The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-229 TUMF ORDINANCE NO. 2017-229 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF kOENIFEE AMENDING AND SUPERSEDING ORDINANCE NO. 2014-144 TO UPDATE PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION LJN|FQRR0 MITIGATION FEE (TUKOF) PROGRAM The City COUOc{| of the City of Menifee, California ordains as fO||OvvS: Section . Title. This Ordinance Sh8U be hOOvvn as the "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Pn}g[@FD Ordinance of 2017" /"C)PdiD8OQe"\. Section . Findings. A. The City is @ [nenob8r 8g8DCy of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("VVRCC}{3")' a joint powers agency CoDlp[iS8d of the County Of Riverside and 18 Cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, the VVRC[}G Member Agencies developed 8 p|GO whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System Of Highways and /\rte[|8|S in Western Riverside County (the "Regional System") could be made up in part by a Transportation Unih3[[D K8idggbVn Fee ("TUK0F') on future residential, cVnOr08rCi8| and industrial development. A Onop depicting the boundaries of Western Riverside County and the Regional System is attached here as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. AsoMember Agency OfVVRC[)G and as 8 TU&1F Participating Jurisdiction, the City participated in the preparation of certain "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Fee Nexus Study," dated October 18. 2002 (the "2002 Nexus Study") prepared in COrDp|iGOce with the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 68000 e/38q.\ and adopted by the VVRCOG Executive Committee. Based on the 2002 Nexus Study, the City adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing the City's participation in a TUK8F PF0g[8nO. ' B. VVRCC>{3' with the owaiSt3nDe OfTUMF Participating JUhSdi[tion8, has prepared an UpU2i8d nexus study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2016 Update" ("2016 N8XUS Study") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 eto8q. (the Mitigation Fee /\ct)' for the purpose of updating the fees. On July 10. 2017' the VVRC(]G Executive Committee reviewed the 2010 Nexus Study and TUK8F PnDg[2rD and recommended TUK8F Participating JU[iSdiC[iOOS amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF OetvvoFh and the COSt of construction in order to update the l-UK4F Program. C. Consistent with its previous findings made in the adoption of Ordinance No . the City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged and unless development contributes to the coot of improving the R8giOO8| GySt8Dl' the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of VVeSte[D Riverside County, with UnaCC8pt@b|8 Levels of Service. Furthe[0O[e, the failure to mitigate growing traffic iDlp2CtS on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thUS, adversely affect the public he8|th, safety and welfare. Thenafore, continuation of TUK8F Program is essential. D. The City Council finds and determines that there is a neGSOn8b|e and r8tiOO8| relationship between the use of the TUW1F and the type Of development projects on which the 20323.00004\29880484.3 fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development in which the TUMF will be levied. E. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional system. Such development will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such developments will be mitigated in part by payment of the TUMF. F. The City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the new 2016 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements and the facilities that compromise the Regional System, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development. G. The fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and real acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2016 Nexus Study. The need for the improvements and facilities is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic and creates the demand for the improvements. H. By notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the 2016 Nexus Study and the fees proposed thereunder and at least ten (10) days prior to this hearing, the City Council made the 2016 Nexus Study available to the public. I. At the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing. J. The City Council finds that the 2016 Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional system. K. The City Council hereby adopts the 2016 Nexus Study and its findings. The 2016 Nexus Study is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B." L. The City Council hereby adopts this Ordinance to amend and supersede the provisions of Ordinance No. 2014-144. Section 3. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. "Class `A' Office" means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, on site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved 2 parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class `A" Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of three stories (exception will be made for March JPA, where height requirements exist); (ii) minimum of 10,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/exits for commercial uses within the building. B. "Class `B' Office" means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, on site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class `B" Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of two stories; (ii) minimum of 15,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame, concrete or masonry shell construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/exits for commercial uses within the building. C. "Development Project" or "Proiect" means any project undertaken for the purposes of development, including the issuance of a permit for construction. D. "Gross Acreage" means the total property area as shown on a land division of a map of record, or described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area shall be bounded by road rights of way and property lines. E. "Habitable Structure" means any structure or part thereof where persons reside, congregate or work and which is legally occupied in whole or part in accordance with applicable building codes, and state and local laws. F. "Industrial Proiect" means any development project that proposes any industrial or manufacturing use allowed in the following Ordinance No. 348 zoning classifications: I-P, M-S-C, M-M, M-H, M-R, M-R-A, A-1, A-P, A-2, A-D, W-E, or SP with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone. G. "Low Income Residential Housing" means "Residential Affordable Units": (A) for rental housing, the units shall be made available, rented and restricted to "lower income households" (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) at an "affordable rent" (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053), ). Affordable units that are rental housing shall be made available, rented, and restricted to lower income households at an affordable rent for a period of at least fifty-five (55) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new residential development. and (B) for for-sale housing, the units shall be sold to "persons or families of low or moderate income" (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093) at a purchase price that will not cause the purchaser's monthly housing cost to exceed "affordable housing cost (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5) Affordable units that are for-sale housing units shall be restricted to ownership by persons and families of low or moderate income for at least forty-five (45) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residential development. H. "Multi-Family Residential Unit" means a development project that has a density of greater than eight (8) residential dwelling units per gross acre. 3 I. "Non-Residential Unit" means retail commercial, service commercial and industrial development which is designed primarily for non-dwelling use, but shall include hotels and motels. J. "Recognized Financing District" means a Financing District as defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan as may be amended from time to time. K. "Residential Dwelling Unit" means a building or portion thereof used by one (1) family and containing but one (1) kitchen, which is designed primarily for residential occupancy including single-family and multi-family dwellings. "Residential Dwelling Unit" shall not include hotels or motels. L. "Retail Commercial Project" means any development project that proposes any retail commercial activity use not defined as a service commercial project allowed in the following Ordinance No. 348 classifications: R-1, R-R, R-R-O, R-1-A, R-A, R-2, R-2-A, R-3, R-3- A, R-T, R-T-R, R-4, R-5, R-6, C-1/C-P, C-T, C-P-S, C-R, C-O, R-V-C, C-V, W-2, R-D, N-A, W-2- M, W-1, or SP with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone, which can include any eating/dining facility residing on the retail commercial development premises. M. "Service Commercial Project" means any development project that is predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal, and medical offices eating/dining facilities, and other uses related to personal or professional services. N. "Single Family Residential Unit" means each residential dwelling unit in a development that has a density of eight (8) units to the gross acre or less. O. "TUMF Participating Jurisdiction" means a jurisdiction in Western Riverside County which has adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing participation in the TUMF Program and complies with all regulations established in the TUMF Administrative Plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the WRCOG. P. "Disabled Veteran" means any veteran who is retired or is in process of medical retirement from military service who is or was severely injured in a theatre of combat operations and has or received a letter of eligibility for the Veterans Administration Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Grant Program. Q. Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities means any owned and operated facilities by a government entity in accordance with Section G. Exemptions, Subsection 2. of this Ordinance. A new development that is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency for government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities shall apply only if all of the following conditions are met: (a) The new development being constructed is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency. (b) The project shall have a deed restriction placed on the property that limits the use to government/public facility for the term of the lease, including all extension options, for a period of not less than 20 years. Any change in the use of the facility from government shall trigger the payment of the TUMF in effect at the time of the change is made. 4 (c) No less than ninety percent of the total square footage of the building is leased to the government agency during the term of deed restriction the long term and any extensions thereof. (d) The new development is constructed at prevailing wage rates. (e) A copy of the lease is provided to the applicable jurisdiction and to WRCOG. (f) Based on the facts and circumstances WRCOG determines that the intent of the lease is to provide for a long-term government use, and not to evade payment of TUMF. R. "Non-profit Organization" means an organization operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial port of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, the non-profit may be a 501(c) (3) charitable organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Service. S. "Long-Term Lease" as used in the TUMF Program, a "long-term lease" shall mean a lease with a term of no less than twenty years. T. "Mixed-Use Development" as used in the TUMF Program, means Developments with the following criteria: (1) three or more significant revenue-producing uses, and (2) significant physical and functional integration of project components. U. "Guest Dwellings" and "Detached Second Units" according to the State of California legal definition as following: 1) The second unit is not intended for sale and may be rented; 2) The lot is zoned for single-family dwellings; 3) The lot contains an existing single- family dwelling; 4) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling; and 5) Are ministerially amended by each jurisdiction's local codes. .V. "TUMF Administrative Plan" means that the TUMF Administration Plan adopted by the WRCOG Execution Committee May 5, 2003, as amended, setting forth detailed administration procedures and requirements for the TUMF program. Section 4. Establishment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. A. Adoption of TUMF Schedule. The City Council shall adopt an applicable TUMF schedule through a separate resolution, which may be amended from time to time. B. Fee Calculation. The fees shall be calculated according to the calculation methodology fee set forth in the WRCOG TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. In addition to data in the Fee Calculation Handbook, WRCOG Staff and the local agency may consider the following items when establishing the appropriate fee calculation methodology: • Underlying zoning of the site • Land-use classifications in the latest Nexus Study • Project specific traffic studies 5 • Latest Standardized reference manuals such as the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual • Previous TUMF calculations for similar uses • WRCOG staff shall approve final draft credit/ reimbursement agreement prior to execution WRCOG shall have final determination regarding the appropriate methodology to calculate the fee based on the information provided. In case of a conflict between the applicant, WRCOG, and/or the local agency regarding the fee calculation methodology, the dispute resolution process in the TUMF Administrative Plan will apply. C. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to the Resolution reference is subsection A, above, the fees may be increased or decreased to reflect the changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System including, but not limited to; debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Ordinance, as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to construct the Regional System. WRCOG shall review the TUMF Program no less than every four(4) years after the effective date of this Ordinance.- D. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional System as depicted in Exhibit "A" and identified in the 2016 Nexus Study, Exhibit "B." E. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the City, unless otherwise exempt hereunder. F. Exemptions. The following types of new development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance and in TUMF Administrative Plan: 1. Low income residential housing as described in Section 3 Definitions, Subsection G of this Ordinance and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. 2. Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities as described in Section 3. Definitions, Subsection Q. of this Ordinance and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Airports that are public use airports and are appropriately permitted by Caltrans or other state agency. 3. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq, prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 2009-40, wherein the imposition of new fees are expressly prohibited, provided that if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended by amendment or by any other manner after the effective date of Ordinance No. 2009-40, the TUMF shall be imposed. 4. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any habitable structure in use on or after January 1, 2000, provided that the same or fewer traffic trips are generated as a result thereof. 5. Guest Dwellings and Detached Second Units as described in this Ordinance in Section 3. Definitions, Subsection U. and in the Administrative Plan 6. Kennels and Catteries established in connection with an existing single family residential unit. 7. Any sanctuary, or other activity under the same roof of a church or other house of worship that is not revenue generating and is eligible for a property tax 6 A. Authority of the Building Department. The Director of Building & Safety, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized to levy and collect the TUMF and make all determinations required by this Ordinance in a manner consistent with the TUMF Administrative Plan. B. Payment. Payment of the fees shall be as follows: i. The fees shall be paid at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Development Project or upon final inspection, whichever comes first (the "Payment Date"). However this section should not be construed to prevent payment of the fees prior to issuance of an occupancy permit or final inspection. Fees may be paid at the issuance of a building permit, and the fee payment shall be calculated based on the fee in effect at that time, provided the developer tenders the full amount of his/her TUMF obligation. If the developer makes only a partial payment prior to the Payment Date, the amount of the fee due shall be based on the TUMF fee schedule in place on the Payment Date. The fees shall be calculated according to fee schedule set forth in the Ordinance and the calculation methodology set forth in the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. ii. The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment is due under this Ordinance, not the date the Ordinance is initially adopted. The City shall not enter into a development agreement which freezes future adjustments of the TUMF. iii. If all or part of any development project is sold prior to payment of the fee. the property shall continue to be subject to the requirement for payment of the fee. The obligation to pay the fee shall run with the land and be binding on all the successors in interest to the property. iv. Fees shall not be waived. C. Disposition of Fees. All fees collected hereunder shall be transmitted to the Executive Director of WRCOG along with a corresponding Remittance Report by the tenth (10) day of the close of the month for the previous month in which the fees were collected for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, TUMF Administrative Plan, and the Mitigation Fee Act. D. