent actual approval of a City plan or capital

project (and as such do require clearance through the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA).


March 27, 2018


these regional planning projects were not ranked against one another but are simply listed as

part of the regional transportation system to be considered for funding.

In addition to this policy-based approach, TPPS projects focused on the resurfacing of existing

arterials have been removed from the TUMF calculation based on nexus considerations (i.e., the

costs of these projects are excluded from TUMF). These projects are needed to maintain the

current regional arterial network rather than help accommodate growth. Based on the

requirements of AB 1600, projects focused primarily on the operation and maintenance of

existing facilities should be excluded from development impact fee programs. It should be noted

that this is a relatively minor adjustment since total cost of these projects is only $940,000.

Based on the process and criteria described above, about 80 TPPS projects were removed from

TUMF consideration, or about 30 percent of the total.5 Eliminating these projects removed about

$605 million from TUMF consideration. A detailed list of the projects included and removed from

the TPPS is provided in Appendix A.

TUMF Pro jec t Co s t s

As described earlier, the Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) study provides a uniform

methodology to create planning-level cost estimates for transportation projects included in the

TPPS. As further described in the RACE, these costs estimates include construction, right-of-

way, and impact factors to cover other related project conditions.6 The costs for CV Link and

Regional Signal Synchronization were estimated from other planning efforts and added to the

overall TPPS cost.

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

7.5 points. As shown, the total delivery cost for the projects included as part of the TUMF

calculations is estimated at approximately $2.809 billion, including the TPPS, ATP, and two other

regional projects. The cost estimates for each project are attached to this Report as Appendix

B (with further detail available in the RACE).

5 This total excludes ATP and other Regional Projects such as CV Link.

6 Impact factors are multipliers applied to the project’s construction cost to account for special

conditions likely add to its complexity in the construction process. These include project conditions like the existence of utilities structures, nearby drainage facilities, and medians that add complexity and costs.


March 27, 2018


Table 4 Summary of TUMF Projects and Total Costs

The bulk of the TUMF project costs, or approximately 76.3 percent, are identified as “Capacity

Improvement Projects.” These projects are so-named because they expand the capacity of the

regional transportation network by adding lanes or entirely new arterials and connections,

allowing the network to better accommodate growth. The projects referred to as “Widening or

Updating of Cross-Sections” and “Other Operational Improvements”, which combine for about 13

percent of costs, provide a variety of benefits to both new and existing commuters, but do not

expand the network capacity in a measurable way. ATP and other regional projects such as CV

Link and valley-wide signal synchronization, combine for slightly less than 11 percent of total

costs.

Type of Projects

$ Amount %

Buildable Projects $2,506,140,000 89.2%

-- $2,143,490,000 76.3%

-- $69,910,000 2.5%

-- $292,570,000 10.4%

-- $170,000 0.01%

ATP Regional Projects $157,700,000 5.6%

-- $149,700,000 5.3%

-- $8,000,000 0.3%

$146,100,000 5.2%

-- $99,400,000 3.5%

-- $46,700,000 1.7%

Regional Traffic System Costs $2,809,940,000 100%

TUMF Project Cost

Capacity Improvement Projects

Widening or Updating Cross-Sections

CV Link

Valley-wide Signal Synchronization

Other Operational Improvements

Resurface or Reconstruction Only

Regional Bicycle Projects

Regional Pedestrian Improvements

Other Regional Transportation Projects


4. TUMF COST ALLOCATION

This Chapter describes how the cost of TUMF eligible projects (described in Chapter 3) are

allocated to new development. Under the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees cannot

include the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to address “existing deficiencies”. In

other words, the cost of new capital facilities and improvements needed solely to address the

needs of existing users must be excluded from the TUMF calculation.

A pp l i ca t io n o f T r anspo r ta t io n Demand Mo de l

As noted in Chapter 2, the nexus calculations provided in this Report utilize RIVTAM projections

to allocate the cost of the TUMF eligible projects between new and existing development. The

RIVTAM model is a mathematical representation of travel demand in the CVAG region between

Base Year 2008 and Future Year 2040, updated by Fehr & Peers as part of this study effort. The

model uses socioeconomic data, such as number of jobs and households to estimate the

expected travel in, between, and through CVAG. Existing 2015 origin-destination (O-D) trip

table and daily volumes were developed using the interpolation between the Base Year 2008

Model and Future Year 2040 Model.

The traffic growth in CVAG was estimated using the change in origin-destination (O-D) trip tables

between existing 2015 Model and Future Year 2040 Model. In order to capture the trips only

associated with the Coachella Valley region, the external-to-external trips (meaning trips starting

from and ending at areas outside of the Coachella Valley) were excluded from traffic growth. For

external-to-internal or internal-to-external trips (meaning trips having one end in CVAG and the

other end outside of CVAG), only half of those trips were included in the traffic growth

calculation.

For the purpose of the TUMF, the number of trip ends was used to calculate the fee which is

consistent with the 2005 TUMF study. Any internal-to-internal trip (meaning trips traveling

inside CVAG) is considered as two trip ends and any external-to-internal or internal-to-external

trip is considered to have one trip end in Coachella Valley.

The results from the traffic demand model are applied differently depending on the type of TUMF

project under consideration. Specifically, this nexus analysis employs different cost allocation

methodologies depending on whether the project is primarily designed to increases the overall

travel capacity within the CVAG region versus those that are primarily designed for other

purposes, such as safety or bicycle / pedestrian access. The cost allocation methodology for each

category of TUMF improvement is described separately below.

TUMF Capac i ty Impr ovement Pr o jec t s

As described in Chapter 3, the TPPS identified a number of projects as “capacity

improvements.” These projects are so-named because they expand the capacity of the regional

transportation network by adding lanes to existing facilities or adding entirely new arterials and

connections, allowing the network to accommodate growth. For these projects the RIVTAM

model was used to estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth. Specifically, the existing

2015 daily volumes were compared to capacity to develop the existing volume/capacity (v/c)


March 27, 2018


ratio to determine whether the project is experiencing an existing deficiency based on level of

service (LOS) criteria. Consistent with the 2005 TUMF study, LOS D or worse is considered to be

unacceptable LOS for arterial roadway network.

Any project’s roadway segment with a v/c ratio exceeding 0.62 (LOS D or worse) were

considered to operate with existing deficiency, and a fair share calculation was then performed to

estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth for the project. The fair share percentage

was calculated by subtracting the existing volumes from future demand and then divided by the

future demand, and the percentage was applied to the project’s total cost to estimate the portion

of costs attributable to growth. For projects with roadway segments operating at LOS C or better

(or v/c ratio of 0.62 or less), it is assumed 100 percent of the project’s cost is attributable to

growth.

Table 5 shows the list of TUMF projects experiencing a v/c ratio above 0.62 and how the cost of

these projects has been allocated between new and existing development. Overall, out of the

190 TUMF projects (excluding ATP) 13 are estimated to operate with an existing deficiency. As

shown in Table 5, out of the $121.7 million in total cost estimated for these projects,

approximately $54.4 million is allocated to the TUMF. The remaining $67 million, or about 55

percent, is attributable to existing deficiencies.

Table 5 TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies

Street Name

Segment

# Segment Description

Cost

Considered

in TUMF

Fair

Share

Factor

Cost

Contributed

to Future

Growth

ADT V/C ADT V/C

a b c e = a * d

AVE 48 48HGrade Separation at Hwy

111/SPRR$22,011,480 21,120 0.85 49,420 0.48 0.57 $12,604,712

AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC $55,222,500 20,260 0.82 37,930 0.35 0.47 $25,725,852

AVE 50 50I2Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl.

Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $3,356,880 20,150 0.72 38,870 0.37 0.48 $1,616,691

Dillon Rd. DLN13S side of Whitewater Br. to

Hwy 111$4,062,858 19,440 0.71 46,870 0.43 0.59 $2,377,730

Hwy. 74 Hwy.74A Highway 111 to El Paseo $450,240 38,960 0.63 39,080 0.34 0.00 $1,383

Hwy. 111 Hwy.111F Cook St to Eldorado Dr $3,537,600 47,240 0.72 67,580 0.58 0.30 $1,064,735

Hwy. 111 Hwy.111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave $4,924,800 53,240 0.81 73,300 0.64 0.27 $1,347,769

Hwy. 111 Hwy.111HMiles Ave to Washington St

(incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl)$7,573,400 46,430 0.70 62,300 0.43 0.25 $1,929,211

Indian Cyn Dr. INCN8 Garnet Ave to 20th Ave $165,000 20,370 0.68 37,920 0.56 0.46 $0

Indian Cyn Dr. INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave $1,722,800 24,960 0.85 45,050 0.31 0.45 $768,281

Indian Cyn Dr. INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd $7,379,840 21,780 0.78 39,410 0.26 0.45 $3,301,360

Indian Cyn Dr. INCN13

Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes

Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at

Mission Cr.)

$6,945,600 16,460 0.62 27,730 0.40 0.41 $2,822,824

Palm Dr. PD1 I-10 IC to Varner Rd $4,024,416 28,340 0.85 35,290 0.24 0.20 $792,567

Total $121,377,414 $54,353,115

[1] Data provided by Fehr & Peers based on updated RIVTAM.

d = (c - b)

/ c

Existing Year

20151

Future Year

2040 w/ TPPS1


March 27, 2018


As noted, the bulk of the capacity improvement projects, in terms of both number and costs,

currently operate with a v/c ratio below 0.62. Consequently, these projects are assumed to be

entirely attributable to new development.

TUMF Oper at io na l , Sa fe ty , an d A TP Pro jec t s

In addition to “capacity improvement projects”, other regional projects are included in the TUMF

calculation because they improve the regional network for both existing and new users. While

these projects provide a variety of benefits to both new and existing commuters, they do not

expand the network capacity in a measurable way. The TUMF projects that fall into this category

include operational improvements such as reconfiguring intersections, adding turn lanes at

intersections, adding traffic signals, and ATP projects (e.g. bike / pedestrian facility and transit

station improvements, and CV Link).

Since these improvements and facilities associated with the project categories above are

designed to serve and benefit both existing and new development, the costs are allocated in

proportion to growth. Specifically, 25 percent of the cost of these projects are allocated to

growth reflecting the estimated share of new trip ends to total trip ends in 2040 (see Table 3 in

Chapter 2).

Summar y o f TUMF Co st A l l ocat io n

Table 6 summarizes the allocation of TUMF eligible project costs between new and existing

development based on the methodology described above. As shown, overall, about 80 percent of

the TUMF eligible project costs are allocated to new development. This amount includes 97

percent of the cost of “Capacity Improvement Projects” since the majority of these projects are

not currently needed given level of service standards assumed for this analysis (i.e. v/c ratios of

0.62 or less).


March 27, 2018


Table 6 Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development

Type of Projects

Buildable Projects $2,505,970,000 $2,169,010,747

-- $2,143,490,000 96.9% $2,076,630,000

-- $69,910,000 25.5% $17,817,088

-- $292,570,000 25.5% $74,563,659

ATP Regional Projects $157,700,000 $40,191,028

-- $149,700,000 25.5% $38,152,168

-- $8,000,000 25.5% $2,038,860

$146,100,000 $37,234,681

-- $99,400,000 25.5% $25,332,836

-- $46,700,000 25.5% $11,901,845.28

Total $2,809,770,000 80% $2,246,436,456

[2] Cost allocation based on new trips from 2015 - 2040 divided by total trips in 2040, as shown in Table 3.

Project CostsProportion of Costs

Allocated to Growth

[1] Cost allocation based on RIVTAM analysis. For projects with no existing deficiencies, 100 percent of costs

are allocated to growth.


Capacity Improvement Projects1

Widening or Updating Cross-Sections2

Other Operational Improvements2

Valley-wide Signal Synchronization2

CV Link2

Regional Bicycle Projects2

Regional Pedestrian Improvements2

Total Costs

Allocated to

Growth


5. OTHER FUNDING FOR TUMF PROJECTS

It is a common practice in calculation of a development impact fee to deduct any obligated or

projected revenue from other funding sources from the total cost of planned capital facilities and

improvements. Accordingly, this section identifies and quantifies the separate external revenue

or funding sources (other than the TUMF itself) and deducts these amounts from the TUMF

calculation.

CVAG has programming authority for Measure A, State and Federal formula funds. Riverside

County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the regional transportation planning agency

responsible for administration of funds throughout Riverside County. Due to the diverse needs of

sub-regions throughout the County, programming decisions within Coachella Valley are typically

delegated to CVAG. Competitive grant funding and programming is typically managed directly by

RCTC or State and Federal sponsoring agencies.

Ob l igat ed Funds

TUMF project costs should exclude funding that has already been secured or is obligated from

other external sources. As of November, 2016, CVAG has approximately $232 million allocated to

TPPS projects from available sources. Programming decisions are made periodically and

obligation values are updated as needed. A list of current projects and funding commitments is

summarized in Table 7.

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

Type of Projects

$ Amount %

Buildable Projects $2,505,970,000 89.2% $145,886,000

-- $2,143,490,000 76.3% $102,956,000

-- $69,910,000 2.5% $1,972,000

-- $292,570,000 10.4% $40,958,000

ATP Regional Projects $157,700,000 5.6% $8,300,000

-- $149,700,000 5.3% $8,300,000

-- $8,000,000 0.3% $0

$146,100,000 5.2% $77,767,625

-- $99,400,000 3.5% $75,000,000

-- $46,700,000 1.7% $2,767,625

Regional Traffic System Costs $2,809,770,000 100% $231,953,625

[1] Only includes portion of obligated funding applicable to TUMF related costs.

CV Link

Valley-wide Signal Synchronization

Other Operational Improvements

Regional Bicycle Projects

Regional Pedestrian Improvements


Obligated

Funding1 Project Cost

Capacity Improvement Projects

Widening or Updating Cross-Sections


March 27, 2018


Although a significant portion of obligated funds are under CVAG’s control, competitive funding

from State and/or federal sources, such as Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, is

determined by others. ATP projects in the CVAG region, including major infrastructure projects

such as CV Link, have received approximately $75 million in grants and funding allocations from

CMAQ and various other sources. The values are deducted from the TPPS and ATP gross

network.

Ot her Ext er na l Fund ing

As part of the TUMF study effort, CVAG staff identified and estimated the level of non-TUMF

external funding assumptions inherent in each jurisdiction's ability to move specific TPPS projects

forward. These external funding assumptions have been removed from the TUMF obligation.

Specifically, CVAG staff have worked with member jurisdictions to identify and estimate the

additional, external (i.e. non-TUMF) funding assumptions associated with the all TPPS projects

rated above 7.5 points. The total external funding estimate from all the jurisdictions was

$328,032,689. Consequently, this amount has been removed from the TUMF calculation.

Deve loper Funded I mpro vement s

Section 6 (d) (2) of the CVAG TUMF model ordinance indicates that CVAG will “establish an

estimate of the value of customary developer dedications to the extent they have been included

in the total cost of the regional system.” Dedications are right of way and/or completed roadway

segments that are required to be completed by developers as part of their development

approvals. In previous TUMF Nexus Studies, the estimated value of developer dedications has

been used to offset or reduce the TUMF collection target.

This reduction of the TUMF collection target provides an appropriate program ‘credit’ to

developers for completing actual improvements to the arterial system. While the value of

developer contributions is difficult to quantify, they are real and should be accounted for in the

TUMF. As part of the initial TUMF calculation in 1988 it was estimated that such dedications

represented 25 percent of the value of total TPPS (regional system) costs. This estimate was

affirmed in 2005. It is recommended that we retain the 25 percent estimate for the value of

developer dedications for the 2018 Nexus Study, excluding CV Link.

Sta t e and Feder a l T ranspo r t a t io n Fund ing

CVAG receives transportation funding from a variety of State and federal sources, much of which

is allocated by formula or agreement through RCTC. This includes funding through the State

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding

(CMAQ), the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP), and other sources. While the funding

levels from State and Federal sources can vary significantly from year to year, for the purposes

of the TUMF analysis, CVAG projects that the region will receive about $172 million from these

sources over the next 25 years, or an average of about $6.86 million per year.7

7 Based on the last call for projects in 2013 for federal grant funds STP, CVAG received $21,458,175,

or about 33 percent of the total pot for Riverside County. For CMAQ funds, CVAG is averaging about


March 27, 2018


L oca l Ma tch

The CVAG share of regional road system project costs has been set by the Executive Committee

at 75 percent of qualified project costs, has been applied after any external funding comes off

the top. Local jurisdictions are required to provide the remaining 25 percent of project costs, as

well as 100 percent of unqualified project costs. For the purposes of the TUMF, CVAG has

indicated that projects on the TPPS will be funded with 75 percent regional funds with a 25

percent local match requirement. Accordingly, this analysis assumes that the TUMF costs are

reduced by 25 percent to account for this local match.

Measur e A

In accordance with RCTC Ordinance No.02-001, Riverside County Transportation Commission

Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax (Measure A), 50 percent of

the sales tax revenue generated by Measure A within the Coachella Valley is allocated to CVAG

for use on the Regional Arterial System. This sales tax was approved through 2038. CVAG uses

this revenue to complete projects included in the TPPS. CVAG intends to continue to utilize this

revenue for projects included in the TPPS

For the purpose of determining the share of Measure A revenues that will likely be available for

completing future TPPS projects, an average of actual revenues between 2007 and 2016

(adjusted for inflation) and projected growth in trips through 2040 was used. In addition, it is

assumed that 80 percent of the Measure A revenue would be used to off-set TUMF costs, with

the remaining available to cover future project costs not covered by TUMF (e.g., the amount

allocated to “existing deficiencies”). This methodology yields average annual Measure A revenues

available to off-set TUMF costs of about $22.8 million per year or $461 million over 25 years, as

shown in Table 8.

$6 million per year. These two sources would combine for about $171,458,175 over a 25-year period

($21,458,175 + $6 million times 25 years).


March 27, 2018


Table 8 Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off-set TUMF Costs

Summar y o f Ot her Fund ing So ur ces

Table 9 summarizes the assumptions above to estimate the total revenue that is likely to be

available to off-set TUMF project costs over the next 25 years. As shown, the total TUMF Costs of

$2.176 billion (i.e., the TPPS costs attributable to growth) are reduced by an additional $1.934

billion to account for other funding sources, leaving a net TUMF cost of about $242.7 million.