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed with WRCOG in accordance with the provisions of the TUMF Administrative Plan. Appealable issues shall be the application of the fee, application of credits, application of reimbursement, application of the legal action stay and application of exemption. E. Reports to WRCOG. The Director of Building and Safety, or his/her designee, shall prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, periodic reports as will be established under Section 7 of this Ordinance. Section 7. Appointment of the TUMF Administrator. WRCOG is hereby appointed as the Administrator of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program. WRCOG is hereby authorized to receive all fees generated from the TUMF within the City, and to invest, account for and expend such fees in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act. The detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this Ordnance shall be contained in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Furthermore, the TUMF Administrator shall use the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time, for the purpose of calculating a developer's TUMF 8 obligation. In addition to detailing the methodology for calculating all TUMF obligations of different categories of new development, the purpose of the Fee Calculation Handbook is to clarify for the TUMF Administrator, where necessary, the definition and calculation methodology for uses not clearly defined in the respective TUMF ordinances. WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the TUMF for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent (1%) of the revenue raised by the TUMF Program. The TUMF Administrative Plan further outlines the fiscal responsibilities and limitations of the Administrator. Section 8. Effect. No provisions of this Ordinance shall entitle any person who has already paid the TUMF to receive a refund, credit or reimbursement of such payment. This Ordinance does not create any new TUMF. Section 9. Severability. If any one or more of the terms, provisions or sections of this Ordinance shall to any extent be judged invalid, unenforceable and/or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, then each and all of the remaining terms, provisions and sections of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable. Section 10. No Procedural Defenses. Prohibition of Jurisdictions from raising procedural defenses, including without limitation a statute of limitations, laches, the California Government Tort Claims Act, and necessary parties in a dispute with WRCOG regarding the matters set forth herein. Section 11. Judicial Review. In accordance with State law, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this Ordinance shall be commenced within 90 days of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. Section 12. Ordinance No. 2017- This Ordinance supersedes the provisions of Ordinance No. 2014-144 provided this Ordinance is not declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction. If, for whatever reason, this Ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, Ordinance No. 2014-144 all other related ordinances and polices shall remain in full force and effect. Section 13. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect sixty (60) days after its adoption. 9 MOVED AND PASSED upon this 4th day of October 2017. By: \ Neil R. W nter, Mayor ATTEST: k`-�arah A. Manwaring, City Clee APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffery T. Melchinity Attorney 10 EXHIBIT "A" MAP OF REGIONAL SYSTEM EXHIBIT"A" 20323.00004\29880484.3 Legend �, NMm.F NwnCm gf Lams r— , moa�came�a�Pao it , .r Pass ZoneaaaMae�aea�a . z Pa , [ae11a—1-Ra dL,e � �y 3 � .,. ♦ +�43 f3.1 it:ra �; ® New RaY 6eaee Croaeing ftetl�oaJz A o OreJO Oroas ng 1 "Central Zone L,N o est Zone MP .ae aee ry JAM i _ o N,� � mP..ame rea,aRoaea ,...1,.-_ j - t B—.— Hem ga.aaale et/San Jacin.t ® e Zone Southwest Zone WRGOG oa Mgaa J' C Regional System of Highways and Arterials �°.-°r°° Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program I Figure 4.4 EXHIBIT "B» NEXUS STUDY EXHIBIT B" 20323.00004129880484.3 e gi"fir ��,�a, ��, Y;�y'1�� ►� TRANSPORTATION UNIFORMMITIGATION NEXUST 2016 UPDATE WRCOG FINAL REPORT Prepared for the Western Riverside Council of Governments In Cooperation with The City of Banning The City of Beaumont The City of Calimesa The City of Canyon Lake The City of Corona The City of Eastvale The City of Hemet The City of Jurupa Valley The City of Lake Elsinore The City of Menifee The City of Moreno Valley The City of Murrieta The City of Norco The City of Perris The City of Riverside The City of San Jacinto The City of Temecula The City of Wildomar The County of Riverside Eastern Municipal Water District March Joint Powers Authority Morongo Band of Mission Indians Riverside County Superintendent of Schools Riverside Transit Agency Western Municipal Water District Prepared by WSP ft c«w*cum r'"vte i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................i LISTOF TABLES....................................................................................................................................ii ES.0 Executive Summary ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study.............................................................iii ES.2 Future Growth ..................................................................................................................vi ES.3 Need for the TUMF...........................................................................................................vi ES.4 The TUMF Network ..........................................................................................................vii i ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis.........................................................................................................x ES.6 Fair-Share Fee Calculation .............................................................................................x ES.7 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................xi 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY.....................................................1 1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................1 1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History ................................................................................................2 1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process ..............................................................................................4 1.3.1 . Establish the TUMF Network Project List.................................................................6 1.3.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs.........................................................7 1.3.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component..............................................................8 1.3.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments ............................................8 1.3.5. Computing the Fee for Non-Residential Developments....................................9 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH.................................................................................................................12 2.1 Recent Historical Trend..................................................................................................12 2.2 Available Demographic Data .....................................................................................12 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis..............................13 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF ...........................................................................................................19 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels.............................................................................19 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels.......................................................................................22 3.3 The TUMF Concept.........................................................................................................23 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK..........................................................................................•.................25 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network...........................................................25 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network...........................................................28 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs......................................................................31 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System ..........................................36 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding...........................................................................................39 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs.....................................................................39 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost........................................................................................41 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation..............................................................................................51 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................53 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements ..........................................53 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components...............................................................54 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non-Residential Developments...............57 6.0 FAIR-SHARE FEE CALCULATION.........................................................................................58 6.1 Residential Fees ..............................................................................................................58 6.2 Non-Residential Fees......................................................................................................59 7.0 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................61 8.0 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................62 WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update i July 10, 2017 LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1 -Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County..............xii Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County................. 13 Table 2.2- Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County............15 Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) ........................................................................................................16 Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison)..........................................................18 Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline to 2040 No-Build)........................................................................................................20 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction.....................................34 Table 4.2- Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County.........................................34 Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures.............................................................38 Table 4.4-TUMF Network Cost Estimates ..................................................................................44 Table 4.5-TUMF Transit Cost Estimates......................................................................................51 Table 4.6- Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build Scenarios to 2040 TUMF Build Scenario)...................................52 Table 5.1 - 2040 Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone.................................................55 Table 5.2- 2040 Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone..................................55 Table 5.3- Backbone-Secondary Network Share Calculation .............................................56 Table 5.4- Peak Period VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2012- 2040)...........................................................................................................57 Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share....................................................................59 Table 6.2- Fee Calculation for Non-Residential Share ...........................................................60 Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County...............61 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process..................................v Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) ........................................................................................................vii Figure ES.3- Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network Improvements .. ix Figure 1.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process....................................5 Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County...............14 Figure 2.2- Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County........... 15 Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) ........................................................................................................17 Figure 2.4- Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison)..........................................................18 Figure 4.1 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County.....27 Figure 4.2-The Backbone Network of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County....................................................................................................................29 Figure 4.3- Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) ......................30 Figure 4.4- Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network Improvements ...43 WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update ii July 10, 2017 ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000's, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. Although the economic recession of the late 2000's, and the associated crises in the mortgage and housing industries, has slowed this rate of growth, the region is expected to rebound and the projected growth in Western Riverside County is expected to increase. This increase in growth could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for southwest Riverside County. In August 2000, the concept was expanded to include the entire WRCOG sub- region. The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority, the Riverside Transit Agency and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future development will contribute toward addressing the impacts of new growth on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Draft Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. The results of the first review of the Program were WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update Hi July 10, 2017 documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015 leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015. The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015 where it was resolved to "delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments' 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the Nexus Study". The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016 enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is illustrated in Figure ES.1. Each technical step is denoted with a number on the flow chart with the numbers correlating to the detailed description of each step provided in Section 1.3 of the Nexus Study Report. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM), steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in the Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the final results of the third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program to incorporate the revisions completed during 2016. This version of the document also incorporates revisions in response to comments received during the 45 day review of the earlier Draft TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update iv July 10, 2017 Figure ES.t -Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process TLNF Road Project Ust WRAF Road Waiect Cast Estimates UNFTowd Canted 1 2M2"—eq8 W" `'anda�Wibt t+Y U.:C au Ter PON I _� �._..