Type of Projection

Based on 2007-16 Growth Rate In Measure A $s $20,308,586 $487,406,064

Based on 2010-16 Growth Rate in Measure A $s $26,270,481 $630,491,536

Based on SCAG Trip Growth (2017 - 2040) $21,934,342 $526,424,215

Average of All Projections $22,837,803 $548,107,272

25 Year Total $570,945,075

Allocation to TUMF Eligible Projects @ 80% [1] $456,475,736

[1] Equals to proportion of total TUMF costs allocated to growh, as shown in Table 6.

Total Projected

Through 2040

Average Annual

Amount


March 27, 2018


Table 9 Net TUMF Costs After Funding from Other Sources

TUMF Cost Allocation See Table 6 = a $2,246,436,000

Obligated Funding See Table 7 = b $231,953,625

External Funding CVAG Jurisdiction data = c $328,000,000

CV Link Costs Allocated to Growth See Table 6 = d $25,332,836

Developer Funded Improvements CVAG Estimate e = 25% * (a - d) $555,276,000

State and Federal Funding CVAG Estimate = f $171,458,000

Subtotal g = a - b - c - e - f $959,748,000

25% Local Match CVAG Policy h = g * 25% $239,937,000

Measure A Funding to TUMF See Table 8 = i $456,476,000

Net TUMF Costs j = g - h - i $263,335,000

CategoryAmount

(rounded)FormulaSource


6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION

This chapter summarizes the nexus findings presents in the previous chapters and calculates and

presents the final TUMF calculations.

Overv iew o f Nexus F ind ings

A “nexus” or relationship between new development in the CVAG region and transportation

improvements and their costs must be established before incorporating transportation

improvement costs into a transportation impact fee calculation. To determine the appropriate

costs to include in the new transportation fee calculation, it is necessary to conduct a series of

steps:

Identify Total Costs of Transportation Improvements. The identification of the

required transportation improvement projects and their associated costs is the first step (see

Chapter 3).

Remove Existing Deficiencies. Next, it is necessary to evaluate whether there is an

existing deficiency at any of the project locations, and if so, the magnitude of that deficiency.

Existing deficiencies are accounted for by reducing the project cost that is included in the Fee

Program with funding required from other sources (see Chapter 4)

Determine Proportionate Allocation to New Development. Once existing deficiencies

are identified, it is necessary to determine the proportion of the remaining project cost that is

attributable to new development in Cupertino, and therefore can be the subject of a fee

program (see Chapter 4).

Account for Known Funding. To the extent there is dedicated funding for any of the

transportation improvements, this portion of costs should not be included in the

transportation fee calculation. For this TIF calculation, funding from external sources has

been excluded (see Chapter 5).

The technical calculations described above and further detailed in subsequent sections establish

the following nexus findings, consistent with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Purpose

The TUMF will help maintain adequate levels of transportation service in the CVAG region. It is

levied on all new development throughout the Coachella Valley to mitigate the cumulative

regional impacts on the transportation system.

Use of Fee

Fee revenue will be used to fund regional transportation improvements, including roadway,

intersection, interchange, and traffic signal improvements, ATP facilities and other regional

serving projects. The list of eligible transportation projects and costs are summarized in Chapter

3 and further detailed in the Appendix B and the TPPS.


March 27, 2018


Relationship

New development in the CVAG region will increase demands for, and travel on, the region’s

transportation network. Transportation fee revenue will be used to fund additional

transportation capacity necessary to accommodate this growth. New development will benefit

from the increased transportation capacity.

Need

Each new development project will add to the incremental need for transportation capacity and

improvements. The transportation improvements considered in this Study have been identified

and are necessary to support the future transportation needs in the CVAG region.

Proportionality

The fee levels are tied to fair share cost allocations to new development based on the RIVTAM

transportation model and adapted for this study purpose. Recognizing that some improvements

within the Coachella Valley will be completed by developer dedications or using alternate funding

sources, the TUMF program establishes the share of unfunded improvement costs in rough

proportionality to the number of trips generated by new development and assigns the fair-share

fee to new developments on this basis.

The TUMF Ca lcu la t io n

The data and analysis described above provide the core components of the TUMF calculation.

The final step in the TUMF calculation is to estimate the fee per trip and by land use category

(i.e. different types of residential and non-residential development). These calculations are

described below.

TUMF per Trip

The TUMF rate per trip is calculated by dividing the net TUMF cost above by the projected growth

in average daily trips (ADT) over from 2015 – 2040. Specifically, the fee per trip is calculated by

dividing the aggregate fee program cost of $263.3 million by the total number of trips generated

by new development, or 1.074,520, as shown in Table 10. The results in a TUMF of $245 per

ADT.

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

Net TUMF Cost See Table 9 = a $263,335,000

Growth in ADT (2015 - 2040) See Table 3 = b 1,074,520

Avg. TUMF / ADT = a / b $245

Category Source Formula Amount


March 27, 2018


TUMF by Land Use

This average TUMF per trip amount will be used as the basis for calculating the actual TUMF

obligation for particular types of development based on ADT generation factors for specific land

use categories. Table 11 provides the ADT rates for generalized land use categories based on

the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition released in

2017). The actual land use categories and their specific application, including various discounts,

will be included in the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter 7. In addition, CVAG may

update these rates and land use categories over time as conditions change and new data

becomes available.

Table 11 Trip Rate Assumptions for illustrative Land Use Categories

Table 12 calculates the TUMF for each land use categories defined above based on the fee per

trip. It should be noted that, the TUMF per trip rate for retail is reduced by 35 percent to

account “linked” and pass-through trips, or trips that are part of multi-purpose commute (e.g.,

stopping at a retail store on the way to or from work). Typically, retail-based trips often involve

multiple stops. To recognize this traffic pattern, an adjustment for pass-through trips, or

percentage of new trip adjustment, takes into account vehicle trips using the adjacent roadway

that enter a site as an intermediate stop on the way to another destination. For example, some

drivers will stop for fuel on their way home from work. The pass-by adjustment reduces total

number of vehicle trips to account for the sharing of the one trip for two destinations (fuel and

then home).

Land Use Category ITE Code ITE Land Use Description

Residential

Single Family Detached 9.44 dwelling 210 Single-Family Detached Housing

Multi-Family 7.32 dwelling 220 Multifamily Housing Low Rise

Non-Residential

Industrial 4.96 1000 sq. ft. 110 General Light Industrial

Office 9.74 1000 sq. ft. 710 General Office Building

Retail 37.75 1000 sq. ft. 820 Shopping Center

ITE Daily Trip Rate / Unit


March 27, 2018


Table 12 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories

Land Use Category

Residential

Single Family Detached $2,310 per dwelling

Multi-Family $1,790 per dwelling

Non-Residential

Industrial $1,220 per 1,000 sq. ft.

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

Retail2 $6,010 per 1,000 sq. ft.

[1] Based on a TUMF of $245 per ADT.

[2] Includes a discount of 35% percent to account for pass-through trips.

Fee Per Unit1


7. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION

This chapter summarizes the implementation and administrative issues and procedures

associated with the TUMF program. Implementation and administrative elements of this Updated

TUMF are specified in the CVAG TUMF Handbook as well as the CVAG TUMF model ordinance.

This TUMF update incorporates a number of modifications requested by CVAG’s member

jurisdictions and other stakeholders. The key elements of these documents that are expected to

be modified as part of this update are described below.

E l im ina t io n o f L and Use Exempt io ns

The 2012 TUMF policy handbook exempts a number of land use categories from paying the fee

(examples include affordable housing, public buildings, and some religious structures). It is

proposed that the new TUMF update will eliminate any TUMF land use exemptions except those

required by State or federal law (for example, public schools are statutorily exempt from AB

1600 impact fees). In other words, all new development that increases trips in the CVAG region

will be subject to the TUMF unless otherwise exempt due to State and / or federal law.

While the goal is to eliminate all exemptions, consistent with State or federal law, CVAG has also

proposed a TUMF discount for Transit Oriented Residential Development projects. With the new

Handbook, CVAG is also considering an exemption for Affordable housing (below 80% of the

ACI).

Regional fee programs approach affordable housing fees in a variety of ways; charge a full fee,

allow fee reductions of a stated percentage, and completely exempting fees. These are evenly

implemented throughout programs in California. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip

Generation Manual does not include affordable housing as a land use. Programs that charge a fee

often simply define a reduction of 20% or 50% of the fee for affordable housing but don’t

provide a methodology on how it was arrived at other than it was a policy decision.

S imp l i f i ca t io n o f L and Use Ca t egor ies

The current TUMF Manual defines over 35 separate land use categories, and numerous sub-

categories, each with different fee rates based upon trip generation. Concerns have been raised

by developers and CVAG member agencies that this structure is overly complicated and

confusing. Consequently, CVAG has simplified the land use categories which eliminate factors

that override the basic fee rate of a land use.

For example, under the current TUMF Program, the highest TUMF rates are for convenience

markets and fast food restaurants. When convenience stores are located within shopping

centers it can create confusion because under the current TUMF Manual, shopping centers are

defined as having at least three business establishments which may be housed in one or more

buildings; have a total building floor area of at least 10,000 square feet (sq. ft.), and that the

largest establishment not contain more than 50 percent of the floor area.

Under the new TUMF Program, it proposed that the land use categories be simplified and

consolidated. For example, convenience stores, restaurants and shopping centers are proposed


March 27, 2018


to be charged strictly as “retail” and charged one flat rate. Therefore, TUMF would apply to each

new building based on square footage without any additional factors.

A pp l i ca t io n o f A nnua l I n f la t i o n A d justment

It is common practice to include an annual adjustment factor so that the fee revenues keep pace

with inflation. By way of example, the Coachella Valley Local Development Mitigation Fee is

revised annually by means of an adjustment at the beginning of each fiscal year based on the

average percentage change over the previous calendar year set forth in the Consumer Price

Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area. Accordingly, it is proposed that an

inflation adjustment for TUMF be reviewed by CVAG’s Executive Committee on an annual basis.

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

Mitigation Fee.

APPENDIX A:

TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF

Appendix A

TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF

Street NameSegment

NumberSegment Description

Yes No

20TH AVE 20A Worsley Rd to N Indian Canyon Dr No

20TH AVE 20B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (missing link) Yes

20TH AVE 20C Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr (missing link) Yes

20TH AVE 20D Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Yes

AVE 44 44A Ave 44 Br./Low Water Xing Yes

AVE 44 44B Monroe St to Low Water Xing Yes

AVE 44 44C Low Water Xing to Dillon Rd Yes

AVE 48 48B1 Jefferson St to Madison St No

AVE 48 48BMadison St to W side of All-Amer. Canal (Excl. Br. At

All-Amer. Canal)No

AVE 48 48E Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes

AVE 48 48F Van Buren St to W of SR-86 Yes

AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR Yes

AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC Yes

AVE 50 50B1Washington St to E side of Br. at Evac. Chnl (Incl. Br. at

Evac. Chnl)Yes

AVE 50 50C Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. at All-Amer. Canal) Yes

AVE 50 50D Madison St to Monroe St Yes

AVE 50 50E Monroe St to Jackson St Yes

AVE 50 50F Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes

AVE 50 50G Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes

AVE 50 50I2 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes

AVE 50 50J Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR Yes

AVE 50 50K SR-86S to I-10 IC Yes

AVE 50 50L Br. at All-Amer. Canal (in 50K) Yes

AVE 50 50M Future Ave 50 I-10 IC Yes

AVE 52 52BJefferson St to Madison St (Excl. Br. at All-Amer.

Canal)Yes

AVE 52 52D Monroe St to Jackson St Yes

AVE 52 52E Jackson St to Calhoun St Yes

AVE 52 52F1 Calhoun St to Van Buren St Yes

AVE 52 52F2 Van Buren St to Frederick St Yes

AVE 52 52G Frederick St to Harrison St Yes

AVE 52 52H Intersection of Ave 52 and SR-86 No

AVE 52 52IA Harrison St to Shady Ln Yes

AVE 52 52IB Shady Ln to Hwy 111 Yes

AVE 52 52K Future Ave 52 SR-86S IC Yes

AVE 52 52L Hwy 111 to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes

AVE 52 52M SR-86S to Pierce St Yes

AVE 54 54A Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes

AVE 54 54B Harrison St to Tyler St Yes

AVE 54 54C Tyler St to Hwy 111 Yes

AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56B Monroe St to Jackson St No

AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56C Jackson St to 0.25 miles W of Van Buren St No

AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56D 0.25 mi. W of Van Buren St to Harrison St No

AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56E Harrison St to Tyler St No

AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56F Tyler St to Polk St No

AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56G Polk St to Highway 111 (Grapefruit Blvd) Yes

AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56I SPRR to SR-86 (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes

Included in TUMF?

(Yes/No)

Appendix A


Street NameSegment


Yes No

Included in TUMF?

(Yes/No)

58TH AVE 58A Jefferson St to Madison St No

58TH AVE 58B Madison St to Monroe St No

58TH AVE 58C Monroe St to Jackson St No

58TH AVE 58D Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes

58TH AVE 58E Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes

66TH AVE 66A Future 66th Ave SR-86 IC Yes

66TH AVE 66B 66th Ave Br./Low Water Xing Yes

66TH AVE 66C Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (Bridge) Yes

BOB HOPE DR BH1-6 Frank Sinatra Dr to Gerald Ford Dr No

BOB HOPE DR BH2-6 Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore Dr No

BOB HOPE DR BH3-6 Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd (southbound only) No

CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN1 Terrace Rd to E Palm Canyon Dr No

CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN2E Palm Canyon Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. (Incl.

Cath Cyn Br.)Yes

CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN4 N side of Whitewater Br. to Dinah Shore Dr No

CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN5 Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd No

COOK ST (formerly CHASE

SCHOOL RD)CHSC1 I-10 IC to Ramon Rd Yes

COOK ST CK4 Frank Sinatra Dr to Country Club Dr Yes

COOK ST CK5 Country Club Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. Yes

COOK ST CK6 S side of Whitewater Br. to Fred Waring Dr Yes

COOK ST CK7 Br. at Whitewater Chnl No

COUNTRY CLUB DR CC4 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave No

COUNTRY CLUB DR CC5 Portola Ave to Cook St Yes

COUNTRY CLUB DR CC6 Cook St to Eldorado Dr No

COUNTRY CLUB DR CC7 Eldorado Dr to Oasis Club Dr No

COUNTRY CLUB DR CC8 Oasis Club Dr to Washington St Yes

CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY1 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave/Dinah Shore Dr Yes

CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY2 Dinah Shore Dr/Mesquite Ave to 34th Ave Yes

CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY3A Br. at Palm Cyn Chnl No

DA VALL DR DVALL1 Dinah Shore to Ramon Rd No

DA VALL DR DVALL2 Ramon Rd to McCallum Way No

DA VALL DR DVALL3 McCallum Way to 30th Ave No

DA VALL DR DVALL4 30th Ave to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR) No

DA VALL DR DVALL5 Future Da Vall I-10 IC Yes

DA VALL DR DVALL6 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (Incl. Br. at Long Cyn Chnl) Yes

DATE PALM DR DPLM0AHwy 111 (E Palm Cyn Dr) to Gerald Ford Dr (Incl. at

Cath. Cyn Br., excludes WW Br.)No

DATE PALM DR DPLM0B Gerald Ford Dr to Dinah Shore Dr No

DATE PALM DR DPLM0C Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd No

DATE PALM DR DPLM1 Ramon Rd to McCallum Way No

DATE PALM DR DPLM2 McCallum Way to 30th Ave No

DATE PALM DR DPLM3 30th Ave to Vista Chino No

DILLON RD DLN1 SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr Yes

DILLON RD DLN2 Intersection of Dillon Rd & N Indian Canyon Dr Yes

DILLON RD DLN3N Indian Canyon Dr to Palm Dr (Incl. Future Br. at

Mission Cr.)Yes

DILLON RD DLN4 Intersection of Dillon Rd & Palm Dr Yes

DILLON RD DLN5 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Yes

Appendix A


Street NameSegment


Yes No

Included in TUMF?

(Yes/No)

DILLON RD DLN6 Mountain View Rd to Bennett Rd Yes

DILLON RD DLN7Bennett Rd to Thousand Palms Cyn Rd (Incl. Br. At

Wide Cyn Chnl)No

DILLON RD DLN8 Thousand Palms Cyn Rd to Sunny Rock Rd No

DILLON RD DLN9Sunny Rock Rd to Ave 44 (Incl. Br. over All-Amer.

Canal)No

DILLON RD DLN10 Ave 44 to I-10 IC Yes

DILLON RD DLN11 I-10 IC to N side of Whitewater Br. No

DILLON RD DLN12 Br. at Whitewater Chnl Yes

DILLON RD DLN13 S side of Whitewater Br. to Hwy 111 Yes

DILLON RD DLN14 Dillon Rd I-10 IC Yes

DILLON RD DLN15 Dillon Rd SR-86S IC Yes

DUNE PALMS RD DUNEP1 Br. at Whitewater Chnl No

DUNE PALMS RD DUNEP2Highway 111 to Blackhawk Way (formerly Westward

Ho)No

E PALM CYN DR PLCN7 Palm Cyn Dr to Sunrise Way No

E PALM CYN DR PLCN8 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr Yes

E PALM CYN DR PLCN9Farrell Dr to Gene Autry Trl (Incl. Br. at Palm Cyn

Wash)Yes

E PALM CYN DR PLCN11A Cathedral Canyon Dr to Date Palm Dr Yes

E PALM CYN DR PLCN11B Date Palm Dr to E Cath. City limits Yes

FRANK SINATRA DR FS6 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave Yes

FRANK SINATRA DR FS7 Portola Ave to Cook St No

FRANK SINATRA DR FS8 Cook St to Eldorado Dr No

FRANK SINATRA DR FS9 Eldorado Dr to Tamarisk Row Dr No

FRED WARING DR FW1 Bridge at Whitewater River No

GENE AUTRY TR GAT1AIntersection of Gene Autry Trl and Mesquite Ave /

Dinah Shore DrNo

GENE AUTRY TR GAT2A E Palm Cyn to Eagle Way Yes

GENE AUTRY TR GAT2B Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash Yes

GENE AUTRY TR GAT2CN of Palm Canyon Wash Bridge to 0.18 mi south of

Mesquite AveNo

GENE AUTRY TR GAT2D 0.18 mi S of Mesquite Ave to Mesquite Ave No

GENE AUTRY TR GAT2E Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd Yes

GENE AUTRY TR GAT2F Ramon to Escena Way No

GENE AUTRY TR GAT2G Escena Way to Vista Chino No

GENE AUTRY TR GAT3 Future Whitewater Rvr Br. Yes

GERALD FORD DR GFD4 Cook St to Frank Sinatra Dr No

GERALD FORD DR GFD5 Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr and Bob Hope Dr Yes

GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY1 Golf Center Pkwy. I-10 IC Yes

GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY4 Ave 45 to Hwy 111 Yes

GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF1 Ave 48/Dillon Rd to Ave 50 Yes

GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF2 Ave 50 to Ave 52 Yes

GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF3 Ave 52 to Ave 54 Yes

GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF4 Ave 54 to Ave 56 No

HACIENDA AVE (now RUBY DR & E HAC0A SR62 to N Indian Canyon Dr Yes

HACIENDA AVE (currently 13TH AV HAC0B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd Yes

HACIENDA AVE HAC1A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr Yes

HACIENDA AVE HAC1B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr Yes

HACIENDA AVE HAC2 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd No

Appendix A


Street NameSegment


Yes No

Included in TUMF?

(Yes/No)

HACIENDA AVE HAC3 Mountain View Rd to Dillon Rd (Long Cyn Rd) No

HARRISON ST HARSN1 Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52 Yes

HARRISON ST HARSN2 Ave 52 to Ave 54 No

HARRISON ST HARSN3 Ave 54 to Ave 56 (Airport Blvd) Yes

HIGHWAY 74 HWY74A Highway 111 to El Paseo Yes

HIGHWAY 74 HWY74B El Paseo to Mesa View Dr No

HIGHWAY 74 HWY74C Mesa View Dr to S Palm Desert City Limits No

HIGHWAY 111 HWY111F Cook St to Eldorado Dr Yes

HIGHWAY 111 HWY111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave Yes

HIGHWAY 111 HWY111HMiles Ave to Washington St (incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn

Chnl)Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN1 Ramon Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Way Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN2 Tahquitz Cyn Way to Alejo Rd Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN3 Alejo Rd to Tachevah Dr Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN4 Tachevah Dr to Vista Chino Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN5 Vista Chino to Racquet Club Rd Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN6 Racquet Club Rd to Sunrise Pkwy No

INDIAN CYN DR INCN7 Sunrise Pkwy to Garnet Avenue Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN8 Garnet Ave to 20th Ave Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN11 Dillon Rd to 14th Ave Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN12 14th Ave to Pierson Blvd Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN13Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at

Mission Cr.)Yes

INDIAN CYN DR INCN14 Mission Lakes Blvd to SR-62 No

INDIO BLVD INDIO0I-10 Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 railroad

bridges)Yes

INDIO BLVD INDIO1 Jefferson St to Madison St (over All-Amer. Canal) Yes

JACKSON ST JAC2A1 I-10 IC to 43rd Ave Yes

JACKSON ST JAC2A2 43rd Ave to Ave 44 Yes

JACKSON ST JAC4 Ave 48 to Ave 50 Yes

JACKSON ST JAC5 Ave 50 to Ave 52 Yes

JACKSON ST JAC6 Jackson St I-10 IC Yes

JEFFERSON ST JEF1A Intersection of Jefferson St and Dunbar Dr No

JEFFERSON ST JEF2A 58th Ave to 62th Ave Yes

JEFFERSON ST JEF9A1 40th Ave to 0.27 mi S of Ave 39 Yes

JEFFERSON ST JEF9B Ave 39 to Ave 38 No

KEY LARGO AVE KL1Dinah Shore Dr. to Varner Rd (Incl. flyover at I-10 and

RR)Yes

LANDAU BLVD LAN1 Vista Chino to Verona Rd Yes

LANDAU BLVD LAN2 Verona Rd to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR, missing link) Yes

LANDAU BLVD LAN3 Future Landau Blvd I-10 IC (missing link) Yes

LANDAU BLVD LAN4 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (missing link) Yes

LITTLE MORONGO RD LM1 Mission Lakes Blvd to Pierson Blvd No

LITTLE MORONGO RD LM2 Pierson Blvd to Two Bunch Palms Trl Yes

LITTLE MORONGO RD LM3Two Bunch Palms Trl to Dillon Rd (Incl. Future Br. at

Mission Cr.)Yes

LITTLE MORONGO RD LM4 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave Yes

MADISON ST MAD5 Ave 52 to Ave 50 Yes

Appendix A


Street NameSegment


Yes No

Included in TUMF?

(Yes/No)

MADISON ST MAD7A 0.25 mi N of Ave 49 to Ave 48 Yes

MADISON ST MAD7B Ave 48 to Hwy 111 Yes

MADISON ST MAD9Miles Ave to Fred Waring Dr (Incl. Br. over WW Chnl

and All-Amer. Canal, missing link)Yes

MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK0 SR 62 to Indian Canyon Dr Yes

MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd No

MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr No

MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK3 Palm Dr to Eastern Terminus at Verbena Dr No

MONROE ST MON1 0.25 mi N of Ave 42 to Ave 42 Yes

MONROE ST MON6 Monroe St I-10 IC Yes

MONROE ST MON7 Ave 54 to 58th Ave No

MONROE ST MON8A 58th Ave to Ave 60 No

MONROE ST MON8B Ave 60 to 62nd Ave No

MONROE ST MON9 I-10 Interchange to 900 ft N of Oleander Yes

MONTEREY AVE MNT1-6 Highway 111 to Fred Waring Dr Yes

MONTEREY AVE MNT2-6Fred Waring Dr to Clancy Lane (Incl. Br. at Whitewater

River)Yes

MONTEREY AVE MNT3-6 Clancy Lane to Country Club Dr Yes

MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV0Pierson Blvd at E Terminus of Desert View Ave to

Hacienda AveNo

MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1A Hacienda Ave to Brunner Ln Yes

MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1B Brunner Ln to Dillon Rd Yes

MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV2 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave No

MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV3 20th Ave to Varner Rd No

N PALM CYN DR PLCN1 Vista Chino to Tachevah Dr No

N PALM CYN DR PLCN2 Tachevah Dr to Alejo Rd No

N PALM CYN DR PLCN3 Alejo Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Rd Yes

N PALM CYN DR PLCN4 Tahquitz Cyn Rd to Ramon Rd Yes

N PALM CYN DR PLCN5 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave (Incl. Br at Tahquitz Crk.) Yes

N PALM CYN DR PLCN6 Mesquite Ave to E Palm Cyn Dr Yes

PALM DR PD1 I-10 IC to Varner Rd Yes

PALM DR PD2 Varner Rd to 20th Ave No

PALM DR PD3 20th Ave to Dillon Rd Yes

PALM DR PD4 Dillon Rd to Two Bunch Palms Trl Yes

PALM DR PD5 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Hacienda Ave No

PALM DR PD6 Hacienda Ave to Pierson Blvd No

PALM DR PD7 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd Yes

PIERSON BLVD PRS1 SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr No

PIERSON BLVD PRS2N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (Incl. Br. at

Mission Cr.)No

PIERSON BLVD PRS3A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr No

PIERSON BLVD PRS3B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr No

PIERSON BLVD PRS4A Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd No

PIERSON BLVD PRS4B Miracle Hill Rd to Eastern Terminus of Desert View Av. No

POLK ST PLK1 Polk St from Ave 52 to Ave 48 Yes

PORTOLA AVE POR1 Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr Yes

PORTOLA AVE POR2Magnesia Falls Dr to Country Club Dr (Excl. Br. at

Whitewater Chnl)No

PORTOLA AVE POR3 Country Club Dr to Frank Sinatra Dr Yes

PORTOLA AVE POR4A Frank Sinatra Dr to Julie Ln Yes

Appendix A


Street NameSegment


Yes No

Included in TUMF?

(Yes/No)

PORTOLA AVE POR5B Dinah Shore Dr to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR) Yes

PORTOLA AVE POR6 Future Portola Ave I-10 IC Yes

RAMON RD RAM1 S Palm Cyn Dr to S Indian Cyn Dr Yes

RAMON RD RAM2S Indian Cyn to Sunrise Way (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl

Xing)Yes

RAMON RD RAM3 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr Yes

RAMON RD RAM3A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Sunrise Way Yes

RAMON RD RAM4 Farrell Dr to El Cielo Rd Yes

RAMON RD RAM4A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Farrell Drive Yes

RAMON RD RAM5 El Cielo Rd to Gene Autry Trl Yes

RAMON RD RAM5A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Crossley Rd Yes

RAMON RD RAM7 Br. at Whitewater Rvr Yes

RAMON RD RAM15 Monterey Ave to Thousand Palms Cyn Rd No

S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV1 Monroe St to Jackson St Yes

S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV2 Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes

S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV3 Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes

S VALLEY PKWY SV4 Harrison St to Tyler St (missing link) Yes

S VALLEY PKWY SV5 Tyler St to Polk St (missing link) Yes

S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE SV6 Polk St to Fillmore St No

S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE SV7 Fillmore St to Pierce St (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) No

S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE SV8 Pierce St to SR-86 Yes

S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE SV9 Future Ave 62 SR-86 IC Yes

THOUSAND PALMS CYN RD THPL1 Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd Yes

TWO BUNCH PALMS TR / 14TH

AVETBP1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd Yes

TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr Yes

TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP3 Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd Yes

TYLER ST TYL1 Ave 50 to I-10 frontage road Yes

VAN BUREN ST VANB2 Ave 48 to Ave 50 Yes

VAN BUREN ST VANB3 Ave 50 to Ave 52 Yes

VAN BUREN ST VANB4 Ave 52 to Ave 54 No

VAN BUREN ST VANB5 Ave 54 to Ave 56/Airport Blvd Yes

VARNER RD VRNR0 20th Ave to Palm Dr Yes

VARNER RD VRNR1 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Yes

VARNER RD VRNR2 Mountain View Rd to Date Palm Dr Yes

VARNER RD VRNR3 Date Palm Dr to Ramon Rd Yes

VARNER RD VRNR6 Monterey Ave to Cook St No

VARNER RD VRNR7B Ave 38 to Washington St Yes

VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR9Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. over All-Amer.

Canal)Yes

VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR10A Madison St to Clinton St No

VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR10B Clinton St to Monroe St Yes

VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR11 Monroe St to Gore St Yes

VISTA CHINO VC1 N Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise Way Yes

VISTA CHINO VC1A Intersection of Vista Chino and N Palm Canyon Dr Yes

VISTA CHINO VC2 Sunrise Way to Gene Autry Trl Yes

VISTA CHINO VC2AA Intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise Way Yes

VISTA CHINO VC2AB Intersection of Vista Chino and Farrell Drive Yes

VISTA CHINO VC2A Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trl Yes

VISTA CHINO VC3 Gene Autry Trl to W side of Whitewater Rvr Yes

Appendix A


Street NameSegment


Yes No

Included in TUMF?

(Yes/No)

VISTA CHINO VC4 Future Whitewater Rvr Br. Yes

VISTA CHINO VC5 E side of Whitewater Rvr to Landau Blvd No

VISTA CHINO VC7 Date Palm Dr to Da Vall Dr Yes

WASHINGTON ST WSH9 I-10 IC to Ave 38 Yes

WASHINGTON ST WSH10A Ave 38 to Coyote Song Way No

WASHINGTON ST WSH10B Coyote Song Way to Ramon Rd No

WORSLEY RD WORS1 20th Ave to Dillon Rd No

WORSLEY RD WORS2 Dillon Rd to 1 mile S of Pierson Blvd No

WORSLEY RD WORS3 1 mile S of Pierson Blvd to Pierson Blvd No

WORSLEY RD WORS4 Pierson Blvd to N Indian Canyon Dr Yes

Total 188 94

APPENDIX B:

Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates

Appendix B

List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF

Street NameSegment

Number Segment Description

Project Costs

20TH AVE 20B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (missing link) $11,208,000

20TH AVE 20C Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr (missing link) $15,974,400

20TH AVE 20D Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $7,036,800

AVE 44 44A Ave 44 Br./Low Water Xing $14,313,000

AVE 44 44B Monroe St to Low Water Xing $7,411,950

AVE 44 44C Low Water Xing to Dillon Rd $12,083,250

AVE 48 48E Jackson St to Van Buren St $5,315,970

AVE 48 48F Van Buren St to W of SR-86 $2,275,088

AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR $22,011,480

AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC $55,222,500

AVE 50 50B1Washington St to E side of Br. at Evac. Chnl (Incl. Br. at

Evac. Chnl)$8,799,480

AVE 50 50C Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. at All-Amer. Canal) $7,131,405

AVE 50 50D Madison St to Monroe St $4,977,480

AVE 50 50E Monroe St to Jackson St $2,304,030

AVE 50 50F Jackson St to Van Buren St $12,084,000

AVE 50 50G Van Buren St to Harrison St $14,301,582

AVE 50 50I2 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $3,356,880

AVE 50 50J Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR $21,687,600

AVE 50 50K SR-86S to I-10 IC $45,177,600

AVE 50 50L Br. at All-Amer. Canal (in 50K) $3,952,320

AVE 50 50M Future Ave 50 I-10 IC $62,687,500

AVE 52 52B Jefferson St to Madison St (Excl. Br. at All-Amer. Canal) $2,075,940

AVE 52 52D Monroe St to Jackson St $4,195,800

AVE 52 52E Jackson St to Calhoun St $2,660,400

AVE 52 52F1 Calhoun St to Van Buren St $2,699,400

AVE 52 52F2 Van Buren St to Frederick St $4,689,300

AVE 52 52G Frederick St to Harrison St $6,190,104

AVE 52 52IA Harrison St to Shady Ln $13,286,328

AVE 52 52IB Shady Ln to Hwy 111 $1,629,900

AVE 52 52K Future Ave 52 SR-86S IC $53,782,500

AVE 52 52L Hwy 111 to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $22,536,194

AVE 52 52M SR-86S to Pierce St $20,556,880

AVE 54 54A Van Buren St to Harrison St $4,794,900

AVE 54 54B Harrison St to Tyler St $4,560,300

AVE 54 54C Tyler St to Hwy 111 $6,380,750

AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56G Polk St to Highway 111 (Grapefruit Blvd) $1,155,714

AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56I SPRR to SR-86 (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $13,329,000

58TH AVE 58D Jackson St to Van Buren St $4,583,040

58TH AVE 58E Van Buren St to Harrison St $4,583,040

66TH AVE 66A Future 66th Ave SR-86 IC $46,934,500

66TH AVE 66B 66th Ave Br./Low Water Xing $2,826,960

66TH AVE 66C Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (Bridge) $48,044,000

CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN2E Palm Canyon Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. (Incl. Cath

Cyn Br.)$4,815,850

COOK ST (formerly CHASE

SCHOOL RD)CHSC1 I-10 IC to Ramon Rd $25,501,600

COOK ST CK4 Frank Sinatra Dr to Country Club Dr $3,997,488

COOK ST CK5 Country Club Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. $6,228,320

Appendix B


Street NameSegment


Project Costs

COOK ST CK6 S side of Whitewater Br. to Fred Waring Dr $1,212,030

COUNTRY CLUB DR CC5 Portola Ave to Cook St $3,714,480

COUNTRY CLUB DR CC8 Oasis Club Dr to Washington St $3,812,300

CROSSLEY RD / GOLF

CLUB DRCROSLY1 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave/Dinah Shore Dr $2,283,600

CROSSLEY RD / GOLF

CLUB DRCROSLY2 Dinah Shore Dr/Mesquite Ave to 34th Ave $2,928,100

DA VALL DR DVALL5 Future Da Vall I-10 IC $71,647,500

DA VALL DR DVALL6 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (Incl. Br. at Long Cyn Chnl) $24,753,600

DILLON RD DLN1 SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr $29,522,800

DILLON RD DLN2 Intersection of Dillon Rd & N Indian Canyon Dr $956,500

DILLON RD DLN3N Indian Canyon Dr to Palm Dr (Incl. Future Br. at Mission

Cr.)$12,887,680

DILLON RD DLN4 Intersection of Dillon Rd & Palm Dr $956,500

DILLON RD DLN5 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $5,353,920

DILLON RD DLN6 Mountain View Rd to Bennett Rd $11,495,760

DILLON RD DLN10 Ave 44 to I-10 IC $9,427,480

DILLON RD DLN12 Br. at Whitewater Chnl $1,487,125

DILLON RD DLN13 S side of Whitewater Br. to Hwy 111 $4,062,858

DILLON RD DLN14 Dillon Rd I-10 IC $18,150,000

DILLON RD DLN15 Dillon Rd SR-86S IC $15,360,000

E PALM CYN DR PLCN8 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr $1,531,200

E PALM CYN DR PLCN9 Farrell Dr to Gene Autry Trl (Incl. Br. at Palm Cyn Wash) $7,725,600

E PALM CYN DR PLCN11A Cathedral Canyon Dr to Date Palm Dr $2,166,000

E PALM CYN DR PLCN11B Date Palm Dr to E Cath. City limits $2,483,800

FRANK SINATRA DR FS6 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave $4,750,434

GENE AUTRY TR GAT2A E Palm Cyn to Eagle Way $631,450

GENE AUTRY TR GAT2B Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash $6,655,700

GENE AUTRY TR GAT2E Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd $957,600

GENE AUTRY TR GAT3 Future Whitewater Rvr Br. $233,900,000

GERALD FORD DR GFD5 Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr and Bob Hope Dr $1,099,332

GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY1 Golf Center Pkwy. I-10 IC $19,481,100

GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY4 Ave 45 to Hwy 111 $2,725,800

GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF1 Ave 48/Dillon Rd to Ave 50 $4,978,000

GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF2 Ave 50 to Ave 52 $12,157,200

GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF3 Ave 52 to Ave 54 $12,772,500