�)11 pTA OPer TWissC*Nft I i Emptayment 'fatf8 &Edgmea imaay type &CanstracUon analysts( � .. _.� _�.. t- TUW Los I Q Tm t t o .. Tt sa.eoen -rev`' i, xotz 1 CtESOMMO ter 1 tQs «— --•J. �ta�r L J --- 4 0 to - �vtiaam®et - @ t �pundsA aibble.� oComte fromr TWA se—s Nxvr ftVWft -�-� Non•ResidentiW Fee Calculator tTE tdp�i«n Haws uy-' aWe 6 2& udi L) Resideati I Fee calculation t 3YrN. tt _ '-I axaaxl Lana Uma caan! � Wwe (Table 6.1 8 Appendix X) �._ RE Percent 1, s "siwcmtnt- 1 V+" ec c�%�p .�_Tap-(en ctu�a � 0(.TAs►dr 3 (We 2.3) ,._. TO WWI) Ls�r �� i Rivwade Caanry . far sfO8A O €# 4Employas v zby --t i'wcVor(XaMe L _� tT 2 E L?)' � 41 _ t CmaTa� � -._.. . Af46ieselws feeAtr sF Tt@seen" a$raaa - a s _ KEY 4DWe'nV"'em Ueecrgwon to Tent Fss rosa+rePmlact 3 OUw Mas DRWRCOG v Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10,2017 ES.2 Future Growth For earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Recognizing the need to develop a more comprehensive source of socioeconomic data for Riverside County, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the University of California, Riverside in 2005. RCCDR provided demographic estimates and forecasts for Riverside County as input to the SCAG regional forecasts as well as providing the demographic basis for the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM). RCCDR data was used as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. As directed by the WRCOG Executive Committee, the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS demographics forecasts were utilized as the basis for this 2016 Update of the TUMF Nexus Study. A major distinction between RCCDR data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data used for this 2016 Update is the change in the base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2035 to 2040. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation. The population of Western Riverside County is projected to increase by 37% in the period between 2012 and 2040. During the same period, employment in Western Riverside County is anticipated to grow by 87%. Figure ES.2 illustrates the forecast growth in population, household and employment for Western Riverside County. ES.3 Need for the TUMF The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the TUMF study area included total vehicle miles of travel (VMT), total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E). As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure, particularly the arterial roadways, with the peak period VMT on the TUMF Network estimated to increase by 63% between 2012 and 2040. By 2040, 57% of the total VMT on the TUMF Network is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing peak period LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on the TUMF Network will increase over 4.9% per year. The need to improve these roadways and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the travel demand. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update A July 10, 2017 Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) 2,500,000 — 7- 2,000,000 ,-2,000,000 Fr� �t 3> F, 1,500,000 gt7 429,633 K '` �a Household Type: 1,000,000 ,773,935 - ❑Single-Family 13 Multi-Family e 201,328 500,000 - i 539 631 r 101,724 -� Employment Sector: 366,588 z �{ 120,736 _ ❑Industrial ©Retail t �ti o,�o hoc ryo pap oService Q3 pia o`as a`'� yo`�' ao 510 ❑ ` Government 2 -\a As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. Weekday system ridership for RTA bus transit services is approximately 31,016 riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2015. By 2025, bus transit services are forecast to serve approximately 46,572 riders per weekday. This represents an average increase of 1,414 weekday riders each year. Based on this rate of ridership growth, weekday ridership is estimated to increase by 41,011 riders per weekday between 2012 and 2040. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer-distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update vii July 10, 2017 The fee should be assessed proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each use on the transportation system. ESA The TUMF Network The Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the TUMF Network) is the system of roadways that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied select performance guidelines were identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. This framework was reviewed by representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions and private sector stakeholders, and endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The TUMF Network was refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance". The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system and on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. Figure ES.3 illustrates the TUMF improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.76 billion. Accounting for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $2.96 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $2.71 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $92.6 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $43.3 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $112.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update viii July 70, 2077 Legend v _ -�� 1161 aNN b of lanes Fli F, 3 Lanes �^, � r Trap.rTraaatlarFa�l„ s•'` Pass Zone 5karea Mer J camracp„M.rRapmup $ a ® Naw Ratl GraEa Grose ng-Central Zone Relraaea m O Complex New rxe lakes 8 Revers ry hwvest �sr�e - -� 1 t 1, i � �.�w� 'n` � f � or neem a 9eBMod,fiwlan � TUMF Zone Bountlary 54� k � � - � y` dk �k ,"1 � O3 Mepr tnrercbaye p ? ,� �lNs.a � �raarasR�aa 3 � a6N,k.�,66NMkrbaa�aab>,�ro,rrt�na.aaba.�p.RaarNa.rw°drerm,pa�,� r rase a 4 I \ SouthwestZone wRGOG a z +� Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program I Figure ES.3 ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis There is a reasonable relationship between the future growth and the need for improvements to the TUMF system. These factors include: ➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. ➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. ➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. ➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of peak period trips between zones. The overall result is that 50.7% of the regional travel is attributable to the backbone network and 49.3% is assigned to the secondary network. In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, peak period growth in VMT between 2012 and 2040 was derived from RivTAM and aggregated by trip purpose. It was concluded that home-based person trips represent 71.0% of the total future person trips, and the non-home-based person trips represent 29.0% of the total future person trips. ES.6 Fair-Share Fee Calculation The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $2.96 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their "fair share"of the WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update x July 10, 2017 costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.96 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 71.0% ($2.10 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 29.0% ($858.7 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. ES.7 Conclusions Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be demonstrated that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: ➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. ➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways; ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County; ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development; ➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program; ➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automotive travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. The fair share fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table ES.1. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update xi July 10, 2017 Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development Fee Per Unit Total Revenue Change ($ million) Single Family Residential DU 173,043 $9,418 $1,629.8 Multi Family Residential DU 77,039 $6,134 $472.5 Industrial SF GFA 64,710,138 $1.77 $114.8 Retail SF GFA 17,920,500 $12.31 $220.5 Service SF GFA 105,21 1,915 $4.56 $480.0 Government/Public SF GFA 2,696,349 $16,08 $43.4 MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $2,961.0 WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update xii July 10, 2017 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY 1.1 Background Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000's, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. Although the economic recession of the late 2000's, and the associated crises in the mortgage and housing industries, slowed this rate of growth, the regional economy is continuing to rebound and the projected rate of development in Western Riverside County is expected to increase. This increase in growth could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. Development exactions only provide improvements near the development site, and the broad-based county-level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half-cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. In anticipation of the continued future growth projected in Riverside County, several county-wide planning processes were initiated in 1999. These planning processes include the Riverside County General Plan Update, the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Related to these planning processes is the need to fund the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development. Regional arterial highways in Western Riverside County are forecast to carry significant traffic volumes by 2040. While some localized fee programs exist to mitigate the local impacts of new development on the transportation system in specific areas, and while these programs are effective locally, they are insufficient in their ability to meet the regional demand for transportation infrastructure. Former Riverside County Supervisor Buster recognized the need to establish a comprehensive funding source to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional arterial highways. The need to establish a comprehensive funding source for arterial highway improvements has evolved into the development of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for Western Riverside County. In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a TUMF. The intent of this effort was to have the southwest area of Western Riverside County act as a demonstration for the development of policies and a process for a regional TUMF Program before applying the concept countywide. From February 1999 to September 2000, the Southwest Area Transportation Infrastructure System WRCOG I Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 10, 2077 Funding Year 2020 (SATISFY 2020) Program progressed with policy development, the identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates, fee scenarios and a draft Implementation Agreement. In May 2000, Riverside County Supervisor Tavaglione initiated discussions in the northwest area of Western Riverside County to determine the level of interest in developing a TUMF for that area of the county. Interest in the development of a northwest area fee program was high. In August 2000, the WRCOG Executive Committee took action to build upon the work completed in the southwest area for the SATISFY 2020 program and to develop a single consolidated mitigation fee program for all of Western Riverside County. This action was predicated on the desire to establish a single uniform mitigation fee program to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system, rather than multiple discrete and disparate fee programs with varying policies, fees and improvement projects. A TUMF Policy Committee comprising regional elected officials was formed to recommend and set policies for staff to develop the TUMF Program and provide overall guidance to all other staff committees. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future new development will contribute toward addressing its indirect cumulative traffic impacts on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements such as new arterial highway lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act), which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow two basic rules when instituting impact fees. These rules are as follows: 1) Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development impact fee's use and the type of project for which the fee is required. 2) The fee must not exceed the project's proportional "fair share" of the proposed improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems or to make improvements for existing development. 1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for WRCOG 2 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority, the Riverside Transit Agency and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. A current list of the standing WRCOG TUMF related committees and committee membership is included in Appendix A. The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. Its purpose was to establish the nexus or reasonable relationship between new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the proposed development impact fee that would be used to improve regional transportation facilities. It also identified the proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development. Consistent with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act, the WRCOG Executive Committee has established that the TUMF Nexus Study will be subject of a comprehensive review of the underlying program assumptions at least every five years to confirm the Nexus. Acknowledging the unprecedented and unique nature of the TUMF Program, the Executive Committee determined that the first comprehensive review of the Program should be initiated within two years of initial adoption of the Program primarily to validate the findings and recommendations of the study and to correct any program oversights. The results of the first review of the Program were documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015 leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015. The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015 where it was resolved to "delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments' 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the Nexus Study". The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016 enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the final results of the third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program to incorporate the revisions completed during 2016. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017. To ensure new development continues to contribute a fair share of the cost to mitigate its cumulative regional transportation impacts in the period between the comprehensive review of program assumptions completed at least every five years, the WRCOG 3 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 WRCOG Executive Committee has also established that the TUMF Schedule of Fees will be reviewed annually, and adjusted, as needed, on July I,' to reflect current costs. The revised schedule of fees will be recalculated in February of each year based on the percentage increase or decrease in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the twelve (12) month period from January of the prior year to January of the current year, and the percentage increase or decrease in the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Median Sales Price of Existing Single Family Homes in the Riverside/San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area for the twelve (12) month period from the 3rd Quarter of the second year prior to the 3rd Quarter of the prior year (to coincide with the publication of the most recently updated index). If approved by the Executive Committee, the resultant percentage change for each of the indices will be applied to the unit cost assumptions for roadway and bus transit costs, and land acquisition costs, respectively, to reflect the combined effects of changes in eligible project costs on the resultant per unit fee for each defined land use category. 1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process In coordination with WRCOG, city and county representatives, developers, and other interested parties reviewed and updated the underlying assumptions of the Nexus Study as part of this comprehensive program review. In particular, the most recent socioeconomic forecasts developed by SCAG as the basis for the 2016 RTP/SCS were incorporated, as resolved by the WRCOG Executive Committee at the September 14, 2015 meeting. This use of the most recent SCAG forecasts resulted in a shift of the program base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as a shift in the program horizon year from 2035 to 2040. Furthermore, the TUMF Network was re-examined in detail based on travel demand forecasts derived from the most recent version of the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM) to more accurately reflect future project needs to address the cumulative regional impacts of new development in Western Riverside County as well as eliminating those projects having been completed prior to the commencement of the Nexus review in 2016. The subsequent chapters of this Nexus Study document describe the various assumptions, data inputs and analysis leading to the determination of each major variable in the TUMF calculation, and ultimately leading to the determination of the TUMF Schedule of Fees that indicates the maximum "fair share" fee for each of the various use types defined in the TUMF program. The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is summarized in this section, including the flow chart in Figure 1.1 that illustrates the various technical steps in this fee calculation process. Each technical step that was followed to determine the TUMF Schedule of Fees and establish the program nexus is summarized below, with the numbers denoted on the flow chart correlating to the steps described. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of RivTAM, steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in this Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step. WRCOG 4 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 10, 2017 Figure 1.1 -Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process TUMF Road Prgect list TUMF Road Rmiect Col Es Haft TUMFTrmd CompomM '.H.AG WWon � S'Cpo Fweersl Tl16XF 66eess��n� tigda�l Tl�1f� � RTA � iW#Eaktiwn E ?M2Nn;m;g& fiu 3+KRtbrxaafxry 84and+vxWbp Urex Ca Ct_ - E.mpip�»aN I �r `f'kT�-'dAlit i & nceVkj type 1 BAmSkUC4oe �tAP1�rA Fi � q) i 1 "y S.J M------7t _.___ .AEna i Tr tf# ....., �. .. 1 LL rc t k � i i ruMFi s utas' NuTe ... .`3 1 ..4 Non- ' Fee CdculaUon Resido tial Fee Caleulation t? Tr p-cwo l eP (Talda til SAppeMO[4 .. exMadu>d tike Gude, (Table 81$MPendG R) e!►.._ �f4�vAei3a i79RR) i acF�sFaur°FoRat�ssseyTgs ! 1, rtp Tt•rieFn RE Pa+caef Cater (TaNb 2B) (SmA EdMon/.. {pia{,^@} i� fiaaxal {2D45) _.._ ._.__. ( _ SSW& '. 1 GrowRf lin 6aspbyees� - �; Seciv � Sfsaae t WPAO F"WSF +�f. I apmRa Tem Nem J s � J WRCOG 5 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10,2017 1.1.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List The roadway network in Western Riverside County must be evaluated to determine how new development activity will impact the performance of the network, and how the resultant traffic impacts can be mitigated by completing various roadway improvements. The following steps integrate the latest SCAG socio-economic forecasts into RivTAM as the basis for determining future roadway deficiencies and identifying the list of eligible improvements to address these future deficiencies. The rational and methodology for accomplishing these steps is further explained in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report, with the resultant TUMF Network described in Chapter 4. 1) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2012 as its base year. This officially-adopted dataset was updated for the base for the TUMF 2016 Nexus Update, including redistribution of the SCAG data to correspond to the RivTAM TAZ structure. 2) The RivTAM model' has datasets available that represent the capacity of the different facilities in the road network for several different study years. For this nexus update, the RivTAM 2012 base network that was developed following the adoption of the SCAG 2012 RTP was selected as the one most closely resembling current conditions. This network was subsequently reviewed and updated, including a detailed review by WRCOG and participating jurisdictions, as well as partner entities, including BIA, to identify projects that were completed on the arterial network in the period between 2012 and December 2015. The arterial network was then recoded to reflect the changes to the TUMF Network to create a 2015 existing network as the basis for analysis. 3) RivTAM was run using the 2012 socio-economic data (SED) and the 2015 road network to produce the baseline volumes on the roads in the TUMF Network. 4) The baseline volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio was then determined. The target LOS for TUMF facilities is "D", meaning that facilities with LOS "E" or "F", i.e. those with a V/C ratio of 0.9 or higher, are deemed to have inadequate capacity. The result of this step is a list of roads that have existing capacity deficiencies. 5) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2040 as its forecast horizon year. This officially-adopted dataset was also used as the future base year for the TUMF update calculation. 6) RivTAM was run using the arterial road network for 2015 with the land use assumptions for 2040. This "No Build" scenario was used to determine where The macro-level traffic forecasting was conducted using the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM). RivTAM is a version of SCAG's six-county model with additional detail (traffic analysis zones and local roads) added within Riverside County. It was developed for use in traffic studies in Riverside County as a replacement for several older models that covered different portions of the county.RivTAM has both the geographic scope needed to analyze all TUMF facilities and conformity with regional planning assumptions.There is a memorandum of understanding among the jurisdictions of Riverside County that encourages the use of the RivTAM model for use in traffic studies. WRCOG 6 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2077 deficiencies would occur in the roadway system if development occurred as expected but no roadway improvements were implemented. 7) Comparing the existing capacity deficiencies with the future deficiencies showed where new deficiencies would occur that are entirely attributable to new development. Comparing the existing and future traffic volume to capacity ratio on the roads that are currently deficient shows the portion of the future deficiency that is attributable to new development. 8) It is generally acknowledged that the TUMF program cannot and should not attempt to fund every roadway improvement needed in Western Riverside County. WRCOG has adopted a set of selection criteria that was used to choose which roadway improvements would be eligible for TUMF funding. 9) The selection criteria were applied to the forecast deficiencies to identify projects for the TUMF Project List. The project list was subsequently reviewed to confirm the eligibility of proposed projects, including projects previously included in the TUMF program, as well as additional projects requested for inclusion as part of the current update. The project list was then subsequently updated to reflect those projects considered eligible for TUMF funding as part of the 2016 Nexus. 1.1.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs The estimated costs of proposed improvements on the TUMF Network are calculated based on the prices of construction materials, labor and land values for the various eligible project types included as part of the TUMF program. The approach and outcomes of the following steps is described in Chapter 4 of this report. 10) The TUMF program has design standards covering the road project components that are eligible for TUMF funding. This ensures that projects in jurisdictions with different design standards are treated equally2. 1 1) The unit costs for the various construction components were updated based on the current cost values for labor and materials such as cement, asphalt, reinforcing steel, etc., as derived from Caltrans cost database, RCTC and other sources, effective March 2016. Additionally, the ROW cost components per square foot for various land use types were also updated based on current property valuations in Riverside County as researched by Overland, Pacific and Cutler in March 2016. 12) The design standards and the unit costs were combined to create conceptual engineering cost estimates for different eligible project types (road costs per lane-mile, typical costs per arterial-freeway interchange, bridge costs per linear foot, etc.). The unit costs from the previous step were then applied to the project list to estimate the costs of the improvements on the TUMF project list. 2 A jurisdiction may choose to design to a higher standard,but if it does so TUMF will only fund up to the equivalent of what costs would have been had the TUMF design standards been followed. WRCOG 7 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 13) The percentage of each project that was attributable to new development was then applied to the costs of TUMF road projects to find the total road project cost that is attributable to new development. 1.1.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component A portion of the TUMF funding is made available for transit services that provide an alternative to car travel for medium-to-long distance intra-regional trips. The eligible transit projects and their associated costs are determined using the following steps, with additional explanation provided in Chapter 4 of this report. 14) The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) commissioned a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) that was completed in January 2015. This analysis looked at existing and future ridership and identified potential projects to expand and improve transit service in Riverside County. 15) The COA's ridership figures for 2015 and 2025 were extrapolated to 2012 and 2040 to match the analysis years used for TUMF road projects. 16) The growth in ridership between 2012 and 2040 was compared to total ridership in 2040 to determine the portion of 2040 ridership that is attributable to existing passengers and the portion attributable to new growth. 17) As was the case for road improvements, possible transit projects from the COA were screened using a set of criteria to determine whether they should receive TUMF funding. The COA project list was then reviewed by WRCOG and RTA staff to confirm the validity of the project list and to reflect any changes in RTA project recommendations established since the adoption of the COA to establish a final recommended transit project list to be included as part of the program. The result was the TUMF Transit Project List. 18) RTA provided information on current costs for transit infrastructure. 19) The cost information was then used to determine the cost of the items on the TUMF Transit Project List. 20) The percent attribution from Step 21 was applied to the project cost estimates from Step 24 to determine the cost of transit improvements that are attributable to new development. 21) The costs for road and transit projects that are attributable to new development are then combined along with information on other (non-TUMF) funds to determine the total cost for TUMF projects that is to be cover by new development through the imposition of the fees. The available alternate funding sources were reviewed as part of the Nexus update, specifically including the completion of a detailed review of available federal, state and local funding sources administered by RCTC. 1.1.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments Having determined the total project costs to be covered by new development under the TUMF program, it is necessary to divide these costs among different types of WRCOG 8 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 10, 2077 developments roughly in proportion to their expected traffic impacts. The following steps described the process for determining the proportion attributable to new residential development. These approach for accomplishing these steps along with the findings of this analysis are described in detail in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report. 22) California legislation encourages the use of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the primary indicator of traffic impacts because it takes into account both to the number of vehicle trips and the average length of those trips to reflect the proportional impact to the roadway network. As a result, the methodology for determining the relative distribution of traffic impacts between residential and non-residential uses for the purposes of TUMF was revised from a trip based approach used in the earlier nexus studies to a VMT based approach for the 2016 update. The RivTAM 2012 existing and 2040 no-build model runs were examined to determine the VMT of various trip types that would take place in Western Riverside County (excluding through trips). The results were compared to determine the growth in VMT for each trip type. Per WRCOG policy (based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) recommended practice) trips originating in or destined for a home are attributed to residential development while trips where neither the origin nor the destination are a home are attributed to non-residential development. 23) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socio-economic forecasts were used to estimate the number of single-family and multi-family dwelling units that will be developed during the 2012 to 2040 period. 24) The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE's) trip generation rates, which come from surveys of existing sites for various development types, were then used to estimate the daily number of trips that will be generated by future single- and multi-family developments that will occur in the region from 2012 to 2040. 25) The cost to be covered by residential development was divided into the portion attributable to new single-family dwellings and portion attributable to new multi- family development to calculate the cost share for each use. 26) The cost share for single-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings was divided by the number of dwellings of each type to determine the fee level required from each new dwelling unit to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the impacts of new developments. 1.1.5. Computing the Fee for Non-Residential Developments A process similar to that used for residential units was used to determine'the fee level for non-residential development. However, the determination of fees for non-residential development involves additional steps due to the additional complexity of accounting for a greater variety of development types within each use category. Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report provide additional explanation regarding the methodology for accomplishing these steps along with the results of this analysis. 27) Like most impact fee programs, TUMF groups similar development projects together into general use categories in order to simplify the administration of the program. TUMF groups the various land use categories found in ITE's Trip WRCOG 9 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Generation Manual into four non-residential categories (industrial, retail, service, and government/public sector) based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is also used by the U.S. Census Bureau and SCAG for demographic classifications, and is the basis for such classifications in the SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model as well as and the RivTAM model. The ITE trip generation rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates. The median value for the trip- generation rates for all uses within each category was used in the nexus study to represent the trip-generation characteristics for the category as a whole. 28) The trip-generation rates of retail uses and service uses were adjusted to take into account the share of pass-by trips these uses generate. Pass by trip rates for various retail and service uses were derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual to determine the median value of all uses as the basis for the adjustment. The ITE pass by trip rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy and updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates. 29) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socio economic forecasts included non-residential employment for 2012 and 2040. These forecasts were used to estimate the growth in employment in each of the four non-residential uses. 30) The SCAG employment forecasts are denominated in jobs while development applications are typically denominated in square feet of floorspace. The ratio of floorspace per employee was determined as a median value derived from four studies, including a comprehensive study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties conducted in 1990, an OCTA study conducted in 2001, a SCAG study (including a specific focus on Riverside County) conducted in 2001, and the Riverside County General Plan adopted in 2015. It should be noted the SCAG study and Riverside County General Plan were identified and included as part of the 2016 Nexus Update in response to a recommendation made during the review of the prior draft 2015 Nexus Study. 31) The forecast growth in employees was multiplied by the floorspace per employee to produce a forecast of the floorspace that will be developed for each of the four non-residential use types. 32) The trip-generation rate for each of the four uses was multiplied by the forecast of new floorspace to estimate the number of trips generated by each use. 33) The amount of project costs to be covered by non-residential development was split between the four non-residential uses to determine the TUMF cast share for each. 34) The TUMF cost share for each of the four non-residential uses was divided by the forecast growth in floorspace to determine the fee level required from each new square foot of non-residential development to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the impacts of new developments. 