HACIENDA AVE (now RUBY

DR and ESTRADA AVE)HAC0A SR62 to N Indian Canyon Dr $34,336,000

HACIENDA AVE (now 13TH

AVE)HAC0B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd $12,503,040

HACIENDA AVE HAC1A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr $7,793,280

HACIENDA AVE HAC1B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr $2,653,200

HARRISON ST HARSN1 Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52 $3,677,200

HARRISON ST HARSN3 Ave 54 to Ave 56 (Airport Blvd) $9,694,080

HIGHWAY 74 HWY74A Highway 111 to El Paseo $450,240

HIGHWAY 111 HWY111F Cook St to Eldorado Dr $3,537,600

HIGHWAY 111 HWY111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave $4,924,800

HIGHWAY 111 HWY111H Miles Ave to Washington St (incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl) $7,573,400

INDIAN CYN DR INCN1 Ramon Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Way $5,847,600

INDIAN CYN DR INCN2 Tahquitz Cyn Way to Alejo Rd $2,123,550

INDIAN CYN DR INCN3 Alejo Rd to Tachevah Dr $2,383,200

Appendix B


Street NameSegment


Project Costs

INDIAN CYN DR INCN4 Tachevah Dr to Vista Chino $1,463,550

INDIAN CYN DR INCN5 Vista Chino to Racquet Club Rd $1,440,900

INDIAN CYN DR INCN7 Sunrise Pkwy to Garnet Avenue $204,099,790

INDIAN CYN DR INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave $1,722,800

INDIAN CYN DR INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd $7,379,840

INDIAN CYN DR INCN11 Dillon Rd to 14th Ave $5,510,000

INDIAN CYN DR INCN12 14th Ave to Pierson Blvd $4,903,440

INDIAN CYN DR INCN13Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at

Mission Cr.)$6,945,600

INDIO BLVD INDIO0 I-10 Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 railroad bridges) $21,888,720

INDIO BLVD INDIO1 Jefferson St to Madison St (over All-Amer. Canal) $2,920,195

JACKSON ST JAC2A1 I-10 IC to 43rd Ave $17,915,106

JACKSON ST JAC2A2 43rd Ave to Ave 44 $10,967,500

JACKSON ST JAC4 Ave 48 to Ave 50 $5,615,280

JACKSON ST JAC5 Ave 50 to Ave 52 $2,047,650

JACKSON ST JAC6 Jackson St I-10 IC $19,826,100

JEFFERSON ST JEF2A 58th Ave to 62th Ave $13,518,000

JEFFERSON ST JEF9A1 40th Ave to 0.27 mi S of Ave 39 $1,011,840

KEY LARGO AVE KL1 Dinah Shore Dr. to Varner Rd (Incl. flyover at I-10 and RR) $23,868,000

LANDAU BLVD LAN1 Vista Chino to Verona Rd $832,000

LANDAU BLVD LAN2 Verona Rd to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR, missing link) $19,280,000

LANDAU BLVD LAN3 Future Landau Blvd I-10 IC (missing link) $71,647,500

LANDAU BLVD LAN4 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (missing link) $22,614,400

LITTLE MORONGO RD LM2 Pierson Blvd to Two Bunch Palms Trl $4,506,240

LITTLE MORONGO RD LM3Two Bunch Palms Trl to Dillon Rd (Incl. Future Br. at Mission

Cr.)$14,539,120

LITTLE MORONGO RD LM4 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave $19,768,320

MADISON ST MAD5 Ave 52 to Ave 50 $6,608,460

MADISON ST MAD7A 0.25 mi N of Ave 49 to Ave 48 $898,920

MADISON ST MAD7B Ave 48 to Hwy 111 $1,450,140

MADISON ST MAD9Miles Ave to Fred Waring Dr (Incl. Br. over WW Chnl and All-

Amer. Canal, missing link)$18,607,200

MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK0 SR 62 to Indian Canyon Dr $29,315,840

MONROE ST MON1 0.25 mi N of Ave 42 to Ave 42 $1,754,280

MONROE ST MON6 Monroe St I-10 IC $2,400,000

MONROE ST MON9 I-10 Interchange to 900 ft N of Oleander $15,467,750

MONTEREY AVE MNT1-6 Highway 111 to Fred Waring Dr $1,240,800

MONTEREY AVE MNT2-6 Fred Waring Dr to Clancy Lane (Incl. Br. at Whitewater River) $13,247,266

MONTEREY AVE MNT3-6 Clancy Lane to Country Club Dr $3,557,376

MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1A Hacienda Ave to Brunner Ln $4,016,160

MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1B Brunner Ln to Dillon Rd $3,315,840

N PALM CYN DR PLCN3 Alejo Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Rd $1,182,150

N PALM CYN DR PLCN4 Tahquitz Cyn Rd to Ramon Rd $1,310,850

N PALM CYN DR PLCN5 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave (Incl. Br at Tahquitz Creek) $6,437,440

N PALM CYN DR PLCN6 Mesquite Ave to E Palm Cyn Dr $1,436,200

PALM DR PD1 I-10 IC to Varner Rd $4,024,416

PALM DR PD3 20th Ave to Dillon Rd $7,736,256

PALM DR PD4 Dillon Rd to Two Bunch Palms Trl $5,359,464

Appendix B


Street NameSegment


Project Costs

PALM DR PD7 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd $4,241,952

POLK ST PLK1 Polk St from Ave 52 to Ave 48 $19,754,280

PORTOLA AVE POR1 Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr $5,638,410

PORTOLA AVE POR3 Country Club Dr to Frank Sinatra Dr $4,180,000

PORTOLA AVE POR4A Frank Sinatra Dr to Julie Ln $2,606,400

PORTOLA AVE POR5B Dinah Shore Dr to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR) $23,026,500

PORTOLA AVE POR6 Future Portola Ave I-10 IC $71,647,500

RAMON RD RAM1 S Palm Cyn Dr to S Indian Cyn Dr $372,240

RAMON RD RAM2 S Indian Cyn to Sunrise Way (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl Xing) $4,279,950

RAMON RD RAM3 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr $2,574,880

RAMON RD RAM3A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Sunrise Way $1,051,947

RAMON RD RAM4 Farrell Dr to El Cielo Rd $1,717,600

RAMON RD RAM4A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Farrell Drive $957,177

RAMON RD RAM5 El Cielo Rd to Gene Autry Trl $8,367,900

RAMON RD RAM5A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Crossley Rd $1,051,947

RAMON RD RAM7 Br. at Whitewater Rvr $24,864,323

S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV1 Monroe St to Jackson St $4,494,240

S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV2 Jackson St to Van Buren St $4,741,440

S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV3 Van Buren St to Harrison St $5,269,440

S VALLEY PKWY SV4 Harrison St to Tyler St (missing link) $9,583,600

S VALLEY PKWY SV5 Tyler St to Polk St (missing link) $10,562,080

S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND

AVESV8 Pierce St to SR-86 $3,892,200

S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND

AVESV9 Future Ave 62 SR-86 IC $46,550,500

THOUSAND PALMS CYN

RDTHPL1 Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd $17,252,840

TWO BUNCH PALMS TR /

14TH AVETBP1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd $12,522,240

TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr $5,422,560

TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP3 Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd $4,278,787

TYLER ST TYL1 Ave 50 to I-10 frontage road $11,854,020

VAN BUREN ST VANB2 Ave 48 to Ave 50 $3,519,200

VAN BUREN ST VANB3 Ave 50 to Ave 52 $4,690,800

VAN BUREN ST VANB5 Ave 54 to Ave 56/Airport Blvd $5,332,536

VARNER RD VRNR0 20th Ave to Palm Dr $20,249,600

VARNER RD VRNR1 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $6,295,000

VARNER RD VRNR2 Mountain View Rd to Date Palm Dr $12,505,200

VARNER RD VRNR3 Date Palm Dr to Ramon Rd $47,489,880

VARNER RD VRNR7B Ave 38 to Washington St $11,293,450

VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR9 Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. over All-Amer. Canal) $9,872,400

VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR10B Clinton St to Monroe St $4,952,640

VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR11 Monroe St to Gore St $2,327,424

VISTA CHINO VC1 N Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise Way $5,288,420

VISTA CHINO VC1A Intersection of Vista Chino and N Palm Canyon Dr $984,150

VISTA CHINO VC2 Sunrise Way to Gene Autry Trl $5,668,080

VISTA CHINO VC2AA Intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise Way $1,073,547

VISTA CHINO VC2AB Intersection of Vista Chino and Farrell Drive $967,677

VISTA CHINO VC2A Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trl $1,014,039

VISTA CHINO VC3 Gene Autry Trl to W side of Whitewater Rvr $1,185,600

Appendix B


Street NameSegment


Project Costs

VISTA CHINO VC4 Future Whitewater Rvr Br. $94,701,810

VISTA CHINO VC7 Date Palm Dr to Da Vall Dr $20,625,000

WASHINGTON ST WSH9 I-10 IC to Ave 38 $3,055,200

WORSLEY RD WORS4 Pierson Blvd to N Indian Canyon Dr $11,646,600

Total $2,505,969,566

ITEM 7C

Staff Report Subject: Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Phase II Environmental and

Engineering Services Contract Contact: Eric Cowle, Transportation Program Manager ([email protected]) Recommendation: Approve Advantec’s Environmental and Engineering Services Contract for Phase II of CVAG’s Regional Signal Synchronization Project in the amount of $3,983,141 plus a 15% contingency of $597,471 for a not-to-exceed total of $4,580,612 and authorize the Executive Director to make clarifying changes/revisions prior to execution. Background: CVAG has embarked on a significant effort to advance the development and implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems Programs in the Coachella Valley. The development of a valley-wide traffic signal interconnect master plan, and continued commitment to synchronize new and existing signals on the regional arterial roads, is an initial phase but milestone step. At the February 2018 meeting, the CVAG Executive Committee approved the Regional Signal Synchronization Master Plan, the corresponding Participating Agreement, and allocated $19 million in federal funding (CMAQ) for Phase II of the project. The Regional Signal Synchronization Master Plan identifies seventy regional arterials that collectively represent the transportation system that will benefit from traffic signal synchronization. The Executive Committee prioritized the top 21 of these corridors within the Plan. Phase I of the project implements the top three corridors: Highway 111, Ramon Road and Washington Street. The design and environmental work for these three corridors is underway. This portion of Phase II of the Regional Signal Synchronization project will provide design and environmental work on the next 18 top-ranked corridors, which cross every jurisdiction in the Coachella Valley: Monterey Avenue Gene Autry Trail Country Club Drive Cook Street Date Palm Drive Monroe Street Palm Drive Indio Boulevard Avenue 48 Bob Hope Drive Jefferson Street Sunrise Way Fred Waring Drive Palm Canyon Drive Indian Canyon Drive Dinah Shore Drive Vista Chino Jackson Street If necessary, adjustments will be made to exclude portions of these corridors that are located within non-participating agencies.


As the environmental/design process for Phase II moves forward, the estimated costs of constructing the improvements will become better defined. CVAG will apply for additional external construction funding as necessary. It is currently estimated that construction for these 18 corridors will cost $50-$60 million, of which CVAG has already identified and reserved $19 million in federal funding. The design consultant will be required to assist CVAG in applying for up to five grants to supplement funding sources for construction. At CVAG’s request, Advantec submitted a proposal for Environmental and Design services for the 18 corridors, which includes 244 signalized intersections and 93 miles of arterial roadway. Professional services will be provided by Advantec, who developed the Master Plan that identified the 21 priority corridors. Advantec has extensive knowledge of the existing and proposed transportation technology infrastructure since they inventoried all of the valley’s jurisdictions in 2017. This unique position justifies the continuation of their services into the second phase of the project. A breakdown of the proposed work has been provided by Advantec. CVAG staff compared the hours and costs proposed under Phase II with the Phase 1 contract – which was reviewed by Caltrans and approved by CVAG -- and found the proposed effort to produce specific line items is nearly identical. Utilizing the same environmental and technical team for both phases of the project will ultimately allow construction of the combined phases to dovetail seamlessly in 2019, minimizing project delays. Fiscal Analysis: The amount of $3,983,141 plus a 15% contingency of $597,471, equates to a not-to-exceed total of $4,580,612 for environmental and engineering services. Staff is proposing that the funding for this contract be provided by Measure A. By utilizing Measure A funds in the environmental and engineering phases of the project, the process avoids additional delays. It would take nine or more months if CVAG utilized federal funding and processed a new project and project consultant selection through Caltrans. This use of Measure A funds does not jeopardize any aspect of the project, which will likely have its construction funded as a separate project with leveraged state and federal dollars. Attachments: Advantec Proposal for Phase II of Regional Signal Synchronization Program.

Because We Care

1 YOUR PRIMARY CONTACT:

Mr. Carlos Ortiz, PE, TE, PTOE

Project Manager

ADVANTEC Consulting

Engineers. Inc.

1200 Roosevelt

Irvine, CA 92620

[email protected]

Phone No.: 949-861-4999

Fax No.: 949-502-5522

January 28, 2018 Mr. Eric Cowle Transportation Manager Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260

Subject: Professional Engineering Services

Coachella Valley Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project – Phase II Improvements Dear Eric: ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. (ADVANTEC) is pleased to submit our proposal to provide Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) with professional design services to prepare environmental, plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), signal synchronization, project management, and project meeting and coordination services for the Coachella Valley Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project - Phase II improvements that includes eighteen (18) Priority Project Corridors in the Coachella Valley.

ADVANTEC is a professional Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Small Business (SBE) consulting firm providing planning, engineering, construction management and inspection, and technology services for public transportation and planning Agencies. Our name more than implies our focus to implement ADVANCEMENTS in TECHNOLOGY in our professional services, thus providing innovative solutions that meet the needs of our clients and the public they serve. Our senior Traffic and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) leadership team has over 300 years combined professional experience providing professional services to public agencies throughout California. Our clients rely on this experience as we continue the company’s founding principle of providing professional services with the best value and quality, on time and within budget performance since we began our business in 1998. ADVANTEC is a professional engineering firm specializing in intelligent transportation systems, traffic engineering, transportation planning, active transportation, civil engineering, and electrical engineering experience in California. ADVANTEC has provided planning, design, and construction support services for various citywide, regionwide, and countywide ITS projects throughout California. We bring outstanding professional firms with clear roles as shown on the following table.

Sub-consultant Professional Services

Contact Information

The Altum Group 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219 Palm Desert, CA 92260

• Environmental Services

Mr. Nancy Ferguson Environmental Manager Ph: 760-346-4750 [email protected]

Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878

• Traffic Data Collection Services Kris Campos Ph: 951-268-6268 [email protected]




Coachella Valley Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project

Phase II Improvements – Professional Services

Page | 2

By selecting the ADVANTEC Team, the CVAG will realize the following benefits: ▪ The ADVANTEC Team has the Right Experience. Our experience includes providing similar ITS services to

various agencies including the cities of Palm Springs, Coachella, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Santa Monica, Downey, Culver City, Inglewood, Irvine, Lancaster, Ontario, San Clemente, Yorba Linda, Seal Beach, and Caltrans. Our key staff are fully familiar with the technical and institutional needs of this project. The same ADVANTEC Team that is currently involved on the Coachella Valley Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project – Phase I Improvements will be assigned to this project that will facilitate project delivery.

▪ Experienced Project Leadership. Mr. Carlos Ortiz, PE, TE, PTOE will serve as Project Manager and Mr. John Dorado, PE will serve as our Deputy Project Manager. Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Dorado have managed numerous citywide, regionwide, countywide, and corridor-wide ITS projects. Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Dorado have been working for over two years on the development of the Coachella Valley Signal Interconnect Master Plan, partnering (co-op) agreements, and associated tasks related to the Coachella Valley Signal Synchronization Project.

▪ Extensive Experience with Metro, Caltrans and Federally Funded Projects. The ADVANTEC Team has

provided planning, design, and construction administration services for many locally and federally funded projects throughout California requiring extensive coordination with CVAG, OCTA, Los Angeles Metro, Caltrans, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

ADVANTEC appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal and looks forward to continuing to provide you with our professional services. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 861-4999 or [email protected].

Respectfully Submitted, ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Carlos A. Ortiz, PE, TE, PTOE Chief Operating Officer/Project Manager ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Approved By: ______________________ Date: _____________________________




Page | 3

COACHELLA VALLEY REGIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND SCOPE OF SERVICES Project Understanding As part of the Traffic Signal Interconnect Master Plan, ADVANTEC prepared a Priority Corridors Report that provided CVAG and cities/agencies with an evaluation of the regional arterial and collector corridors in order to develop a priority list for Phase I and Phase II traffic signal synchronization improvements. Seventy (70) primary corridors were included in the prioritization and ranking process. The ranking results showed the top 21 corridors have average ADT above 15,000, and most corridors traverses through multiple agencies. In addition, forty (40) secondary corridors were also analyzed in the prioritization and ranking process. The overall scores were significantly lower than those of the top ranking primary corridors. The top 21 corridors are considered for Phase I and Phase II traffic signal synchronization improvements based on the original contract scope of work. Selection and implementation of the project improvements and synchronized corridors will be based upon additional coordination with CVAG, partner agencies, stakeholders, project requirements, and funding availability. Table summarizes the Top 21 ranked corridors. Phase I improvements will be along the Highway 111, Washington Street, and Ramon Road Corridors. Phase II improvements is anticipated to cover the remaining eighteen (18) corridors as highlighted on Table 1. This proposal provides the environmental and professional design services for the proposed improvements for the Phase II Corridors.



Page | 4

Table 1 Top 21 Ranked Corridors – Primary Arterials

No. Corridor Direction Agencies

PH

ASE

I

IMP

RO

VEM

ENTS

1 Highway 111 (From Buddy Rogers Ave

to Indio Blvd) E/W

Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio, Caltrans

2 Washington St N/S Indian Wells, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Caltrans,

County of Riverside

3 Ramon Rd E/W Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage,

County of Riverside, Caltrans

PH

ASE

II IM

PR

OV

EMEN

TS

4 Monterey Ave/ Hwy 74 N/S Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Caltrans, County of

Riverside

5 Cook St N/S Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Caltrans, County of

Riverside

6 Palm Dr N/S Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs, Caltrans, County

of Riverside

7 Bob Hope Dr N/S Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Caltrans, County of

Riverside

8 Fred Waring Dr E/W Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio

9 Dinah Shore Dr E/W Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm

Desert

10 Gene Autry Trl (Hwy 111 from E. Palm

Canyon Dr to Vista Chino) N/S Palm Springs, Caltrans

11 Date Palm Dr N/S Cathedral City, Caltrans

12 Indio Blvd N/S Indio, Caltrans

13 Jefferson St N/S Indio, La Quinta

14 Vista Chino (Hwy 111 from N. Palm

Canyon Dr to Gene Autry Trl) E/W Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Caltrans

15 Palm Canyon Dr (Hwy 111 from Gene

Autry Trail to Buddy Rodgers Ave) N/S Palm Springs, Cathedral City

16 Country Club Dr E/W Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, County of Riverside

17 Monroe St N/S La Quinta, Indio

18 Avenue 48 E/W Indio, La Quinta, Coachella

19 Sunrise Wy N/S Palm Springs, Caltrans

20 Indian Canyon Dr N/S Palm Springs

21 Jackson St N/A Indio, Coachella



Page | 5

Scope of Services This section provides ADVANTEC’s detailed approach and scope of work program to complete the Coachella Valley Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Phase II Improvements along eighteen (18) project corridors in the Coachella Valley.

PHASE II - ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE

Task 1 – Environmental Services Our subconsultant, The Altum Group (Altum), will assist our team with environmental documentation and approvals in support of the proposed Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Phase II Improvements along the eighteen (18) project corridors. The following summarizes Altum’s tasks/subtasks in order to obtain CEQA/NEPA compliance, and as an option, to prepare Technical Studies, as required. Altum's scope of environmental services in support of the project will focus on the following:

1) Completion of the Preliminary Environment Study (PES) that includes completing the checklist, providing an explanation for the responses in narrative form, and including maps and site photos to document existing conditions;

2) Completion of the paperwork for a Categorical Exclusion (NEPA) and CEQA Categorical Exemption (Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CE) (15301 minor alterations to existing facilities); and

3) Coordination with agencies’ staff including CVAG, Caltrans, Riverside County, nine (9) cities and tribal

staff; and coordination with subconsultants who may prepare technical studies (NES-MI and Cultural Records Search) if the PES shows the need.

Task 1.1 – Project Initiation/Kick-off Meeting, Review of Existing Information, Site Visits Task 1.1.1 – Project Initiation/Kick-off Meeting Altum’s project manager and associate planner will attend a kick-off meeting with CVAG Staff and ADVANTEC to discuss the scope of work and schedule for completion of the environmental review of the proposed project. At this meeting, Altum will discuss the location and nature of specific proposed activities associated with the proposed project. Task 1.1.2 – Review of Existing Information Altum staff will review existing information provided by ADVANTEC and CVAG, including aerial and site photographs, and will review existing GIS files for information such as flood zones, Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan areas, to gather information for the PES form. Task 1.1.3 – Site Visits Upon completion of Tasks 1.1.1 and 1.1.2, Altum staff will conduct a site visit in the areas identified for further reconnaissance. Altum anticipates that no more than 50 site visits will be necessary. Altum will include any additional information discovered during the site visit to prepare a description of the physical environment to include in the PES form submitted to Caltrans for a NEPA CE, and the findings for a CEQA CE. Altum anticipates that proposed improvements will result in little ground disturbance outside of the existing ROW such that most,



Page | 6

if not all, improvements will not require additional review to evaluate potential impacts to biological, cultural, or other resources. Deliverables: Project initiation, kick-off meeting, review of existing information, and site visits

Task 1.2 – CEQA/NEPA Compliance Task 1.2.1 - Prepare PES Form and Supplemental Documentation Under this task, Altum will prepare the PES Form for signal and ITS improvements along the 18 Phase II Project Corridors. This task begins with development of a project description based on existing conditions prepared during project initiation and project information provided by ADVANTEC. For the 18 Project Corridors, Altum anticipates up to 50 locations (intersection and/or roadway segments) where ground disturbing activities will take place, such as installation of new pull boxes and communication hub cabinets, which may require additional review for biological, cultural, and other resources. Based on this description, the checklist will be filled out, and a narrative discussion justifying the answers in the checklist (Yes, To Be Determined, No) will be provided. As part of this exercise, Altum may also prepare the Initial Site Assessment (ISA) checklist for project locations where ground disturbing activities will take place. A total of 11 appendices, one for each jurisdiction where work will be performed, will be prepared and submitted with the PES. Each appendix will include the information discussed in our Project Approach. The Draft PES form, narrative and associated appendices will be provided to ADVANTEC for review and Altum will incorporate one round of consolidated comments from ADVANTEC and CVAG reviewers for incorporation into the final deliverable to Caltrans. Task 1.2.2 - Prepare NEPA CE and CEQA CE Altum will prepare the NEPA CE for Caltrans review and approval. Altum will then use information, maps and photographs prepared to accompany the PES Form to make the findings for a CEQA CE so there would be no redundancy in the evaluation. Altum will prepare a Notice of Exemption (NOE) which will include the following: (1) a cover letter to the County Clerk, (2) the NOE including findings for a CEQA CE, and a map of the project sites and surrounding area. Altum will file the NOE with the County Clerk for a review period of 35 days. Altum will also provide a copy of the NOE to the State Clearinghouse. Altum anticipates that ADVANTEC will provide one set of consolidated comments on the findings, cover letter, and NOE prior to submittal to Caltrans, the County Clerk, and the State Clearinghouse. Deliverables: PES Form, NEPA CE, and CEQA CE

Task 1.3 – Project Management This task covers time for their project manager and associate planner to prepare and attend up to four (4) meetings with ADVANTEC and CVAG (not including the kick-off meeting). Altum anticipates twenty-four hours of coordination with other agencies such as the county, local cities, and the Native American Tribes, if necessary. This task also includes their internal project management (internal coordination with staff), as well as keeping track of their project schedule and budget. Altum will provide a project status report to ADVANTEC at the end of



Page | 7

each week via e-mail. This task is intended to ensure that their tasks stay on schedule and within budget, and that all of our deliverables are technically correct and legally defensible. Deliverables: Project Management

Task 1.4 – Prepare Technical Studies Based on our experience working with Caltrans, Altum believes that the following technical studies may need to be prepared for improvements along the 18 Phase II Project Corridors. Task 1.4.1 - Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Altum’s senior environmental planner will complete a blanket ISA checklist that will evaluate up to 50 locations throughout the Coachella Valley. The task consists of aerial and site photo review of the locations; a field visit to document existing environmental conditions at the 50 locations, a search of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) environmental database (EnviroStor) to determine if any location is near a recognized environmental condition (REC), and preparation of the checklist. Similar to the PES, the ISA will be prepared with 11 appendices (9 cities and the County) submitted with the PES and will be used by Caltrans staff in their evaluation of the project’s potential environmental effects. Task 1.4.2 - Natural Environment Study – Minimal Impact (NES-MI) The project requires compliance with CEQA with CVAG as the lead CEQA agency, and Caltrans as the lead NEPA agency. Jericho Systems will provide a Biological Resources Assessment – Minimal Impacts, or NES-MI, to support environmental approvals under CEQA. The work will consist of a review of State and federal databases of sensitive species known to occur in the area, including critical habitat; a pedestrian survey of up to 50 locations, including an appropriate survey buffer area, and review the locations for both common and sensitive wildlife that are known to exist in the project vicinity. The assessment will meet the requirements for the Coachella Valley MSHCP, the ACBCI HCP, and CEQA. In addition, an NES-MI will be prepared. The NES-MI content and format will follow the guidance set forth in the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER). Jericho anticipates evaluating several locations in concert in order to minimize field time. Similar to the PES, the NES-MI will be formatted to include appendices to address locations by city, the County, and Caltrans. Task 1.4.3 – Cultural Resources Investigations Cultural Resources Investigations will be provided by Applied Earthworks (Æ). The team understands that the project requires compliance with CEQA and that CVAG will act as the lead CEQA agency. The project will also need to satisfy the requirements of Caltrans Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the California State Historic Preservation Office regarding compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. For Interim Conditions Æ assumes up to 50 locations will require some level of Cultural Resources investigation. Æ will complete the following tasks for Interim conditions:

• Æ will assist Caltrans in establishing an Area of Potential Effects (APE) for up to 50 locations that take into account all direct and indirect impacts to potentially significant cultural resources. Following the delineation of the APE, an APE Map will be drafted and submitted to Caltrans for review. The map will include both the areas of direct and indirect impact and will have a signature and date block for the “Caltrans Local Assistance Engineer” and the “Caltrans Professionally Qualified Staff.” It is anticipated that the APE map will require no more than two rounds of revision.



Page | 8

• Æ will complete a cultural resource literature review and records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC), housed at the University of California, Riverside, for each of the 50 locations. For purposes of this project, this search will encompass a one-mile radius of each location.

• Æ will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a search of the Sacred Lands Files. Æ will also assist Caltrans in contacting individuals listed by the NAHC that may have an interest in the project. Consultation will be initiated by letter, and followed by email or telephone contact.

• Æ assumes that up to seven (7) locations can be surveyed in a single day. A qualified cultural resource specialist will complete and intensive survey of the exposed ground surface within the direct impact areas associated with each location. Survey transect spacing will range from 10 to 15 meters (30 to 50 feet), and all soils and landforms likely to contain or exhibit archaeologically or historically sensitive cultural resources will be inspected carefully to ensure that visible, potentially important cultural resources are discovered and documented. During the site visit, the surveyor will also document any historical built-environment resources that are located within the APE. For the purposes of this scope, Æ anticipates that no previously recorded or newly identified archaeological resources will require documentation and up to 3 built-environment resources will need to be recorded and evaluated.

• At the conclusion of the inventory and survey, Æ will prepare an APE Map, an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), a Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), and a short-form Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR), to CEQA standards as well as the standards outlined in Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER), Volume 2, Cultural Resources.

Deliverables: Technical Studies: Initial Site Assessment (ISA), Natural Environment Study – Minimal Impact

(NES – MI), Cultural Resources Investigations

PHASE II - DESIGN PHASE

Task 2 - Research of Record Information and Field Review ADVANTEC will coordinate with Agencies’ staff, collect and review available data for use and reference associate with the project improvements. ADVANTEC’s Senior Traffic Engineers/Field Technicians will conduct a thorough field review of existing conditions along the eighteen (18) Phase II Project Corridors and signalized intersections, that consists, but not limited to collecting the following:

✓ All roadway features including curb lines, property lines, edges of pavement, edges of paved sidewalks, curb returns, curb ramps, driveways and bus pads

✓ Signing and striping, street lighting, and power poles ✓ Traffic signal and associated equipment (e.g. traffic signal controllers, controller cabinets, pole

locations, conduit, conduit fill, cables, vehicle detection, service enclosures, pull boxes, vaults, battery backup systems, EVP, etc.)

✓ Communication type and associated equipment (e.g. Ethernet switches, wireless radio and equipment, twist-pair/copper cable, termination blocks, etc.)

✓ Communication conduit sizes, pull boxes, conduit sweeps, and cables ✓ Nearby underground utilities, cabinets, sub-structures, basements and vaults; and nearby aboveground

structures (including bus shelters), aboveground cable and permanent street furniture ✓ Other field conditions that might affect a design decision



Page | 9

✓ ADA compliance and constraints ✓ Sidewalk and pavement conditions ✓ Phase I – Local Traffic Management Centers (TMCs), Data Aggregated Centers (DAGs), Regional TMC ✓ Phase I – Intersecting corridors and signalized intersections ✓ Photographs of each project corridor and signalized intersection, traffic signal equipment and roadway

features using GPS cameras so that the photos can be easily integrated to GIS map Upon completion of the above items, ADVANTEC will identify potential constraints that may be encountered in relation to the proposed improvements. This information will be used to prepare base mapping and proposed improvements along the eighteen (18) project corridors. This information will also be used as our foundation for our inventory and assessment of existing conditions, conceptual plans, recommended improvements and preparation of signal interconnect/communication plans. Deliverables: Data collection inventory matrix, field review and notes, and photos

Task 3 – Utility Notification and Coordination Utility notifications to the various utility owners within the sphere of the Project will be prepared. ADVANTEC will request the location of the existing utility lines along the corridors, in order to provide proper vertical and horizontal clearance at locations where new cabinets, communication hubs, conduits, and/or splice vaults may be installed. ADVANTEC will provide coordination interface to establish controls for utilities that would be included within the right-of-way limits, and identify existing underground and overhead utility lines that may interfere with the location of the proposed traffic signal communication, wireless communication, and CCTV/DMS equipment. ADVANTEC will compile the information in a matrix format to include dates of notification, persons/utility notified and responses from utility. Two set of plans will be included with the utility notices. The utility notices will be sent via certified mail. Copies of this information will be updated periodically and provided to CVAG. Deliverables: Utility Notification and Coordination

Task 4 – Traffic Signal Interconnect, TMC, and ITS Field Elements Plans and Details ADVANTEC will prepare traffic signal interconnect plans and details highlighting traffic signal interconnect/communication improvements at the field elements, project corridors, each agency TMC and DAC, and the Regional TMC. In addition, the plans will show location and requirements for any proposed ITS field elements and communication hubs. ADVANTEC will also prepare preliminary TMC plans and details highlighting the TMC room, equipment room, and other facilities. In addition, details of the TMC equipment rack(s) showing Traffic Management System server, Video Management System server, Layer 3 switch(es), and other hardware components to link the ITS Field elements to the TMC and other agencies will be shown.



Page | 10

The plans will be prepared in AutoCAD in accordance to the CVAG’s requirements. For budgeting purposes, it is anticipating that up to 584 plan sheets will be prepared under this Task. The overall total Phase II plan sheets and the breakdown per corridor and agency is provided in the Appendix. Deliverables: Traffic Signal Interconnect,

TMC, and ITS Field Elements Plans and Details (584 Sheets)

Task 5 – Technical Specifications, and Hardware and Software Procurement List Preliminary Technical Specifications will be prepared to indicate proposed hardware, software, cabling, equipment, installation, testing requirements, equipment warranty information, and other pertinent information to facilitate the construction of the proposed improvements. It will also provide system integration requirements during the construction phase. It will define the role of the System Integrator, ADVANTEC Team, CVAG and agencies staff, and hardware/software approved vendors during the construction activities.

ADVANTEC will prepare Technical Specifications for all the required equipment, delivering, installation, testing, and commissioning requirements, and any additional item that may be required for the project including hardware and software upgrades. ADVANTEC will provide a Material and Equipment Procurement List to CVAG highlighting the hardware, software, cabling, and other equipment that will be procured by the System Integrator. ADVANTEC will work with CVAG to include the specific Contractor license(s), and network/software certifications required for this project. Application and/or permits required by the participating agencies will be included in the Appendix.



Page | 11

Deliverables: Technical Specifications, and Hardware and Software Procurement List

Task 6 – Construction Quantities and Engineer’s Estimates ADVANTEC will prepare construction quantity take-offs and construction cost estimates in accordance with CVAG’s requirements for the proposed traffic signal interconnect/communication improvements at the field elements, project corridors, and each agency TMC. The Construction Quantities and Engineer’s Estimates will be prepared in accordance with CVAG requirements. The cost estimate will be based on cost data from similar current projects. The engineer’s construction cost estimates will be prepared in MS Excel format for use by CVAG to advertise for bids. Deliverables: Construction Quantities and Engineer’s Estimates

Task 7 – Hardware and Software Procurement Support Services It is ADVANTEC’s recommendation that hardware and software materials and licenses procurement will commence following the approval of finalized design plans in order to procure the latest technology and software version. It will consist of equipment ordering, shipping, and receiving at the selected job site. Materials will be purchased direct from the manufacturer or through manufacturer-approved re-sellers. All equipment will be shipped directly to the jobsite where it will be received and inspected by the ADVANTEC Team personnel. If required, received equipment will be removed from its packaging and bench tested for proper operation. Equipment deliveries will be coordinated with the installation phase so that CVAG or the agencies will not be required to store large amounts of equipment at their facility. The specific materials and cost will be provided to CVAG for review and approval. The cost for hardware and software procurement is not included under this task. Deliverables: Hardware and Software Support Services

PHASE III - TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PHASE

Task 8 – Traffic Signal Synchronization (TSS) Stakeholders’ Meetings ADVANTEC will conduct meetings with each agency involved in the project to discuss the scope of work, and schedule; gather available information; and discuss each agency's constraints, key issues and timing parameters preferences. We will also conduct monthly progress meetings with the Project Development Team (PDT), comprising of representatives from all agencies and CVAG, to update the progress and work accomplished. These meetings will also serve to provide feedback between the project development team and ADVANTEC regarding the conduct of tasks, alternatives, and potential resolution of key issues. ADVANTEC anticipates conducting a maximum of 25 meetings, between individual meeting with Cities and PDT meetings. Deliverables: Traffic Signal Synchronization Stakeholder’s Meetings (25 Meetings)



Page | 12

Task 9 – Signal Timing and Traffic Data Collection ADVANTEC will obtain the following information from each of the participating agencies:- Existing timing sheets, including coordination plans; As-built drawings; Aerial photos and maps; All planned or programmed roadway improvements; Signal timing and priority parameters, including pedestrian and bicycle timing, leading and lagging left-turn phasing, and conditional service, as well as the timing optimization software preference; Identification of critical intersections and intersections with heavy pedestrian crossings. For development of signal timing, ADVANTEC will gather pertinent field data, such as: Roadway geometry and lane configurations; Existing signal phasing and timing at all signalized intersection; Distance between intersections; Speed limits; Major sources/destination of traffic. We will research special traffic generators such as schools, colleges and sport/entertainment events to identify affected intersections and corridors, and develop a schedule for collection of traffic counts that covers start and end times of these special events. ADT Counts – If ADT cannot be provided for specific location/period, ADVANTEC will develop a schedule to collect 24-hour traffic counts (Average Daily Traffic - ADT). Upon acceptance of the schedule, ADVANTEC will obtain 7 days of 24-hour ADT traffic count data. We have estimated to collect ADT counts at up to 160 locations. As a cost-savings measure, we will work with CVAG and local agencies to minimize number of new ADT counts by using available ADT data collected during the last 12 months. Based on the ADT counts, ADVANTEC will recommend the best time periods for collecting Turning Movement Count data for each peak or special peak periods. Saturday and Sunday ADT counts will be used to determine the need for weekend turning movement counts and timing plans. Turning Movement Counts - Upon approval of the ADT count data, ADVANTEC will obtain 2-hour intersection Turning Movement Counts for each traffic peak period (A.M., Mid-day, P.M., and an additional peak to be determined), including pedestrian and bicycles counts. At locations close to schools, we will conduct turning movement counts that include the school-begin and school-end time periods. These “peak-within-the-peak” school hours will be used to evaluate the need for special school timing plans. For weekend turning movement counts, we will collect 2-hour counts during Mid-day peak, for the heaviest traffic day, either Saturday or Sunday. ADVANTEC has anticipated to collect Turning Movement Count data for 4 periods (8 hours) at up to 302 locations. Count data (in 15-minute intervals) will be provided in MS Excel format, and will be used as input to our SYNCHRO model and to perform a level of service (LOS) analysis and timing optimization for each of the signalized intersections. Deliverables: Turning Movement Counts (4 Periods at 302 intersections)

ADT Counts (160 locations)



Page | 13

Task 10 – Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization “Before” Study (18 Corridors) The “Before” Travel Time Study will be conducted

prior to the beginning of any signal timing

optimization. We will use the services of our

subconsultant, Counts Unlimited Inc., to conduct the

actual data collection or travel runs. ADVANTEC will

perform all the analysis and produce a summary

report.