35) WRCOG has adopted a TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook that allows for fee adjustments to be made to account for unusual circumstances for certain types of residential and non-residential development (fuel filling stations, golf courses, high-cube warehouses, wineries, electric charging stations, etc.) These WRCOG 10 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2077 adjustments are intended to calculate a fairer proportional fee based on the unique trip generation characteristics of these particular development types. The outcome of this process is a schedule of fees for the various use categories identified as part of the TUMF program. The study conclusions including the Schedule of Fees is presented in Chapter 7 of this report. The schedule of fees represents the maximum fee permissible under California law for the purposes of the TUMF program. The WRCOG Executive Committee has the option to adopt lower fees, however, in doing so each use category subject to a lower fee would not be contributing a fair share of the cost of their impacts. This would in turn create a funding gap for the program that would necessitate identifying additional project funding from some other source in order to ensure the cumulative regional impacts of new development are being mitigated fully in accordance with the program. WRCOG >> Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 .0 FUTURE GROWTH 2.1 Recent Historical Trend Western Riverside County experienced robust growth in the period from the late 1990's to the mid 2000's. The results of Census_ 2000 indicate that in the year 2000, Western Riverside County had a population of 1.187 million representing a 30% increase (or 2.7% average annual increase) from the 1990 population of 912,000. Total employment in Western Riverside County in 2000 was estimated by the SCAG to be 381,000 representing a 46% increase (or 3.9% average annual increase) over the 1990 employment of 261,000. Despite the impacts of the Great Recession and the associated residential mortgage and foreclosure crisis, Western Riverside County continued to grow due to the availability of relatively affordable residential and commercial property, and a generally well-educated workforce. By 2010, the population of the region had grown to 1.742 million, a further 47% growth in population from 2000. Similarly, total employment in the region had also grown from 2000 to 2010 with 434,000 employees estimated to be working in Western Riverside County. This represents a 12% increase from the 381,000 employees working in the region in 2000. 2.2 Available Demographic Data A variety of alternate demographic information that quantifies future population, household and employment growth is available for Western Riverside County. For earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by SCAG. SCAG is the largest of nearly 700 Councils of Government (COG) in the United States and functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties in Southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and plan for issues of regional significance including transportation and growth management. As part of these responsibilities, SCAG maintains a comprehensive database of regional socioeconomic data and develops demographic projections and travel demand forecasts for Southern California. Recognizing the need to develop a more comprehensive source of socioeconomic data for Riverside County, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the University of California, Riverside in 2005. RCCDR was responsible for establishing and maintaining demographic information and ensuring data consistency through a centralized data source of demographic characteristics. RCCDR provided demographic estimates and forecasts for Riverside County as input to the SCAG regional forecasts as well as providing the demographic basis for RivTAM. RCCDR forecasts were utilized as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. WRCOG 12 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 10, 2077 The functions of the RCCDR have been subsequently integrated into the Riverside County Information Technology - Geographic Information Systems (RCIT-GIS) group, and their role in the development and distribution of SED has recently diminished. Although RCIT-GIS, WRCOG and other regional partners participated in the process to develop regional demographic forecasts as part of the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG remained the lead agency in the compilation and dissemination of the forecasts that were ultimately adopted in 2016, including those specific to Western Riverside County. For this reason, the SCAG forecasts adopted for the 2016 RTP/SCS were used as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update, with the adopted SCAG data being disaggregated to correlate to the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure utilized for RivTAM. 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis A major distinction between RCCDR data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data used for this 2016 Update is the change in the base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2035 to 2040. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation. The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data were compared to the RCCDR 2007 data used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. As can be seen in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, the 2012 data reflects a modest increase in population, a very slight decline in households, and a modest decline in overall employment, with a notable shift in employment away from industry and government/public sector to retail. These changes reflect a restructuring of the regional economy in response to the influences of the Great Recession during this time. Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County SED Type 2009 Update 2016 Update Change Percent (2007) (2012) Total Population 1,569,393 1,773,935 204,542 13% Total Households $30,289 525,'14'9 -5,140 -14 Single-Family 395,409 366,588 -28,821 -7% r t Multi-Family Total Employment 515,914 440,787 -55,117111a Industrial 175,571 120,736 -54,835 -31% Retail Service Government/Public Sector Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008;SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 WRCOG 13 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 70, 2017 Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 1,800,000r,,569.393,, 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,00 } 73,935 .. 800,000 600,000 .E _ I r Household Type: i v t 400,000 � — 77 ❑Sin le-Famil y1( 395,409 �366,5$8 s.. 17_5 571 120,736 . mMulti-Family 200,000 Employment Sectors: $7 0 13 Industrial ORetaii OService r BOJ �FQ �Q�Oa ®Government Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2 compare the socioeconomic forecasts for the program horizon year of 2035 used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and 2040 for this study. The most recent forecasts reflect a reduction in the horizon year population, households and overall employment in Western Riverside County, as well as shifts in the projected growth in employment sectors away from government/public sector and service towards retail. These changes are considered to be consistent with the influence of the economic recession on the rate of growth in Western Riverside County. WRCOG 14 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County SED Type 2009 Update 2016 Update Change Percent 2035 2040 Total Population 2,537,583 2,429,633 -107,950 -47, Total Households $81,968 775,231 -106,737Single-Family 552,154 539,631 -12,523 -2% Tw 77 Multi-Family Total Employment 1,090,833 $61,455, .229,378 $21 ' TUMF Industrial 276,782 201,328 -75,454 -27% TUMF Retail 7.3 _ TUMF Service x r v" . TUMF Government/Public Sector Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008;SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP,April 2016 Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 3,000,000 2,500,000 i 7 F{?e 2,000,000 r�a. r� ft ykt, 1,500,000 I k�� ,537.583't { 2,a29 633 1,000,000 Household Type: 276,782 z��+ r mow= ' t7�—� ❑Single-Family ,. 552,154 # '`^_« 201,328 ro 500,000 rl p Multi-Family i 539 637 729 Employment Sectors: a 528,092 Olndustrial \.0 ooc Sryo� �O�p .a S u ' Y' 0Retail oQJ QJ\ r°tea" oras ,tion opo Q OService Q° °Jso oJsor °doe`' oy�' ®Government WRCOG 15 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 2.3 and Figure 2.3 summarize the socioeconomic data obtained from SCAG and used as the basis for completing this Nexus Study analysis. The SCAG employment data for 2012 and 2040 was provided for thirteen employment sectors consistent with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) Major Groups including: Farming, Natural Resources and Mining, Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service; and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Study, the EDD Major Groups were aggregated to Industrial (Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities), Retail (Retail Trade), Service (Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service) and Government/Public Sector (Government). These four aggregated sector types were used as the basis for calculating the fee as described in Section 6.2. Appendix B provides a table detailing the EDD Major Groups and corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each non- residential sector type. Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) SED Type 2012 2040 Change Percent Total Population 1,773,935 2,429,633 655,698 377o Total Households f25,149 775,231 250,Q82 48% Single-Family 366,588 539,631 173,043 47% Multi-Family Total Employment 460,787 861,455 400,668 87° TUMF Industrial 120,736 201,328 80,592 670 TUMF Retail TUMF ServiceF� ,x TUMF Government/Public Sector Source: SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 WRCOG 16 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) 2,500,000 d isr �e r y?n3r 2,000,000 tax; k - t r. x ; 1,500,000 ,429 633 Household Type: 1,000,000 �a ,773,9351x4. 0 Single-Family 13 Multi-Family t# - 201,328 500,000 'f -- 539,631 - 101729 Employment Sector: {, 366,588 120,736 : t Olndustrial 77 pilk� �fw7 oRetail NON NINEa _C. bac �o� opo y`w 3g;` oService oQJ\ QJ\o rods o\aSti Q Q° J�o ser °a5 esti oGovernment The combined effects of the changes in the base year and horizon year socioeconomic data is a notable reduction in the total growth in population, households and employment for the current Nexus Update compared to the 2009 Nexus Update. Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4 provide a comparison of the changes in population, households and employment between the 2016 Nexus Update and the 2009 Nexus Update. The table and figure clearly illustrate the reduction in the rate of growth in Western Riverside County largely attributable to the effects of the economic recession. This reduced rate of growth in the region will serve as the basis for reevaluating the level of impact of new development on the transportation system in the next section, as well as providing the basis for the determination of the fair share fee for each land use type. WRCOG 17 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) SEDT a 2009 Update 2015 Update Type (2007-2035) (2012-2040) Difference Percent Total Population 968,190 655,698 -312,492 -32°/'o Total Households 151,679 250,082 -1Ct11597 -29 0 Single-Family 156,745 173,043 16,298 10% {} ' " t Multi-Family Total Employment 574,919 400,668 -174,251 =3{» TUMF Industrial 101,211 80,592 -20,619 -20% TUMF Retail TUMF Service 1` � U� ' � � ' rs �,� , � � � TUMF Govern me nt/Public Sector � �� _ Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008;SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 68,1901 f' 101,211 400,000 3 47.594 - m 7. 655,698 ;A Household Type: 300,000 r, 80,592 156,745 - 200,000 X41 ❑Single-Family y 173 043 Multi-Family 100,000 3 0 1 Employment Sector: " ❑Industrial J\o�\oc ry \a�\o�rti0 0\1 -\69 �O'Ib�° q�e +Js ❑Retail QoQ pJ °�°� o�aS sry� y0N b El Service IRO J5 er o° 5 oGovernment i WRCOG 18 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF All new development has some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a community, city or county due to an increase in travel demand. Increasing usage of the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing VMT, traffic congestion and decreasing the level of service (LOS)3. In order to meet the increased travel demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become necessary to sustain pre-development traffic conditions. The projected growth in Western Riverside County (37% growth in population and 87% growth in employment in under 30 years) and the related growth in VMT can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial highways and roadways that carry a significant number of the trips between cities, since traditional sources of transportation improvement funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to serve new development. Development exactions generally provide only a fraction of the improvements with improvements confined to the area immediately adjacent to the respective development, and the broad-based county-level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half-cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. This section documents the existing and future congestion levels that demonstrate the need for future improvements to the transportation system to specifically mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. It then describes the TUMF concept that has been developed to fund future new developments' fair share of needed improvements. The forecast of future congestion levels is derived from Year 2040 No-Build travel demand forecasts for Western Riverside County developed using RivTAM. The Year 2040 No-Build scenario evaluates the effects of 2040 population, employment and resultant traffic generation on the 2015 existing arterial highway network. 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the existing arterial highway system in Western Riverside County, existing (2012) and 3 The Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp 2-2, 2-3) describes LOS as a "quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience." Letters are used to designate each of six LOS (A to F), with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, LOS C or D is typically used in planning efforts to ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users. Therefore, LOS E represents the threshold for unacceptable LOS. WRCOG 19 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 future (2040) SED were modeled on the existing (2015) arterial highway network using RivTAM. To quantify traffic growth impacts, various traffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for the AM and PM peak periods for each of the two scenarios. The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total VMT, total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E). These results were tabulated in Table 3.1. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix C. Total Arterial VMT, VHT, VHD and LOS E Threshold VMT were calculated to include all principal arterials, minor arterials and major connectors, respectively. Regional values for each threshold were calculated for a total of all facilities including arterials, freeways, freeway ramps and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline to 2040 No-Build) Peak Periods Total Measure of Performance* 2012 2040 %Change %Annual VMT-Total ALL FACILITIES 19,532,437 29,277,587 50% 1.5% VMT- FREEWAYS 11,019,155 14,487,570 31% 1.0% VMT-ALL ARTERIALS 8,513,282 14,790,016 74% 2.0% TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 5,585,202 9,089,495 6317o 1.87o VHT-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 575,154 1,361,907 137% 3.1% VHT-FREEWAYS 296,542 736,433 148% 3.3% VHT-ALL ARTERIALS 278,611 625,474 124% 2.9% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 181,151 396,981 119% 2.87o VHD-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 175,765 739,075 320% 5.3% VHD - FREEWAYS 117,430 502,549 328% 5.3% VHD-ALL ARTERIALS 58,334 236,527 305% 5.1% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 45,080 172,944 28417o 4.97o VMT LOS E-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 6,188,644 16,966,992 174% 3.7% VMT LOS E- FREEWAYS 4,532,703 10,156,363 124% 2.9% VMT LOS E & F-ALL ARTERIALS 1,655,941 6,810,629 311% 5.2% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 1 1,462,061 5,160,911 253% 1 4.6% %of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 1 2617. 