ADVANTEC will conduct “floating car” surveys by

using GPS receivers connected to a laptop computer

to record the pertinent measures of effectiveness

(MOE), such as travel time, number of stops and delay. These MOEs will be summarized in tabular and graphical

format using commercial off-the-shelf software (e.g. Tru-Traffic). The

GPS receiver outputs data every second, which includes the speed of

the vehicle, measured to a very high degree of accuracy. The software

then uses the GPS coordinates to track the speed and distance of the

surveying vehicle.

Five (5) “floating car” runs in each direction will be performed during

weekday (AM, Midday, and PM) peak periods and weekend Midday

peak to establish the data for the “Before” Study. ADVANTEC will

produce a study report with the results expressed in terms of travel

time, delay, average speed, number of stops, fuel consumption, and

pollutant emissions. ADVANTEC will also calculate a Corridor

Synchronization Performance Index (CSPI), which considers three

parameters: average speeds, number of stops per mile, and ratio of

signals reached on green versus red light. CSPI scores can help

determine which corridors are operating at acceptable signal

progression levels.

Deliverables: CVAG Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization “Before” Study

– 18 Corridors

Task 11 – Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization “After” Study (18

Corridors) Upon completion of the signal timing implementation (after construction),

ADVANTEC will perform “After Studies” to obtain data for verifying the

measures of effectiveness. Similar to the “Before” Studies, ADVANTEC will

perform floating car surveys at all identified corridors, matching the exact

number of runs and techniques. Tables and charts in Microsoft Excel will be

used to analyze and compare the results of the “Before” and “After” studies,

with a column showing the percentage of improvements for each MOE



Page | 14

parameter. This will serve as a basis for evaluating the benefits of the improved signal timings.

Deliverables: CVAG Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization “After” Study – 18 Corridors

Task 12 – Signal Timing Optimization & Implementation Using SYNCHRO software, the necessary parameters will be input to develop a model of the entire network:

▪ Existing geometry of network, distance between intersections, number of lanes, turn prohibitions, turning

movements at every intersection;

▪ Existing speed limits, or prevailing 85th percentile travel speeds;

▪ Existing phasing at each intersection, including any special treatment such as lead-lag phasing, existing phase

splits, offsets, and cycle lengths.

The model will be calibrated based on travel time, delay studies, and field observations of queues. A micro-

simulation model will be developed, and used to estimate the effects of planned and suggested improvements,

and to fine tune timing plans before implementation. ADVANTEC will optimize signal timings parameters, such

as cycle lengths, splits, and offsets. Special attention will be given to intersections that operate at poor levels of

service (LOS D or worse) to identify possible improvements. Special techniques may be adopted such as: Lead-

lead versus lead-lag phasing; Half-cycle or other harmonic cycle lengths for lightly traveled intersections, or

double cycle lengths for heavily traveled intersections; System breaks with different cycle lengths; and

Pedestrian timing adjustment techniques. It is anticipated that ADVANTEC will develop Synchro models for

three peak periods (A.M., Midday, and P.M.) along the eighteen (18) project corridors including 302

intersections and an extra Synchro model for a special timing plan for up to 172 intersections.

SYNCHRO models and Time-Space diagrams will be provided to the local jurisdictions and CVAG for review. Upon

final approval, ADVANTEC will prepare signal timing plans in each jurisdictions format. They will bear the stamp

and signature of our Project Manager, a Registered Civil/Traffic Engineer. ADVANTEC will implement the new

signal timings, and thoroughly check the results of the timing plans in the field during implementation to ensure

that the signals are operating properly, and as intended. Extensive monitoring and fine-tuning will immediately

follow. Based on our experience on similar projects, a number of signal timing improvements could be made

through careful field observations subsequent to the implementation of new signal timings. The hours spent in

the field during implementation and fine-tuning is extremely important towards successfully implementing

improved signal timings with perceptible differences. ADVANTEC will prepare a Technical Memorandum

documenting the SYNCHRO model optimization results, time-space diagrams for all corridor segments, and

recommendations towards improving signal phasing and operations.

Deliverables: Synchro files; Time-space Diagrams; Signal Timing Sheets; Technical Memorandum – 18

Corridors

Task 13 – Traffic Signal Synchronization Project Report A “Traffic Signal Synchronization Study” Report will be prepared that summarize the methodology and results of

the Coachella Valley-wide Traffic Signal Synchronization. The ‘Before' and 'After’ study results will be used to

assess the quantifiable benefits of the signal coordination efforts. The final report will include the following:



Page | 15

• Project objectives, location, and scope • Descriptions of any operational deficiencies noted

during field review/inventory at each intersection • Geometry and traffic signal operational equipment

parameters of each intersection • Methodology in the development of optimized signal

timing plans

• Implementation schedule, work performed,

and improvements accomplished • Summary of “Before” and “After” Study that

documents the travel time, delay, average speed, number of stops, fuel emission estimates, pollutant emission estimates, including Green House Gases (GHG); and a Benefit /Cost analysis

PHASE IV - GRANT APPLICATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES

Task 14 – Grant Applications Support Services ADVANTEC will provide Grant Application Support Services to CVAG. Under this task, ADVANTEC will provide exhibits, graphics, etc. to support the grant application. At this time, the type of grant application and support is unknown. Therefore, the budget allocated under this task is anticipated that our professional services will be for up to five (5) grant applications. Deliverables: Grant Applications Support Services – Five Applications (5)

PHASE V – PROJECT ADMINISTRATION, PROJECT MANAGEMENT, PROJECT COORDINATION, STAKEHOLDERS’ MEETINGS AND OUTREACH

Task 15 – Caltrans Forms and Coordination ADVANTEC will incorporate final design in a ready-to-submit construction bid package for Caltrans review and approval. The package will include final plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimates in accordance to Caltrans requirements including completion of all required federal forms for submittal of authorization to proceed with construction. ADVANTEC will facilitate the coordination with the DLAE (District Local Assistance Engineer) for continuity during the Preliminary Engineering, Construction, and Close Out phases of the project. We will work with CVAG staff so that the forms and responses reflect an approach approved ahead of time. Early and clear communication with the DLAE is critical in developing a productive working relationship for the project duration. ADVANTEC has extensive experience in completing and processing the numerous federal funding authorization forms, as well as incorporating all required special provisions in the project specifications to provide for the prevailing wage laws and DBE and UDBE goals. ADVANTEC has completed such tasks for several Cities and Agencies throughout Southern California. Support documentation such as cost estimates, vicinity maps, and utility certification form will be coordinated between the design team and the point of contact with Caltrans. Deliverables: Caltrans Forms and Coordination

Task 16 – Project Control Website, Public Suggestion Webpage, and Mobile Application Recommendation/Updates ADVANTEC will continue manage the project controls website using a secured Internet-based collaboration tool that allows team members to communicate easily and effectively manage project data on a real-time basis,



Page | 16

regardless of their location. With complex and dynamic ITS projects, managing communications and the flow of information among team members is a significant issue. Implementing a secured, project website where people can collaborate and share information is a proven, efficient way to address this very important project issue. In addition, other reporting tools, including a SharePoint Site, can be provided to facilitate managing, sharing, and storing information between the ADVANTEC Team, CVAG, and stakeholders. ADVANTEC will assist CVAG to create and manage a project suggestion comment page in CVAG’s website for use by the community. ADVANTEC will review and respond accordingly on behalf of CVAG and the agencies. ADVANTEC will provide CVAG with recommendations related to a traveler’s mobile application that can provide real time travel information, feedback from motorists, and educational information. Deliverables: Project Control Website, Public Suggestion Webpage, and Mobile Application Recommendation

Task 17 – Project Management and Project Coordination ADVANTEC will provide Project Management activities through all the aspects of the project. The ADVANTEC Team will prepared a detailed Work Plan, Resource Plan, Project Schedule, and prepare progress reports. To provide quality assurance/quality control, and to ensure on-time delivery of the project deliverables, ADVANTEC's Project Manager will actively be involved at all levels of the planning process to direct the day-to-day project activities and to identify and resolve critical design issues early on. Project coordination between ADVANTEC’s Project Manager and CVAG’S Project Manager will regular communication via email, telephone, and progress meetings. ADVANTEC will coordinate the development of all phases of the project with CVAG and all stakeholders. ADVANTEC will coordinate the project with each agency to discuss critical components on the project including environmental, design, multi-jurisdiction signal synchronization, technical elements, operations and maintenance, etc. Encroachment Permits – Due to the number of signalized intersections that are within Caltrans jurisdiction, ADVANTEC will coordinate will Caltrans District 8 to obtain buy-off on the proposed improvements, encroachment permits review and approvals. To help expedite the process this requires early coordination with Caltrans staff including follow-ups for all submittals. This includes obtaining Caltrans permit number – to be shown on the project plans – including submittals per Caltrans requirements. Deliverables: Project management and coordination

Monthly progress reports, project schedule updates, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and action item matrices. Project Coordination with CVAG, Caltrans, Cities, and County Encroachment Permits and Approvals

Task 18 - Project Meetings ADVANTEC will schedule and conduct a kick-off meeting with CVAG to discuss the overall project, planning and design objectives, constraints, requirements, project schedule, develop action items, and understanding next steps. During the kick-off meeting, ADVANTEC will coordinate with CVAG staff to assemble a Project Development Team (PDT).



Page | 17

ADVANTEC will schedule and conduct monthly PDT meetings to ensure all participants aware of the project status, critical milestones and decision points including review project schedules, planning activities, concepts, plans, and specifications. ADVANTEC will prepare and distribute meeting agendas, meeting minutes, updated project schedule (as necessary), and an action item matrix to the project team for each meeting that is held. For this subtask, we propose to conduct the kick-off meeting and up to twenty (20) PDT meetings, and ten (10) Executive Sessions/City Council Meetings. Deliverables: Kick-off meeting attendance

PDT meetings (20) Executive Sessions/City Council Meetings (10)

Task 19 – Stakeholders’ Outreach ADVANTEC will develop outreach materials for CVAG’s distribution to agencies and the community. Outreach materials are excellent tools to educate the community on the benefits of the program including benefits related to signal synchronization. ADVANTEC will prepare outreach flyers to be distributed to residents and businesses throughout the valley. The outreach materials can be provided in both English and Spanish. The electronic files of the flyers can also be used on the CVAG’s website and in City publications. Deliverables: Stakeholders’ Outreach

EXCLUSIONS Consulting services relating to any of the following tasks may be completed by ADVANTEC if negotiated under a

separate contract for an additional fee; but are presently excluded from this Agreement:

▪ Additional Plans and Detail Sheets per Agency Request

▪ Additional Design Request by Caltrans or Agencies

▪ Engineering Reports

▪ Additional Grant Applications

▪ Additional Meetings



Page | 18


PROJECT SCHEDULE Effective scheduling and cost control are critical activities throughout this Project. ADVANTEC has developed an innovative approach to accomplish the objectives of completing the Coachella Valley Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project – Phase II Improvements as early as possible which will result in time and project cost savings. ADVANTEC has the resources available to meet or accelerate the project deadline. ADVANTEC Team will commit to delivering final Phase II Improvements Bid Package by the end of December 2019. ADVANTEC is well versed in responding to projects that have important deadlines relative to funding constraints or public delivery commitment. Our proposed project schedule to complete the project within the required time frame.



Page | 19

Jan Feb Mar Apr Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan

Description 1 7 142128 4 111825 4 1125 1 8 152229 6 132027 3 101724 1 8 152229 5 121926 2 9 162330 7 142128 4 111825 2 9 162330 6 1320 27

1 PHASE I - ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE

1.1Project Initiation/Kick-off Meeting, Review

of Existing Information, Site Visits

1.2 CEQA/NEPA Compliance

1.3 Project Management

1.4 Prepare Technical Studies

PHASE 2 - DESIGN PHASE

2Research of Record Information and Field

Review

3Utility Notification and Coordination

4Traffic Signal Interconnect, TMC, and ITS

Field Elements Plans and Details (584

5Technical Specifications, and Hardware and

Software Procurement List

6Construction Quantities and Engineer’s

Estimates

7Hardware and Software Procurement

Support Services

PHASE III - TRAFFIC SIGNAL

SYNCHRONIZATION PHASE

8Traffic Signal Synchronization Stakeholders'

Meetings (25 Meetings)

9 Signal Timing and Traffic Data Collection

10Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization

“Before” Study (18 Corridors)

11Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization

“After” Study (18 Corridors) **

12Signal Timing Optimization and

Implementation **

13Traffic Signal Synchronization Project Report

**

PHASE IV - GRANT APPLICATIONS

SUPPORT SERVICES

14 Grant Applications Support Services

PHASE V - PROJECT ADMINISTRATION,

PROJECT MANAGEMENT, PROJECT

COORDINATION, AND STAKEHOLDERS'

MEETINGS AND OUTREACH

15Caltrans Forms and Coordination

16Project Control Website, Public Suggestion

Webpage, and Mobile Application

17Project Management and Project

Coordination (27 months)

18Project Meetings (30 meetings)

19Stakeholders' OutreachConstruction Support Services (Optional

Task - 2020)Construction Support Services (Optional

Task)

Construction Management and Construction

Inspection Services (Optional Task)

ADVANTEC Team Work-in-Progress Kick-off Meeting Milestone Submittal

Agency Review PDT Meetings

Task

20202019

May Jun Jul Aug

c



Page | 20


FEE SCHEDULE

Our proposed Fee Schedule to provide Environmental, Design, Traffic Signal Synchronization, Grant Application

Support, Project Administration, Project Management, Project Coordination, and Stakeholders’ Meetings and

Outreach Services for the proposed improvements along the eighteen (18) Phase II Corridors is shown on the

following page.

The breakdown of the anticipated Phase II Improvements is shown on Appendix A, and includes the following:

▪ Anticipated Number of Design Sheets

▪ Anticipated Project Distance

▪ Anticipated Number of Signalized Intersections (as of January 28, 2018)

▪ Anticipated Number of Design Sheets Per Corridor



Page | 19

SUBCONSULTANT SUBCONSULTANTFEE FEE

(The Altum Group) (Counts Unlimited)

Leo Lee Carlos Ortiz John Dorado Jose Guedes Tracy Moriya John Cox Enrique Biche Frank Gomez Ryan Miller Leah Russell Tony Hernandez

1.1 Project Initiation/Kick-off Meeting, Review of Existing Information, Site Visits

1.1.1 Project Initiation/Kick-off Meeting 8 8 16 32 $957 $6,397

1.1.2 Review of Existing Information 2 8 16 26 $11,000 $14,880

1.1.3 Site Visits 0 $6,710 $6,710

1.2 CEQA/NEPA Compliance

1.2.1 Prepare PES Form and Supplemental Documentation 2 48 80 96 96 322 $31,955 $81,435

1.2.2 Prepare NEPA CE and CEQA CE 0 $2,442 $2,442

1.3 Project Management $15,243 $15,243

1.4 Prepare Technical Studies

1.4.1 Initial Site Assessment (ISA) 16 20 24 $6,666 $17,306

1.4.2 Natural Environment Study – Minimal Impact (NES-MI) 16 20 24 $20,000 $30,640

1.4.3 Cultural Resources Investigations 16 20 24 $30,000 $40,640

2 Research of Record Information and Field Review 48 110 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 998 $128,280

3 Utility Notification and Coordination 24 44 120 60 60 60 60 60 488 $58,560

4Traffic Signal Interconnect, TMC, and ITS Field Elements Plans and Details (584

Sheets)438 2100 1168 1168 2800 2800 1950 1950 1950 16324 $2,004,280

5 Technical Specifications, and Hardware and Software Procurement List 24 98 188 192 120 120 742 $115,000

6 Construction Quantities and Engineer’s Estimates 32 102 64 64 124 124 140 140 790 $99,760

7 Hardware and Software Procurement Support Services 24 40 72 54 190 $28,020

8 Traffic Signal Synchronization Stakeholders' Meetings (25 Meetings) 80 80 200 360 $55,200

9 Signal Timing and Traffic Data Collection 16 20 40 100 100 276 $84,560 $120,520

10 Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization “Before” Study (18 Corridors) 2 16 24 70 32 114 258 $33,664 $70,184

11 Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization “After” Study (18 Corridors) 2 16 24 70 32 114 258 $33,664 $70,184

12 Signal Timing Optimization and Implementation 24 200 200 800 1500 1500 800 5024 $561,240

13 Traffic Signal Synchronization Project Report 4 40 40 80 80 120 40 404 $49,440

14 Grant Applications Support Services 50 75 100 100 110 435 $60,500

15 Caltrans Forms and Coordination 4 8 8 88 44 152 $19,320

16Project Control Website, Public Suggestion Webpage, and Mobile Application

Recommendation24 8 8 40 68 148 296 $34,720

17 Project Management and Project Coordination (27 months) 22 150 108 108 388 $83,600

18 Project Meetings (30 meetings) 28 200 90 90 104 512 $104,160

19 Stakeholders' Outreach 16 32 32 40 40 160 $24,480

Total Hours 80 1370 3369 746 1352 3148 3692 4942 4528 2270 3118 28435

TOTAL 20,800$ 356,200$ 606,420$ 134,280$ 243,360$ 377,760$ 406,120$ 543,620$ 452,800$ 204,300$ 280,620$ $124,973 $151,888 $3,903,141

REIMBURSABLES$80,000

TOTAL FEE3,983,141

Total Cost

PHASE I - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PHASE II - DESIGN PHASE

PHASE III - TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PHASE

PHASE IV - GRANT APPLICATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES

Total Hours

PHASE V - PROJECT ADMINISTRATION, PROJECT MANAGEMENT, PROJECT COORDINATION, AND STAKEHOLDERS' MEETINGS AND OUTREACH

TASK DESCRIPTION

Project

Principal

Project

ManagerTask Manager

Task ManagerTask Manager

Design

Engineer

Design

Engineer

Design

Engineer

Design

Engineer

Design

Engineer

Design

Engineer



Page | 20

APPENDIX A



Page | 21

TABLE 1

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count

1/29/2018

Cathedral City Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Caltrans D8 County of Riverside

4 Monterey Avenue 37 1 3 3 44

5 Cook Street 2 30 2 2 36

6 Palm Drive 33 2 2 37

7 Bob Hope Drive 46 2 5 53

8 Fred Waring Drive 9 19 10 28 66

9 Dinah Shore Drive 13 8 6 14 41

10 Gene Autry Trail 1 4 5 10

11 Date Palm Drive 22 3 25

12 Indio Boulevard 16 16

13 Jefferson Street 15 12 2 29

14 Vista Chino 11 4 15

15 Palm Canyon Drive 35 35

16 Country Club Drive 32 9 41

17 Monroe Street 31 2 33

18 Avenue 48 6 20 9 3 38

19 Sunrise Way 21 21

20 Indian Canyon Drive 4 18 1 23

21 Jackson Street 19 2 21

584TOTAL NUMBER OF SHEETS =

PRIORITY

CORRIDOR NO.TOTAL NO. OF

SHEETS

NUMBER OF SHEETS PER CORRIDOR AND AGENCYPHASE II - CORRIDORS



Page | 22

TABLE 2

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Project Distance

1/29/2018


4 Monterey Avenue 30,850 3,900 34,750

5 Cook Street 2,750 20,750 1,300 300 25,100

6 Palm Drive 16,000 1,000 2,700 19,700

7 Bob Hope Drive 29,500 778 2,000 32,278

8 Fred Waring Drive 5,050 10,800 10,600 35,000 61,450

9 Dinah Shore Drive 14,750 8,200 2,650 14,900 40,500

10 Gene Autry Trail 1,350 1,450 2,800

11 Date Palm Drive 24,500 2,300 26,800

12 Indio Boulevard 19,853 19,853

13 Jefferson Street 13,383 12,144 818 26,345

14 Vista Chino 10,613 3,798 14,411

15 Palm Canyon Drive 31,838 31,838

16 Country Club Drive 26,928 13,517 40,445

17 Monroe Street 26,717 732 27,449

18 Avenue 48 500 21,987 7,920 1,400 31,807

19 Sunrise Way 21,226 21,226

20 Indian Canyon Drive 19,851 19,851

21 Jackson Street 15,999 670 16,669

Total (feet) 493,272

Total (miles) 93TOTAL PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS DISTANCE =

PRIORITY

CORRIDOR NO.CORRIDOR LENGTH PER AGENCY CORRIDOR

LENGTHPHASE II - CORRIDORS



Page | 23

TABLE 3

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Number of Signalized Intersections

1/29/2018


4 Monterey Avenue 11 2 1 14

5 Cook Street 1 9 2 1 13

6 Palm Drive 7 1 1 9

7 Bob Hope Drive 11 2 2 15

8 Fred Waring Drive 1 9 3 12 25

9 Dinah Shore Drive 2 7 2 4 15

10 Gene Autry Trail 1 1 2

11 Date Palm Drive 12 2 14

12 Indio Boulevard 5 5

13 Jefferson Street 8 5 2 15

14 Vista Chino 3 1 4

15 Palm Canyon Drive 26 26

16 Country Club Drive 14 3 17

17 Monroe Street 16 2 18

18 Avenue 48 1 10 2 4 17

19 Sunrise Way 10 10

20 Indian Canyon Drive 13 1 14

21 Jackson Street 9 2 11

PRIORITY

CORRIDOR NO.NUMBER OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

NO. OF

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

TOTAL PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS NUMBER OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS = 244

PHASE II - CORRIDORS



Page | 24

TABLE 4

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 4 - Monterey Avenue

1/29/2018

CORRIDOR 40 scale TMC Entry ITS Element FO Splice BB Wireless 5Ghz Wireless TMC Layout TMC / Rack/ HUB Comm Arch DAC RTMC Video Wall A/V (Sub) Notes Title Agency

MONTEREY AVENUE Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral CityN/A

CoachellaN/A

Desert Hot SpringsN/A

Indian WellsN/A

IndioN/A

La QuintaN/A

Monterey Ave & Dinah Shore Dr 30,850 18 4 10 1 1 1 1 1 37

Monterey Ave & Market Pl

Monterey Ave & Dick Kelly Dr

Monterey Ave & Gerald Ford Dr

Monterey Ave & Shadow Ridge Rd

Monterey Ave & Frank Sinatra Dr

Monterey Ave & Hovley Ln West

Monterey Ave & Avenida Del Sol / Clancy Ln

Monterey Ave & Gran Via /Avenida Las Palmas

Monterey Ave & Parkview Dr

Monterey Ave & San Gorgonio Wy

Palm SpringsN/A

Rancho Mirage(Shared with Palm Desert)

11

I-10 EB Ramp(s) & Monterey Ave 1 1 1 3

I-10 WB Ramp(s) & Monterey Ave

County of Riverside 1Varner Rd & Monterey Ave

3,900 33

TOTAL 14 34,750 21 0 5 10 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 44

44

Linear

Distance (ft)

TOTA NUMBER OF SHEETS =

Caltrans D8

Palm Desert 11

2

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER OF

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS



Page | 25

TABLE 5

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 5 – Cook Street

1/29/2018


COOK STREET Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral CityN/A

CoachellaN/A


Indian Wells 1Cook St & Cachuma Rd

2750 2 2

IndioN/A

La QuintaN/A

Cook St & Gerald Ford Dr 20750 13 2 3 10 0 2 30

Cook St & University Park Dr / Berger Dr

Cook St & Frank Sinatra Dr

Cook St & Country Club Dr

Cook St & Hovley Ln E

Cook St & Avenue 42

Cook St & Merle Dr

Cook St & Aztec Rd

Palm SpringsN/A

Rancho MirageN/A

I-10 EB Ramp(s) & Cook St 1300 1 1 2

I-10 WB Ramp(s) & Cook St

County of Riverside 1Varner Rd & Cook St 1 1

2

TOTAL 12 24,800 16 2 3 10 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 36

36

Palm Desert 8

Linear

Distance (ft)

TOTA NUMBER OF SHEETS =

Caltrans D8 2

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER

OF SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS



Page | 26

TABLE 6

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 6 – Palm Drive

1/29/2018


PALM DRIVE Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral CityN/A

CoachellaN/A

Palm Dr & Pierson Blvd 16,000 10 1 5 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33

Palm Dr & Hacienda Ave

Palm Dr & Ironwood Dr

Palm Dr & Two Bunch Palms Trl

Palm Dr & Camino Campanero

Palm Dr & Dillon Rd

Palm Dr & Paul Dr

Indian Wells

Indio

La Quinta

Palm Desert

Palm SpringsN/A

Rancho MirageN/A

1 I-10 WB Ramp(s) & Palm Dr 1,000 1 1 2

County of Riverside 1Palm Dr & Varner Rd 2,700 2 2

TOTAL 9 19,700 13 1 5 10 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 37

TOTA NUMBER OF SHEETS = 37

Caltrans D8

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER

OF SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Linear

Distance (ft)

Desert Hot Springs 7



Page | 27

TABLE 7

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 7- Bob Hope Drive

1/29/2018


BOB HOPE DRIVE Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral CityN/A

CoachellaN/A


Indian WellsN/A

IndioN/A

La QuintaN/A

Palm Desert N/A

Palm SpringsN/A

Bob Hope Dr & Avenida Las Palmas 29,500 20 10 12 1 1 1 1 46

Bob Hope Dr & Rancho Las Palmas

Bob Hope Dr & Follansbee Rd/ Sunrise Dr

Bob Hope Dr & Country Club Dr

Bob Hope Dr & Hope Square

Bob Hope Dr & Columbia/Hospital

Bob Hope Dr & Kavenish Wy

Bob Hope Dr & Frank Sinatra Dr

Bob Hope Dr & Gerald Ford Dr

Bob Hope Dr & Ginger Rodgers Rd

Bob Hope Dr & Dinah Shore Dr

Caltrans D8 2 I-10 EB Ramp(s) & Bob Hope Dr 778 1 1 2

I-10 WB Ramp(s) & Bob Hope Dr

County of Riverside 2 Varner Rd & Bob Hope Dr 2,000 2 1 1 1 5

Bob Hope Dr & Casino Ent

TOTAL 15 32,278 23 0 10 12 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 53


Rancho Mirage 11

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER

OF SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Linear Distance (ft)



Page | 28

TABLE 8

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 8 – Fred Waring Drive

1/29/2018


FRED WARING DRIVE Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral CityN/A

CoachellaN/A


Indian WellsEl Dorado Dr & Fred Waring Dr 5,050

31 1 1 1 1 1 9

Jefferson St & Fred Waring Dr 10,800 6 1 10 1 1 19

Fred Waring Dr & Shopping Center (E/O Jefferson St)

Fred Waring Dr & Heritage Palms Dr

Fred Waring Dr & Burr St

Fred Waring Dr & Madison St

Clinton St & Fred Waring

Fred Waring Dr & Hoover Ave

Monroe St & Fred Waring Dr

Fred Waring Dr & Indio Blvd

Adams St & Fred Waring Dr 10,600 7 1 1 1 10

Dune Palms Rd & Fred Waring Dr

Fred Waring Dr & Palm Royale Dr

Fred Waring Dr & Town Ctr 35,000 21 2 2 2 1 28

Fred Waring Dr & Monterey Ave

Fred Waring Dr & College of the Desert

Fred Waring Dr & San Pablo Ave

Fred Waring Dr & San Pascual Ave

Fred Waring Dr & Portola Ave

Fred Waring Dr & Deep Canyon Rd

Fred Waring Dr & Phyllis Jackson Ln

Fred Waring Dr & Cook St

Fred Waring Dr & California Dr

Fred Waring Dr & Warner Trl

Fred Waring Dr & Desert Breezes / Church

Palm Springs N/A

Rancho Mirage N/A

Caltrans D8 N/A

County of Riverside N/A

TOTAL 14 61,450 37 2 5 13 0 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 66


Palm Desert 11

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER

OF SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Linear

Distance (ft)

La Quinta 3

Indio 9



Page | 29

TABLE 9

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 9 – Dinah Shore Drive

1/29/2018


DINAH SHORE DRIVE Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Dinah Shore Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr 14,750 9 1 1 1 1 13

Dinah Shore Dr & Plumley Rd

CoachellaN/A


Indian WellsN/A

IndioN/A

La QuintaN/A

Dinah Shore Dr & Key Largo Ave 8,200 5 2 1 8

Dinah Shore Dr & Miriam Wy

Dinah Shore Dr & Shoppers Ln

Dinah Shore Dr & Toni Dr

Dinah Shore Dr & Gateway Dr

Dinah Shore Dr & Dick Kelly Dr

San Luis Rey Dr & Dinah Shore Dr 2,650 2 1 1 1 1 6

Crossley Rd & Dinah Shore Dr

Dinah Shore Dr & Da Vall Dr 14,900 9 2 1 1 1 14

Dinah Shore Dr & Mission Hills Dr

Dinah Shore Dr & Los Alamos Rd

Dinah Shore Dr & Westin Mission Hills Resort

Caltrans D8N/A

County of RiversideN/A

TOTAL 14 40,500 25 0 4 5 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 41


Palm Desert 6

Linear Distance

(ft)

Palm Springs 2

Rancho Mirage 4

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER

OF SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Cathedral City 2



Page | 30

TABLE 10

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 10 – Gene Autry Trail

1/29/2018


Gene Autry Trail Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral CityN/A

CoachellaN/A

Desert Hot SpringsN/A 1 1

Indian WellsN/A

IndioN/A

La QuintaN/A

Palm Desert N/A

Palm Springs 1Gene Autry Trl & Via Escuela

1,3501 2 1 4

Rancho Mirage N/A

Gene Autry Trail & I-10 WB Ramps 1,450 1 1 1 1 1

Gene Autry Trail & I-10 EB Ramps 0


TOTAL 3 2,800 2 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 10


Caltrans D8 2

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER OF

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Linear Distance

(ft)



Page | 31

TABLE 11

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 11 – Date Palm Drive

1/29/2018


DATE PALM DRIVE Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Date Palm Dr & Perez Rd 24,500 14 4 2 1 1 22

Date Palm Dr & Gerald Ford Dr

Date Palm Dr & Converse Rd

Date Palm Dr & Victoria Dr

Date Palm Dr & Market Place

Date Palm Dr & Dinah Shore Dr

Date Palm Dr & Dave Kelly Rd / Ortega Rd

Date Palm Dr & Cathedral Village/Via Olivera

Date Palm Dr & Baristo Rd

Date Palm Dr & McCallum Wy

Date Palm Dr & 30th Ave

Date Palm Dr & Vista Chino

CoachellaN/A


Indian WellsN/A

IndioN/A

La QuintaN/A

Palm Desert N/A

Palm SpringsN/A

Rancho MirageN/A

Caltrans D8 2 I-10 EB Ramp(s) & Date Palm Dr 2,300 2 1 3

I-10 WB Ramp(s) & Date Palm Dr


TOTAL 14 26,800 16 0 4 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25


Cathedral City 12

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER

OF SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Linear

Distance (ft)



Page | 32

TABLE 12

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 12 – Indio Boulevard

1/29/2018


INDIO BOULEVARD Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral CityN/A

CoachellaN/A


Indian WellsN/A

Indio Blvd & Madison St 19,853 12 2 1 1 16

Indio Blvd & Clinton St

Indio Blvd & Hoover St

Oasis St & Indio Blvd

Indio Blvd & Civic Center Dr

La QuintaN/A

Palm Desert N/A

Palm SpringsN/A

Rancho MirageN/A

Caltrans D8N/A


TOTAL 5 19,853 12 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16


Indio 5

AGENCY

TOTAL

NUMBER OF

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION

Linear

Distance (ft)



Page | 33

TABLE 13

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 13 – Jefferson Street

1/29/2018


JEFFERSON STREET Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral City

Coachella

Desert Hot Springs

Indian Wells

Jefferson St and Indio Blvd 13,383 8 4 2 1 15

Avenue 42 / Country Club Dr & Jefferson St

Jefferson St & Dunbar Dr

Jefferson St & Fred Waring Dr

Jefferson St & Miles Ave

Jefferson St & Pebble Beach Dr

Jefferson St & Sun City Blvd

Jefferson St & Westward Ho

Jefferson St & Vista Grande 12,144 7 4 1 12

Jefferson St & Avenue 48



Jefferson St & Pomelo/Pomelo Verano Dr

Palm Desert

Palm Springs

Rancho Mirage

2 I-10 EB Ramp(s) & Jefferson St 818 1 1 2

I-10 WB Ramp(s) & Jefferson St

County of Riverside

TOTAL 15 26,345 16 0 8 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29


Indio 8

La Quinta 5

Caltrans D8

AGENCY

TOTAL

NUMBER OF

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION

Linear

Distance (ft)



Page | 34

TABLE 14

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 14 – Vista Chino

1/29/2018


VISTA CHINO Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Vista Chino & Avenida Quintana 10,613 6 2 1 1 1 11

Vista Chino & Landau Blvd

Vista Chino & Avenida Maravilla

Coachella

Desert Hot Springs

Indian Wells

Indio

La Quinta

Palm Desert

Palm Springs 1 Vista Chino & Clubhouse View Dr 3,798 3 1 4

Rancho Mirage

Caltrans D8

County of Riverside

TOTAL 4 14,411 9 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 15


Cathedral City 3

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER

OF SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Linear

Distance (ft)



Page | 35

TABLE 15

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 15 – Palm Canyon Drive

1/29/2018


PALM CANYON DRIVE Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral City

Coachella

Desert Hot Springs

Indian Wells

Indio

La Quinta

Palm Desert

N Palm Canyon Dr & Tachevah Dr/W Via Lola 31,838 19 4 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 35

N Palm Canyon Dr & Tamarisk Rd

N Palm Canyon Dr & Granvia Valmonte

N Palm Canyon Dr & Alejo Rd

N Palm Canyon Dr & Amado Center/ Ped Xing

N Palm Canyon Dr & Amado Rd

N Palm Canyon Dr & Andreas Rd

N Palm Canyon Dr & Desert Fashion Ped Xing

S Palm Canyon Dr & Tahquitz Canyon Way

S Palm Canyon Dr & La Plaza

S Palm Canyon Dr & Arenas Rd

S Palm Canyon Dr & The Village Green Ped Xing

S Palm Canyon Dr & Baristo Rd

S Palm Canyon Dr & Camino Parocela

S Palm Canyon Dr & Sunny Dunes Rd

S Palm Canyon Dr & Mesquite Ave

S Palm Canyon Dr & Morongo Ave

S Palm Canyon Dr & E Palm Canyon Dr

Camino Real & E Palm Canyon Dr

Sunrise Wy & E Palm Canyon Dr

Cerritos Dr & E Palm Canyon Dr

Smoke Tree Commons & E Palm Canyon Dr

Farrell Dr/ Barona Rd & E Palm Canyon Dr

Escoba Dr/ Araby Dr & E Palm Canyon Dr

Auto Center & E Palm Canyon Dr

Cherokee Way & E Palm Canyon Dr

Rancho Mirage

Caltrans D8

County of Riverside

TOTAL 26 31,838 19 4 1 5 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 35