5717o *Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP,September 2016. NOTES: Volume is adjusted by PCE factor VMT=vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT=vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD=vehicle hours of delay(the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow(ideal) travel time) LOS=level of service(based on forecast volume to capacity ratios). LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan, WRCOG 20 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values: VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume VHD = VHT- (Free-flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume) VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90) Note: Volume to capacity(v/c) ratio thresholds for LOS E are based on the Transportation Research Board 2010 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 14-5,Chapter 14,Page 14-5). The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build, and the average annual change between 2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build. As can be seen from the RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1, the additional traffic generated by new development will cause VMT on the arterial highway network to increase by approximately 74% by the year 2040 (approximately 2.0% per year). In the absence of additional improvements to the transportation network in Western Riverside County, the growth in VMT will cause congestion on the highway system to increase almost exponentially, with the most significant increase in congestion observed on the arterial highway system that includes the TUMF Network. Many facilities will experience a significant increase in vehicle delay and deterioration in LOS to unacceptable levels as a result of new development and the associated growth in traffic. According to the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010), LOS C or D are required to "ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users." LOS E is generally recognized to represent the threshold of unacceptable operating service and the onset of substantial systemic traffic congestion. The Congestion Management Program for Riverside County (CMP) published by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 2011 designates LOS E as the "traffic standards must be set no lower than LOS E for any segment or intersection along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways" in Riverside County. "The intent of the CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality." 4 The CMP provides a mechanism for monitoring congestion on the highway system and, where congestion is observed, establishes procedures for developing a deficiency plan to address improvement needs. The reactive nature of the CMP to identify and remediate existing congestion differs from the proactive nature of the TUMF program to anticipate and provide for future traffic needs. For this reason, the TUMF program follows the guidance of the Highway Capacity Manual in establishing LOS E as the threshold for unacceptable level of service, and subsequently as the basis for measuring system performance and accounting for existing needs. This approach ensures a more conservative accounting of existing system needs as part of the 4 Congestion Management Proaram for Riverside County- Executive Summary (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 201 1) Page ES-3, ES-1 WRCOG 21 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 determination of the "fair share" of mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of future new development on the transportation system. The continuing need for a mitigation fee on new development is shown by the adverse impact that new development will have on Western Riverside County's transportation infrastructure, and in particular, the arterial highway network. As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure with the total VMT on the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA; also referred to as the TUMF Network) estimated to increase by approximately 63% or 1.8% compounded annually. As shown in Table 3.1, the VMT on arterial facilities within the TUMF Network experiencing LOS of E or worse will increase by approximately 253% or 4.6% compounded annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2012 and 2040. By 2040, 57% of the total VMT on the TUMF arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the TUMF arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on TUMF arterial highways will increase by approximately 4.9% per year. The combined influences of increased travel demand and worsened LOS that manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay highlight the continuing need to complete substantial capacity expansion on the TUMF arterial highway system to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development. The RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1 clearly demonstrate that the travel demands generated by future new development in the region will lead to increasing levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The need to improve these roadways to accommodate the anticipated growth in VMT and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the additional travel demand. 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Transit represents a critical component of the transportation system by providing an alternative mode choice for those not wanting to use an automobile, and particularly for those who do not readily have access to an automobile. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. While some future transit trips will be accommodated by inter-regional transit services such as Metrolink, a substantial number of the trips within Western Riverside County will be served by bus transit services and for this reason the provision of regional bus transit service is considered integral to addressing the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new developments. Regional bus transit services within Western Riverside County are primarily provided by RTA. To support the evaluation of regional bus service WRCOG 22 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 needs to accommodate new development, daily transit trip forecasts were derived from the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis5. Weekday projected system ridership for 2015 and 2025 were interpolated to 2012 and 2040 to represent existing and future transit trips consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section 3.1. The interpolated year 2012 and year 2040 existing and future transit ridership were compared in order to assess the impact of new development on transit demand. The weekday projected system ridership indicates that RTA bus transit services accommodate approximately 31,016 riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2015. By 2025, bus transit services are forecast to serve approximately 46,572 riders per weekday. This represents an increase in projected weekday ridership of 15,556 between 2015 and 2025, or an average increase of 1,414 weekday riders each year. Based on these projected weekday ridership levels and rate of ridership growth each year, the interpolated weekday ridership for 2012 is 26,773 while the interpolated weekday ridership for 2040 would be 67,785. This translates into an increase of 41,011 riders per weekday between 2012 and 2040. Weekday projected system ridership for 2015 and 2025, as presented in Table 7 of the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis Executive Summary, along with the interpolated weekday system ridership in 2012 and 2040 are included in Appendix D. The significant future growth in demand for public transit services is reflective of the cumulative regional impacts of new development, and the associated increase in demand for all types of transportation infrastructure and services to accommodate this growth. Furthermore, bus transit ridership is expected to grow as the improved services being planned and implemented by RTA attracts new riders and encourages existing riders to use transit more often as an alternative to driving. Attracting additional riders to bus transit services contributes to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development by reducing the number of trips that need to be served on the highway system. The need to provide additional bus transit services within Western Riverside County to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the demand. 3.3 The TUMF Concept A sizable percentage of trip-making for any given local community extends beyond the bounds of the individual community as residents pursue employment, education, shopping and entertainment opportunities elsewhere. As new development occurs within a particular local community, this migration of trips of all purposes by new residents and the new business that serve them contributes to the need for transportation improvements within their community and in the other communities of Western Riverside County. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute uniformly to paying the fair share cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer-distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee is intended to be used primarily to improve transportation 5 Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), Comprehensive Operational Analysis Executive Summary, January 2015,Table 7 WRCOG 23 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee 7UMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (in particular, arterial roadways and regional bus transit services). Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, while some also serve trips between more distant communities within the region. The differing roadway functions led to the concept of using a portion of the fee revenues for a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve the longer-distance trips (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region), while using a second portion of the fee revenues for a secondary system of arterials that serve inter-community trips within a specific subregion or zone (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the communities most directly served by these roads - in effect, a return-to-source of that portion of the funds). Reflecting the importance of public transit service in meeting regional travel needs, a third portion of fee revenues was reserved for improvements to regional bus transit services (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region). Much, but not all, of the new trip-making in a given area is generated by residential development (i.e. when people move into new homes, they create new trips on the transportation system as they travel to work, school, shopping or entertainment). Some of the new trips are generated simply by activities associated with new businesses (i.e. new businesses will create new trips through the delivery of goods and services, etc.). With the exception of commute trips by local residents coming to and from work, and the trips of local residents coming to and from new businesses to get goods and services, the travel demands of new businesses are not directly attributable to residential development. The consideration of different sources of new travel demand is therefore reflected in the concept of assessing both residential and non-residential development for their related transportation impacts. In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following: ➢ A uniform fee that is levied on new development throughout Western Riverside County. ➢ The fee is assessed roughly proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each new use on the transportation system. ➢ A portion of the fee is used to fund capacity improvements on a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve longer-distance trips within the region; a portion of the fee is returned to the subregion or zone in which it was generated to fund capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that link the communities in that area; and a portion of the fee is used to fund improvements to regional bus transit services that serve longer-distance trips between the communities within the region. WRCOG 24 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network An integral element of the initial Nexus Study was the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system. As a result, this system also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The TUMF Network does not include the freeways of Western Riverside County as these facilities primarily serve longer distance inter-regional trips and a significant number of pass-through trips that have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County6. The TUMF Network is the system of roadways that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The RSHA for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transportation network and performance guidelines as follows: 1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at ultimate build-out (not including freeways). 2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County. 3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day in the future horizon year. 4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 (LOS E) or greater in the future horizon year. 5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services. 6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Appendix E includes exhibits illustrating the various performance measures assessed during the definition of the RSHA. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were initially identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was 6 Since pass-though trips have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County,new development within Western Riverside County cannot be considered responsible for mitigating the impacts of pass through trips. The impact of pass- through trips and the associated cost to mitigate the impact of pass through trips(and other inter-regional freeway trips) is addressed in the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Western Riverside County Freeway Strategic Plan Phase II-Detailed Evaluation and Impact Fee Nexus Determination Final Report dated May 31,2008. WRCOG 25 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2077 subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The RSHA is illustrated in Figure 4.1. As stated previously, the RSHA represents those regional significant highway facilities that primarily serve inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and therefore also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. Consistent with the declining rate of new development forecast for Western Riverside County post the Great Recession, the TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update to ensure facilities generally still met the previously described performance guidelines, and/or that the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network were roughly proportional to the impacts needing to be mitigated. This review process resulted in the removal of various facilities from the TUMF Network, as well as various changes in the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network are discussed in Section 4.3 of this report. WRCOG 26 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 10, 2017 Legend `^.y,k �S a v".x m� '...^—•--.�—"" 't ate` TUMrry-1k count'Raexwav h *. L.— RN— JJ lk, �.�.�i. qt' & a t Al q"k 1 4 3!4 �w s S I �• j ¢ - aww 1 \ baa,ca�mr mw.od co««�, mn- s W#COG R a e iz a -" *._ Regional System of Highways and Arterials - Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program I Figure 4.1 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network As indicated previously, the TUMF roadway network was refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance." Facilities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at general plan build-out7, extend across and/or between multiple Area Planning Districts', and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2040. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The backbone network is illustrated in Figure 4.2. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the RSHA for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network, although they are considered significant for circulation within the respective zone. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG APD or zones are illustrated in Figure 4.3. 7 Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at general plan buildout, in some cases it was determined that sufficient demand for all additional lanes facilities may not exist on some facilities until beyond the current timeframe of the TUMF Program (2040). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development through the current duration of the TUMF Program. 8 Area Planning Districts (APD) are the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area. Area Planning Districts are interchangeably referred to as TUMF Zones. WRCOG 28 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 10, 2017 Legend l o w — a I saomdarvRa— f v, . � � •� rte� - -- `� ..� Fen waYa f pp �e lakes B Rivers Nr s r rj� 2 r r� I J n,� 7 ,. s_ 3 v> ` WR4FFOG 0 Z YMibn Backbone Network of Highways and Arterials - Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program ( Figure 4.2 Legend �J � �5C59t . ye -�* 4 ��`w � rcX � P^Q-.• �� l �� . P I � G=am _ LaxesB Rvors mFze aeo aan T 3 ILI Central Zone J -_ Northwest Zone � IZ4 .w .v "bFj � _ Al r HelmeVSan Jacinto Zone y it IV I � iz \ mnomwc�ar« �= Southwest Zone NN, � w., I WRCOG a e ' ae. \ Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUNVIF Zones) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program f Figure 4.3 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs For the purpose of calculating a "fair share" fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development. Estimates of the cost to improve the network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development were originally developed based on unit costs prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)9, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates10 (TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998. The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates and were consolidated to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement types eligible under the TUMF Program. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs for roadway construction were originally varied to account for variations in construction cost (and in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with construction on level (code 1) rolling (code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain, respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs which originally included consideration for land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs, condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation costs were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses - code 1), suburban (developed residential uses - code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses - code 3) land uses, respectively. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were originally varied to account for variations in cost associated with new complex, new standard (or fully reconstructed), or major (or partially reconstructed) or minor (individual ramp improvements) interchange improvements. As part of the 2016 TUMF Nexus Update, the original unit cost categories were revised to generate entirely new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction cost, labor cost and land acquisition cost values for comparable projects within 9 Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) 10 TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates WRCOG 31 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update to reflect the effects of the ongoing recovery from the economic recession that has seen the costs of materials, labor and land acquisition in California rebound from relative historical lows. Appendix F provides a detailed outline of the assumptions and methodology leading to the revised TUMF unit cost assumptions developed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update. In addition, supplemental categories were added to the cost assumptions to better delineate the need to mitigate the cumulative multi-species habitat impacts of TUMF arterial highway improvements in accordance with the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and to account for the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) MSHCP adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003 states that "each new transportation project will contribute to Plan implementation. Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% - 5% of their construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts." This provision is reiterated in the MSHCP Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Report (David Taussig and Associates, Inc., July 1, 2003) section 5.3.1.2 which states that "over the next 25 years, regional infrastructure projects are expected to generate approximately $250 million in funding for the MSHCP" based on mitigation at 5% of construction costs. To clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP, the TUMF Program will incorporate a cost element to account for the required MSHCP contribution to mitigate the multi-species habitat impacts of constructing TUMF projects. In accordance with the MSHCP Nexus Report, an amount equal to 5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges and railroad grade separations will be specifically included as part of TUMF Program with revenues to be provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for the acquisition of land identified in the MSHCP. The relevant sections of the MSHCP document and the MSHCP Nexus Report are included in Appendix F. Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate as part of the current Nexus Update. Table 4.1 also includes a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions, and the 2009 Nexus Update unit cost assumptions. Cost estimates are provided in current year values as indicated. To estimate the cost of improving the regional transportation system to provide for future traffic growth from new development, the transportation network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in Section 4.1) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed network improvements. The initial list of improvements needed to provide for the traffic generated by new development was then compared with local General Plan Circulation Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of regional significance. A consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the network to provide for future traffic growth associated with new development. This initial list of proposed improvements has since been revised and updated as part of each subsequent Nexus Update to reflect the changing levels of new development and the associated travel demand and transportation system impacts to be mitigated as part of the TUMF program. WRCOG 32 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 As discussed in Section 2.3, the effects of the economic recession since the 2009 Nexus Update have included a reduction in the rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County. As indicated in Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4, the anticipated rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County has been reduced overall by 32% for population, 29% for households and 30% for employment. This reduced rate of socioeconomic growth is reflected in a reduction in the forecast horizon year population, households and employment depicted in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2, with the 2040 forecasts used as the basis for the 2016 Nexus Update being reduced by 4% for population, 12% for households and 21% for employment compared to the 2035 horizon year forecasts used as the basis for the 2009 Nexus Update, despite the horizon year being extended out by 5 years in the most recent SCAG forecasts. This reduced rate of forecasted socioeconomic growth has a commensurate impact on the forecasted daily traffic in the region as demonstrated by the 2009 Nexus Update VMT compared to the 2016 Nexus Update VMT in Table 4.2. As shown in the table, the forecast daily traffic is reduced by about 7% in the year 2040 as the basis for the 2016 Nexus Update compared to the year 2035 as used for the 2009 Nexus Update. As a result of the reduced traffic growth in the region, it is anticipated that the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the arterial highway and transit systems in the region is also reduced necessitating a reduction in the projects identified on the TUMF Network to mitigate the impacts of new development. WRCOG 33 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 10, 2077 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction Original Cost Cost Assumptions as Assumptions Cost Component per 2009 Nexus Assumptions Type published Update per 2016 Description October 18, October 5, Nexus Update 2002 2009 Terrain 1 $550,000 $628,000 $692;000 Construction cost per lane rn;e-level terrain Terrain 2 $850,000 $761,000 $878,000 Construction cost per lane mile-rolling terrain Opp Construction cost per lane mile-mountainous Terrain 3 $1,150,000 $895,000 $1,064 terrain Landuse 1 $900,000 $1,682,000 $2,609,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile-urban areas Landuse 2 $420,000 $803,000 $2,263,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile-suburban areas Landuse 3 $240,000 $237,000 $287,000 ROW.cost factor per lane mile-rural areas Interchange 1 n/a $43,780,000 $50,032,000 Complex new interchange/interchange modification cost Interchange 2 $20,000,000 $22,280,000 $25,558,000 New interchang efnterchange modification total cost Interchange $10,000,000 $10,890,000 $12,343,000 Major interchange improvement total cost Bridge 1 $2,000 $2,880 $3,.180 - Bridge total cost per lane per linear foot RRXing 1 $4,500,000 $4,550,000 $6,376,000 New Rail Grade Crossing per lane RRXing 2 $2,250,000 $2,120,000 $2,733,000 Existing Rail Grade Crossing per lane Planning,preliminary engineering and Planning 10% 10% 10% environmental assessment costs based on construction cost only Project study report,design,permitting and Engineering 25% 25% 257 construction oversight costs based on construction cost only Contingency 10% 10% 10% Contingency costs based on total segment cost TUMF program administration based on total Administration 3% 4 TUMF ell ible network cost MSHCP 5% 5% TUMF component of MSHCP based on total TUMF eligible construction cost Table 4.2— Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County 2016 Nexus Update 2009 Nexus Update Measure of Performance Daily Dally 2012 Baseline 2040 No-Build 2007 2035 VMT-Total ALL FACILITIES 36,844,082 56,574,656 39,187,718 60,772,353 VMT- FREEWAYS 21,798,155 30,678,958 24,056,704 32,920,502 VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 15,045,927 25,895,698 15,131,014 27,851,851 TOTAL-TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 10,059,547 16,515,642 Source: Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP.September 2016;RivTAM provided by Iteris(2008) WRCOG 34 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study—2016 Program Update July 10, 2077 A peer review process utilizing real world experience and perspectives from both the private and public sectors was critical in developing a realistic network of proposed improvements to mitigate the additional traffic resulting from future development in Western Riverside County. Representatives of private development firms and the BIA have continued to participate in the process of developing and updating the TUMF Program. This involvement has included active participation of private developer staff at various workshops conducted at critical milestone points in the process of completing the Nexus update, as well as a formal review of the TUMF Network and associated elements of the Nexus Study by the BIA and their hired consultant staff. As part of the 2015 Nexus Update, the list of proposed improvements included in the initial Nexus Study and validated during the subsequent Nexus updates was reviewed for accuracy and, where necessary, amended to remove or modify projects that have changed in need to mitigate impacts based on changes in the patterns of growth and travel demand within the region. Projects completed since the adoption of the 2009 Nexus Update were also removed from the network to reflect the fact that mitigation at these locations is no longer required. The specific network changes were screened by the WRCOG Public Works Committee for consistency with TUMF network guidelines including travel demand and traffic performance, and were subsequently reviewed by representatives of the public and privates sectors at a series of workshop meetings conducted between November 2014 and January 2015. In response to the release of the 2015 Nexus Update draft study document, the TUMF Network was further reviewed by a consultant team hired by the BIA, with findings and recommendations provided in a letter dated August 8, 2015. A final review of the TUMF Network and associated improvements was conducted by WRCOG staff in cooperation with the Public Works Committee during the summer and fall of 2016 specifically in conjunction with the 2016 Nexus Update to include consideration of the revised travel forecasts based on the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS demographic forecasts. Based on the findings of the network screening, workshop meetings and other reviews, elements of specific projects were revised to reflect necessary network corrections and modifications to project assumptions. Matrices summarizing the disposition of the requests received as part of both the 2015 and 2016 TUMF Nexus Updates were developed and are included in Appendix G. Eligible arterial highway and street improvement types to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include: 1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes; 2. Construction of new Network roadway segments; 3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures; 4. Construction of new Network bridge structures; 5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways; 6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways; 7. Grade separation of existing Network at-grade railroad crossings; WRCOG 35 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 All eligible improvement types provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. Following the comprehensive update of the TUMF Program, the estimated total cost to improve the RSHA for Western Riverside County is $3.45 billion with this cost including all arterial highway and street planning, engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and capital construction costs, but not including transit, MSHCP or program administration costs that will be subsequently described. It should be noted that the full cost to improve the TUMF Network cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for the previous obligation of other funds to complete necessary improvements and unfunded existing needs. Sections 4.5 and 4.6 describe the adjustments to the total TUMF Network improvement need to account for existing needs and obligated funds. In addition to the arterial highway and street improvement costs indicated above, the TUMF Nexus Update included specific consideration for the TUMF Program obligation to the MSHCP program to mitigate the impact of TUMF network improvements on species and habitat within Western Riverside County. The TUMF obligation to MSHCP was calculated at a rate of 5% of the total construction (capital) cost of new lane segments, bridges and railroad grade separations on the TUMF Network. The total obligation to the MSHCP as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $45.4 million, although the total obligation specific to the TUMF program is reduced to account for MSHCP obligations associated with improvements addressing existing needs and therefore excluded from TUMF. The TUMF 2016 Nexus Update similarly includes specific consideration of the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. The average cost for WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program was calculated at a rate of 4% of the total eligible cost of new lane segments (including interchanges, bridges and railroad grade separations) on the TUMF Network and new transit services. Administration costs incurred by WRCOG include direct salary, fringe benefit and overhead costs for WRCOG staff assigned to administer the program and support participating jurisdictions, and costs for consultant, legal and auditing services to support the implementation of the TUMF program. The total cost for WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately$112.2 million. The detailed TUMF network cost calculations are provided in Section 4.7, including each of the individual segments and cost components considered as part of the TUMF Program, and the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment following adjustments for obligated funding and unfunded existing needs as described in subsequent sections. 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System In addition to the roadway network, public transportation plays a key role in serving future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter-community trips is generally provided in the form of public bus transit services and in particular express bus WRCOG 36 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 10, 2077 or other high frequency services between strategically located community transit centers. In Western Riverside County, these bus transit services are typically provided by RTA. Transit needs to serve future regional travel in Western Riverside County via bus transit include vehicle acquisitions, transit centers, express bus stop upgrades, maintenance facilities and other associated capital improvements to develop express bus or other high frequency inter-community transit bus services within the region. Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF Program as they typically serve longer inter-regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips on the inter-regional highway system. The network of regionally significant bus transit services represents those express bus and other high frequency transit bus services that primarily support inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional highway system and inter- regional commuter rail services. As a result, this portion of the bus transit system also represents the extents of the network of bus services that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The TUMF Bus Transit Network is the system of bus services that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The Bus Transit Network for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transit network and performance guidelines as follows: 1. Bus transit routes (or corridors comprised of multiple overlapping routes) proposed to have a frequency of greater than three buses per direction during peak hours at ultimate build out. 2. Routes or corridors that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities, both within and adjoining western Riverside County. 3. Routes or corridors with forecast weekday bus ridership in excess of 1,000 person trips per day by 2040. 