Palm Springs 26

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER

OF SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Linear Distance (ft)



Page | 36

TABLE 16

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 16 – Country Club Drive

1/29/2018


COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral City

Coachella

Desert Hot Springs

Indian Wells

Indio

La Quinta

Country Club Dr & Monterey Ave 26,928 16 3 12 1 32

Country Club Dr & Via Scena

Country Club Dr & Suncrest Regent

Country Club Dr & Palm Greens Via Portofino

Country Club Dr & Portola Ave

Country Club Dr & Desert Springs/Desert Willow

Cook St & Country Club Dr

Country Club Dr & Desert Falls Pkwy

Country Club Dr & El Dorado Dr

Country Club Dr & Palm Valley Dr / Indian Ridge Dr

Country Club Dr & Oasis St/ Tamarisk St

Country Club Dr & Resorter / Liberty

Country Club Dr & Park Center Dr / Barrington Dr

Country Club Dr & Harris Ln

Palm Springs

Country Club Dr & John L. Sinn Rd 13,517 8 1 9

Country Club Dr & Vista Del Sol/ Desert Lakes Dr

Country Club Dr & Vista Dunes

Caltrans D8

County of Riverside

TOTAL 17 40,445 24 0 4 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41


3Rancho Mirage

AGENCY

TOTAL

NUMBER OF

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Linear

Distance (ft)

Palm Desert 14



Page | 37

TABLE 17

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 17 – Monroe Street

1/29/2018


MONROE STREET Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral City

Coachella

Desert Hot Springs

Indian Wells

Monroe St & Avenue 40 26,717 16 6 3 1 3 1 1 31

Monroe St & Avenida Sombra

Monroe St & Avenue 42

Monroe St & Showcase Pkwy

Monroe St & Oleander Ave


Monroe St & Hoover Ave

Monroe St & Miles Ave

Monroe St & Requa Ave

Monroe St & Avenida Del Mar

Monroe St & John Nobles Ave

Monroe St & Dr. Carreon Blvd

Monroe St & Comet Ln


Monroe St & Country Club



La Quinta

Palm Desert

Palm Springs

Rancho Mirage

I-10 EB Ramp(s) & Monroe St 732 1 1 2

I-10 WB Ramp(s) & Monroe St

County of Riverside

TOTAL 19 27,449 17 0 6 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 33


Caltrans D8 2

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER

OF SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Linear

Distance (ft)

Indio 17



Page | 38

TABLE 18

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 18 – Avenue 48

1/29/2018


AVENUE 48 Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral City

CoachellaAvenue 48 & Harrison Pl 500 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Desert Hot Springs

Indian Wells

Avenue 48 & Shields Rd 18,533 13 3 2 1 1 20

Avenue 48 & Madison St

Avenue 48 & Hjorth St

Avenue 48 & Calle Conejo

Avenue 48 & Arabia St

Avenue 48 & Jackson St

Avenue 48 & Shopping Center

Avenue 48 & Calhoun St

Avenue 48 & Dillon Rd

Adams St & Avenue 48 7,920 5 1 1 1 1 9

Dune Palms Rd & Avenue 48


Palm Desert

Palm Springs

Rancho Mirage

I-10 at Dillon Rd (future) 2 1 3

I-10 at Dillon Rd (future)

County of Riverside

TOTAL 12 26,953 21 1 4 3 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 38


Linear

Distance

(ft)

Caltrans D8

Indio 9

La Quinta 3

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER

OF SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS



Page | 39

TABLE 19

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 19 – Sunrise Way

1/29/2018


SUNRISE WY Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral City

Coachella

Desert Hot Springs

Indian Wells

Indio

La Quinta

Palm Desert

Sunrise Wy & San Rafael Dr 21,226 13 3 2 2 1 21

Sunrise Wy & Racquet Club Rd

Sunrise Wy & Via Escuela

Sunrise Wy & Tachevah Dr

Sunrise Wy & Alejo Rd

Sunrise Wy & Amado Rd

Sunrise Wy & Tahquitz Canyon Wy

Sunrise Wy & Baristo Rd

Sunrise Wy & Sunny Dunes Rd

Sunrise Wy & Mesquite Ave

Rancho Mirage

Caltrans D8

County of Riverside

TOTAL 10 21,226 13 0 3 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21


Palm Springs 10

AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER

OF SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Linear

Distance

(ft)



Page | 40

TABLE 20

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 20 – Indian Canyon Drive

1/29/2018


INDIAN CANYON ROAD Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral City

Coachella

Desert Hot Springs1 1 1 1 4

Indian Wells

Indio

La Quinta

Palm Desert

Palm Springs 13 Indian Canyon Dr & 20th Ave 19,851 12 1 2 1 1 1 18

Indian Canyon Dr & Garnet Ave

Indian Canyon Dr & San Rafael Dr

Indian Canyon Dr & Racquet Club Rd

Indian Canyon Dr & Tachevah Dr

Indian Canyon Dr & Tamarisk Rd

Indian Canyon Dr & Alejo Rd

Indian Canyon Dr & Amado Rd

Indian Canyon Dr & Andreas Rd

Indian Canyon Dr & Tahquitz Canyon Wy

Indian Canyon Dr & La Plaza

Indian Canyon Dr & Arenas Rd

Indian Canyon Dr & Baristo Rd

Rancho Mirage

Caltrans D8Indian Canyon Dr & Garnet 1 1

County of Riverside

TOTAL 13 19,851 12 0 2 2 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23


AGENCY

TOTAL NUMBER

OF SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Linear

Distance

(ft)



Page | 41

TABLE 21

Coachella Valley Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Phase II Improvements Final Design Services Sheet Count: Priority Corridor No. 21 – Jackson Street

1/29/2018


JACKSON STREET Sheet Count Conduit Details Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Sheet Detail Structural Sheet Sheet Total

Cathedral City

Coachella

Desert Hot Springs

Indian Wells

Jackson St & Avenue 42 15,999 10 2 4 2 1 19

Jackson St & Showcase Pkwy

Jackson St & Avenue 44

Jackson St & Dillon Ave

Jackson St & Avenue 45

Jackson St & Civic Center Dr

Jackson St & Requa Ave

Jackson St & Date Ave

Jackson St & Dr. Carreon Blvd

La Quinta

Palm Desert

Palm Springs

Rancho Mirage

I-10 EB Ramp(s) & Jackson St 670 1 1 2

I-10 WB Ramp(s) & Jackson St

County of Riverside

TOTAL 11 16,669 11 2 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21


Caltrans D8 2

TOTAL

NUMBER OF

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

Linear

Distance

(ft)

Indio 9

Because We Care

ITEM 7D

Staff Report

Subject: Avenue 50 and Jackson Street intersection improvements Contact: Eric Cowle, Transportation Program Manager ([email protected]) Recommendation: Approve a Reimbursement Agreement with the City of Indio for the Avenue 50 and Jackson Street intersection project. Background: The City of Indio has requested 75% regional funding for the design of a project that would improve the intersection of Avenue 50 and Jackson Street. The City of Indio indicates that the intersection is a major impedance to proper traffic flow and has severe drainage issues that must be addressed. All four legs of the intersection correspond to high-ranking corridors on the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS):

Avenue 50 from Jackson Street to Van Buren – Top-ranked project in the TPPS with 15 points. The intersection project will complete the project already initiated within the City of Coachella. Avenue 50 from Jackson Street to Monroe Street– Ranked 34th on the TPPS with 11 points. This project will widen the section between the Trilogy Substation and Vista Montana to its full width. The length of this section is approximately 800 feet. Jackson Street from Avenue 50 to Avenue 52 – Ranked 10th on the TPPS project with 13 points. This project will extend approximately 1000 feet south to transition into existing Jackson Street. Jackson Street from Avenue 50 to Avenue 48 – Ranked 21st on the TPPS with 12 points. This project will extend widening to Avenue 49/Odlum Drive and complete this TPPS project.

The proposed intersection project will effectively complete two of the top-ranked TPPS projects and construct the intersection to its final design, eliminating stop signs and adding traffic signals. This project will also solve drainage issues. The northwest corner of this intersection is the only corner that has curb, gutter and sidewalk. During storm events, this intersection floods and, with no full infrastructure in place, pedestrian and bicyclists have difficulty crossing safely. In addition, traffic crosses slowly through the flooded intersection, further delaying traffic flows. The proposed regional improvements will provide for safer and efficient operations of the intersection. The intersection traffic signals will be constructed to be consistent with the Regional Signal Synchronization Master Plan and incorporate best practices with respect to bicycle and pedestrian safety. The project will incorporate Community Connectors consistent with the Conceptual CV Link Master Plan. The City of Indio has requested regional funding through the design phase, and estimates the total cost to be $300,000. Indio has secured the support of Riverside County and the City of


Coachella for the project. Any cost participation from those agencies will be administered by the City of Indio under separate agreements. The reimbursement agreement with the City of Indio will include a time trigger requiring the project to be under construction within two years of approval which is 2020. Fiscal Impact: CVAG has transportation funding available to cover a not-to-exceed amount of $225,000, which is 75% of the estimated $300,000 design cost. Attachments: City of Indio request letter City of Coachella letter of support Riverside County letter of support Location exhibit

Legend:

- Widening

- Right of Way Required

- Developer Improvements

Avenue 50 and Jackson Street Improvements

City of Indio

County of Riverside

City of

Coachella

City of Indio

Not to Scale

JACKSON STREET

AV

EN

UE

5

0

ITEM 7E

Staff Report Subject: Contract Amendment for Additional Planning and Environmental Design

Work for CV Link Contact: Martin Magaña, Director of Transportation ([email protected]) Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to execute Amendment #5 to the contract with Alta Planning & Design, with a not-to-exceed amount of $995,000 for additional planning and environmental design work for CV Link. Background: On July 18, 2014, the Executive Committee approved a contract with Alta Planning & Design for planning, design and engineering services related to CV Link in an amount of $6,217,000, plus a 10% contingency over a three-year period. According to the terms, the contract was set to terminate on December 31, 2017. But the Executive Committee in December voted to extend the contract to June 30, 2018 with no additional funds. Alta has completed a significant amount of work on CV Link and continues to finalize the construction drawings and specifications. However, some new tasks have emerged that require additional planning and design work related to CV Link, particularly as it pertains to promoting accessibility to the route that the CVAG Executive Committee approved in May 2017 with the certified CV Link Environmental Impact Report. This work includes design modifications to a bridge across the Whitewater River in Palm Desert east of Cook Street; revised designs and geometrics for the route throughout the City of Palm Desert, such as Painters Path, Park View Drive, Monterey Avenue, Magnesia Falls Drive and Deep Canyon Road additional design work in the City of Palm Springs on Highway 111, North Palm Canyon, Indian Canyon Drive and San Rafael Drive; additional control and survey work; and supporting the design of access and connections from CV Link. Based on the success of the construction of the first segment – for which Alta was contracted by the City of Cathedral City – the amendment also includes construction administration and continued public engagement. Alta’s experience and familiarity with CV Link cannot be replicated, and CVAG staff believes the contract amendment is prudent in order to continue moving the project forward. The construction drawings and specifications that the firm is finalizing as well as the outlined design modifications, will be included as part of the bid package for construction later this year. The Amendment is being finalized and staff anticipates presenting it to the Executive Committee later this month.


Fiscal Analysis: CVAG staff is recommending an amendment to Alta’s contract in an amount not to exceed $995,000 to address these tasks. It is likely that Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds will be used to fund this additional work. Staff is working with our funding partners to allocate the funding needed. An agreement with a scope of work will be prepared for consideration by the CVAG Executive Committee later this month.

ITEM 8a

Staff Report Subject: Status of I-10 Interchange Projects Contact: Eric Cowle, Transportation Program Manager ([email protected])

Recommendation: Receive and File Background: Attached is the latest status report for I-10 interchange projects as of 10/31/2017. Completed

1) Indian Canyon @ I-10 (Mar ‘12) 4) Monterey Avenue Ramp @ I-10 (Apr ’15) 2) Gene Autry/Palm Drive @ I-10 (Mar ’12) 5) Bob Hope/Ramon @ I-10 (Sep ’11) 3) Date Palm Drive @ I-10 (May ’14)

6) Jefferson Street @ I-10 Construction 99% complete. Completing punchlist.

Portola @ I-10 Final PA & ED expected early 2018 for public distribution Monroe @ I-10 Project Study Report (PSR) completed. PA & ED initiated. Jackson @ I-10 Project Study Report (PSR) completed. PA & ED initiated. Ave 50 @ I-10 PS&E contract under way. Dillon Road @ I-10, @ SR86 Re-validating Preliminary Design and Environmental Document. Golf Center Parkway @ I-10 PSR on hold. FISCAL ANALYSIS: Funding for all of the interchange projects has been budgeted for through the project phase indicated, and secured through various funding sources so there is no additional fiscal impact.


Lead CVAG Funded

Project Description Agency PEng ENV PSE ROW CON Through Status

Interchanges

Avenue 50 @ 86S COA Environmental PA & ED underway

Avenue 50 @ I-10 COA PSE PS&E contract under way.

Jefferson @ I-10 COR Construction Constrution 99% complete

Portola @ I-10 PD/COR Construction The final PA&ED approval is expected to be in Springs of 2018.

Golf Center Parkway @ I-10 Indio PSR PSR on hold.

Dillon Road @ I-10, SR86, WWR COA PSR Re-validating Preliminary Design and Environmental Document to comply w/NEPA

Jackson @ I-10 Indio PSR In Environmental PAED. Final ED scheduled for 2/2020

Monroe @ I-10 Indio PSR In Environmental PAED. Final ED scheduled for 2/2020

Arterial Links

Ave. 48 (Jackson St. to Van Buren St.) COA Construction NEPA process ongoing. Construction anticipated spring 2018

Ave. 50 (Calhoun St. to Harrison St) COA Construction PA/ED under way

North Indian Canyon Widening COR/DHS/PS Construction Currently in Design. Phase I paving completed.

Hwy. 111 (Rubidoux to 760' west of Madison St.) Indio Construction Construction underway.

Jackson Street Signal Improvements Indio Construction Construction underway.

Madison St. (Ave 52 to Ave 50) Indio Construction Final phase construction to start in May/June of 2018.

Bridges

Avenue 66 Grade Separation over UPRR COR Construction completing design & env process

Avenue 44 Bridge over WWR Indio Construction Environmental approved. Currently under design (T.Y. Lin)

Avenue 50 Bridge over WWR COA Environmental Caltrans approved PES Mar 23; Hist, bio, air, noise, hydraulic studies submitted.

Cathedral Canyon Bridge CC Construction Prelim Eng complete, ROW Cert Dec 2017, Constr Bid Spring 2018, start Fall 2018.

Date Palm Bridge (Across WWR) CC Construction Construction underway. Completion anticipated Sep 2018.

Dune Palms Bridge over WWR LQ Construction NEPA, CEQA clearances early 2018; RW begins May 2018; Const late 2019

Frank Sinatra Bridge over WWR RM Construction In Final Design, Construction anticipated mid-2019

South Palm Canyon Bridge over Tahquitz Creek PS PSE NEPA and CEQA approved. Project is currently in Final Design. Constr late 2019.

East Palm Canyon Drive Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash PS PSE Environmental and ROW. Constr by fall of 2019.

Indian Canyon (fr. Garnet to & Incl. RR Crossing) PS Construction ROW , Utility relocations and PS&E. Constr fall 2019.

Ramon Bridge Widening PS Construction Continuing ROW negotiations, complete in early 2019. Constr in 2019.

Vista Chino Bridge over WWR PS Prelim Engin Continuing Consultant selection for PS&E Phase. Expect to award April 2018

COR-County of Riverside; RM-Rancho Mirage; IW-Indian Wells; PD-Palm Desert, PS-Palm Springs; CC-Cathedral City; COA-Coachella LQ-La Quinta;

PEng=Preliminary Engineering; Env=Environmental; PSE=Plans, Specifications and Estimate; ROW=Right of Way; CON=Construction

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

Regionial Arterial Program - Project Status Report

3/27/2018ITEM 8b

Lead CVAG Funded

Project Description Agency Design CON Through Status

Bike/Ped Safety Projects

Palm Drive Signals and Lighting DHS Construction Under Design, construction summer 2018

Palm Canyon intersection Pedestrian Enhancements PS Construction Design at 35%, Construction by November 2018

S. Palm Canyon, E. Palm Canyon Improvements PS Construction Under Design, construction June 2018

Indian Canyon Intersection Pedestrian Enhancements PS Construction Design at 65%. Construction by 31 May

Date Palm Sidewalk Gaps CC Construction Under Design. Construction anticipated Summer 2018

Calhoun Street Improvements Indio Construction Under Design

Vista Chino Signals PS Construction Design at 95%. Construction by 31 May

Dinah Shore Mid-block Crossing CC Construction Under Design, construction summer 2018

Palm Canyon Cross-walks PS Construction Under Construction. Completion by 30 April

Avenue 48 Bicycle Lanes Indio Construction Under Design

COR-County of Riverside; RM-Rancho Mirage; IW-Indian Wells; PD-Palm Desert, PS-Palm Springs; CC-Cathedral City; COA-Coachella LQ-La Quinta;

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Program - Project Status Report

3/27/2018ITEM 8c

ITEM 8c

CVAG JURISDICTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

Blythe * ✓ - - H - -

Cathedral City * ✓ - - H - -

Coachella * ✓ - - H - -

Desert Hot Springs * ✓ - - H - -

Indian Wells * ✓ - - H - -

Indio * ✓ - - H - -

La Quinta * ✓ - - H - -

Palm Desert * ✓ - - H - -

Palm Springs * ✓ - - H - -

Rancho Mirage * ✓ - - H - -

Riverside County * ✓ - - H - -

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians * ✓ - - H - -

Absent

No Meeting *

Scheduled Dark Month -

Holiday H

2018 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE ROSTER

transportation committee agenda...transportation committee agenda monday, april 2, 2018 9:00 a.m....

Documents