4. Routes or corridors that are proposed to provide timed interconnections with at least four other routes or corridors at ultimate build out. 5. Routes or corridors that utilize the majority of travel along the TUMF RSHA. 6. Routes or corridors that provide direct access to areas of forecast population and employment growth, major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Express bus routes and other high-frequency bus transit routes and corridors in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were identified by RTA based on service information developed as part of the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis completed in January 2015. The TUMF Bus Transit Network was subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, and the WRCOG Executive Committee as the basis for the transit component of the 2016 Nexus Update. Updated cost estimates for improving the infrastructure serving public transportation, including construction of transit centers and transfer facilities, express bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements needed to develop express bus and other high WRCOG 37 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 10, 2017 frequency bus transit service within the region were provided by RTA. The updated transit unit cost data provided by RTA are shown in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures Cost Cost Assumptions Assumptions Cost Component Type* asublished per 2009 Assumptions p Nexus Update per 2015 Description October 18, October 5, Nexus Update 2002 2009 Relocation/expansion of existing Transit Center 1 $6,000,000 Regional Transit Center with up to 14 bus bays and park and ride New Regional Transit Center with Transit Center 2 $6,000,000 $5,655,000 $9,000,000 up to 14 bus bays and park and ride Transfer Facility $1,000,000 Multiple route transfer hub O &M Facility $50,000,000 Regional Operations and Maintenance Facility Bus StopBus Stop Amenities Upgrade on $10,000 $27,000 $40,000 TUMF Network BRT Service Capital $540,000 $550,000 $60,800 BRT/Limited Stop Service Capital er sto ** Vehicle Fleet 1 $155,000 Medium Sized Bus Contract ....Operated Vehicle Fleet 2 $325,125 $550,000 $585,000 Large Sized Bus Directly Operated Comprehensive Operational COA StudyMEIN= I$950,000 Analysis Study component of Nexus Study Update * Transit Cost Component Types were restructured as part of the 2015 Nexus Update in accordance with the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis(January 2015) ** BRT Service Capital Cost Assumption was based on a per mile unit in 2009 Nexus Update. 2016 Nexus Update uses a per stop unit cost for BRT Service Capital The estimated total cost for future RTA bus transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $153.1 million with this cost including all planning, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Section 4.7. WRCOG 38 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 10, 2017 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements, including most recently California Senate Bill (SB) 1 Transportation Funding approved by Governor Brown on April 28, 2017. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the funded cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF Program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds. To determine the availability of obligated funds, each jurisdiction in Western Riverside County (including the County of Riverside, the participating cities, and RCTC) was asked to review their current multi-year capital improvement programs to identify transportation projects on the TUMF system. A detailed table identifying the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix H. A total of $303.5 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated TUMF network cost was subsequently reduced by this amount. 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (as presented in Table 3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service. In addition, demand for inter-community transit service already exists and future utilization of proposed inter-community transit services will partially reflect this existing demand. The need to improve these portions of the system is generated by existing demand, rather than the cumulative regional impacts of future new development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost share of improvements providing for this existing need. In the initial TUMF Nexus Study, the cost of existing improvement needs was estimated by identifying the roadway segments on the TUMF network that operate at LOS E or F according to the modeled 2000 base year volumes. The application of the LOS E threshold is consistent with national traffic analysis guidance that stipulates LOS D as the minimum acceptable LOS for arterial roadway facilities. The cost to improve these roadway segments with existing unacceptable LOS was calculated using the some method applied to estimate the overall system improvement cost. This method estimated the share of the particular roadway segment (including all associated ROW, interchange, structure and soft costs) that was experiencing unacceptable LOS, and reduced the estimated cost to reflect the relative share. The adjusted valve reflected the maximum eligible under the TUMF Program to improve only those portions of the segment (and the relative share of associated improvement costs) that were not experiencing an existing need and were therefore considered to be exclusively addressing the cumulative impacts of new development. WRCOG 39 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 By the application of this methodology, the initial TUMF Nexus Study did not account for the incremental cumulative impact of new development on those segments with an identified existing need. For this reason, the methodology to account for existing need was reviewed as part of the TUMF 2005 update to provide for the inclusion of incremental traffic growth on those segments with existing need. As part of the 2016 Nexus Update, the methodology to account for existing need on arterial segments was further refined to utilize peak period traffic conditions as the basis for the calculation, rather than daily traffic conditions. Peak period performance measures typically reflect the highest level of demand for transportation facilities and therefore are typically utilized as the basis for project design making peak period a more appropriate basis for determining existing need (and future mitigation needs) as part of the TUMF program. The existing need methodology for the 2016 Nexus Update was also expanded to include spot improvements on the TUMF Network (including interchanges, bridges and railroad crossings). Due to limitations in previously available traffic forecast data, prior versions of the TUMF Nexus Study only determined existing need for arterial segments and did not explicitly include existing need for spot improvements. To account for existing need in the TUMF Network as part of the 2016 Nexus Update, the cost for facilities identified as currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted. This was done by identifying the portion of any TUMF facility in the RivTAM 2012 Baseline scenario with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of greater than 0.9 (the threshold for LOS E), and extracting the share of the overall facility cost to improve that portion. This cost adjustment provides for the mitigation of incremental traffic growth on those TUMF segments with an existing high level of congestion. The following approach was applied to account for incremental traffic growth associated with new development as part of the existing need methodology: 1. Facilities with an existing need were identified by reviewing the RivTAM 2012 Baseline scenario assigned traffic on the 2015 existing network and delineating those facilities included on the TUMF Cost Fee Summary Table that have an average directional v/c exceeding 0.90. a. Weighted directional v/c values were used to determine existing need for network segments, which was calculated by: i. Determining the length for the portion of each segment (model link), and calculating the ratio of link length to the overall segment length ii. Generating the average directional v/c for each link, for both directions in AM and PM periods, and multiplying by link/segment length ratio iii. Determining the maximum peak-period peak-direction v/c for each link, representing the highest directional v/c in either AM or PM iv. Calculating weighted average v/c for each TUMF segment, based on the sum of all weighted max v/c values of each link within a segment WRCOG 40 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 b. A similar method was used to determine existing need for spot improvements including interchanges, railroad crossings and bridges. However, no weighting was used in the calculation of existing need for spot improvements. For these facilities, the peak-period peak-direction v/c values (highest directional v/c in either AM or PM) were utilized in the existing need calculation. This was based on the individual link within a network segment where a bridge or railroad crossing is located, or on- and off-ramps in the case of interchanges. 2. Initial costs of addressing the existing need were calculated by estimating the share of a particular roadway segments "new lane" cost, or individual spot improvement cost (including all associated ROW and soft costs). 3. Incremental growth in v/c was determined by comparing the average directional base year v/c for the TUMF facilities (delineated under step one) with the horizon year v/c for the corresponding segments and spot improvements calculated based on the RivTAM 2040 No-Build scenario assigned traffic on the 2012 existing network using the same methodology as the base year v/c. 4. The proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development was determined by dividing the result of step three with the total 2040 No-Build scenario v/c in excess of LOS E. 5. For those segments experiencing a net increase in v/c over the base year, TUMF will `discount' the cost of existing need improvements by the proportion of the incremental v/c growth through 2040 No-Build compared to the 2012 Baseline v/c (up to a maximum of 100%). The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs (including the related MSHCP obligation) totals $431.7 million. Appendix H includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment and spot improvement experiencing unacceptable LOS. For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement needs is $60.5 million representing 39.5% of the TUMF transit component. Appendix H includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost. 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost A total of $303.5 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. Since these improvements are already funded with other available revenue sources, the funded portion of these projects cannot also be funded with TUMF revenues. Furthermore, the total cost of the unfunded existing improvement need is WRCOG 41 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 $492.2 million. These improvements are needed to mitigate existing transportation deficiencies and therefore their costs cannot be assigned to new development through the TUMF. Based on the estimated costs described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, the total value to complete the identified TUMF network and transit improvements, and administer the program is $3.76 billion. Having accounted for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, respectively, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $2.96 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $2.71 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $92.6 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $43.3 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $112.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. Figure 4.4 illustrates the various improvements to the RSHA included as part of the TUMF network cost calculation. Table 4.4 summarizes the TUMF network cost calculations for each of the individual segments. This table also identifies the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment having accounted for obligated funding and unfunded existing need. A detailed breakdown of the individual cost components and values for the various TUMF Network segments is included in Appendix H. Table 4.5 outlines the detailed transit component cost estimates. It should be noted that the detailed cost tables (and fee levels) are subject to regular review and updating by WRCOG and therefore WRCOG should be contacted directly to obtain the most recently adopted version of these tables (and to confirm the corresponding fee level). WRCOG 42 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Legend rma,aTmR,Mrra , ff � Pass Zoi-M aM m ar as m R n� Gr-i 41) . o) mwooamam ae Gm„s at {�.8fii Zone VF �. 3 .IC" - MbrcM1an9 e m x ew m va Ra Gra t ° Lakes 8 R r, g�� .q. 'yqy �e�£SX\�'11�1�vS.tf.Wi'1ce��, � �� _" � �'•o°nlNeraN9eMWdwon " ,,,,y ,� If ! ® or nierma ge oainweon TUMF Zone Bomwary aR°'M f4awr+� � � �'3,q,_ �"'7 � Q3 Mepr mercM1aage imorovemem LiB r ,. srae„s Raaa, f" 7 wr eoma,�, •� e _ � nnga mprmramam •.� .. �-• It mn manr�fawr.,a.>,q«eawrt earrea ee,w oa naarioeanCrt eaMrmmeuoa L_ '�.�`"�`�� '�' � `a - Hemet/San Jacinto � zoreT en �G Southwest Zone wacOt: a12 Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program ( Figure 4.4 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates AREA PLAN DISICITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM NMF SHARE Central Menifee Ethanac Goetz Murrieta 0.99 $0 $0 Central Menifee Ethanac Murrieta 1-215 0.90 $0 $0 Central Menifee Ethanac 1-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $15,766,000 Central Menifee Ethanac Sherman Matthews 0.61 $1,617,000 $1,617,ODO Central Menifee Ethanac BNSF San Jacinto Branch railroad crossing 0.00 $36,980,000 $33,018,000 Central Menifee Menifee SR-74(Pinacate) Simpson 2.49 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Salt Creek bridge 0.00 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Simpson Aldergate 064 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Aldergate Newport 098 Central Menifee Menifee Newport Holland 1,07 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Holland Garbani $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Carboni Scott 1 $0 $0 I.00 $2,635,00 $2,635.00 limit $ $ Central Menifee Menifee/Whitewood Scott Murrieta City it 0.53 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Goetz Murrieta 1.81 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Murrieta 1-215 2.05 $5,405,0$ $0 $5,405,00 Central Menifee Newport I-215 Menifee 0.95 $p $p Central Menifee Newport Menifee Lindenberger 0.77 $o $0 Central Menifee Newport Lindenberger SR-79(Winchester) 3.58 $0 $0 Central Menifee Scott 1-215 Briggs 2-04 $0 $0 Central Menifee Scoff 1-215 interchange 000 g $37,060,000 $37.060,000 Central Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta 1.01 $2,654,000 $2654,000 Central Menifee Scott Murrieta 1-215 1.94 $10,254,000 $10,254,000 Central Menifee SR-74 Matthews Briggs 1.89 $4,994,000 $4,994.000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro 1-215 Perris 3.52 $6.394,000 $6,394,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Perris Nason 2.00 $22,632000 $22632000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Nason Moreno Beach 0.99 $6,922,000 $6,922000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Moreno Beach Gilman Springs 4.13 $10,902,000 $10,902000 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 Alessandro 1.67 $4,411,000 $3,724,000 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Central Moreno Valley Perris Reche Vista Ironwood 2-09 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Ironwood Sunnymead 0,52 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris SR-60 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Sunnymead Cactus 2.00 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Cactus Harley Knox 3.50 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Reche Vista Moreno Valley City limit Heocock 0.44 $3,310,000 $1,705,000 Central Perris 11th/Case Perris Goetz 0.30 $2100,000 $2,100,000 Central Perris Case Goetz 1-215 2.36 $16,486,000 $13,538,000 Central Perris Case San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $1,126,000 $495,000 Central Perris Ethanac Keystone Goetz 224 $7,327,000 $7,327,000 Central Perris Ethanac San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 - $7,378,000 $7,378,000 Central Perris Ethanac 1-215 Sherman 0.35 $2,435,000 $1,945,000 Central Perris Goetz Case Ethanac 2.00 $5,267,000 $2,506,000 Central Perris Goetz San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $3.688,000 $1,925,000 Central Perris Mid-County(Placentia) 1-215 Perris 0.87 $13,127,000 $12,627,000 Central Perris Mid-County(Placentia) 1-215 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $12,354,000 Central Perris Mid-County Perris Evans 1.57 $32,902,000 $32,902000 Central Perris Mid-County Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge 0.00 $8,299,000 $8,299,000 Central Perris Perris Harley Knox Ramona 1,00 $0 $0 Central Perris Perris Ramona Citrus 2.49 $6,578,000 $6,578.000 Central Perris Perris Citrus Nuevo 0.50 $0 $0 Central Perris Perris Nuevo Ilth 1.75 $12,206,000 $9,034,000 Central Perris Perris I-215 overcrossing bridge 0.00' $2,767,000 $1,356,000 Central Perris Ramona 1-215 Perris 1.47 $2,769,000 $2,769,000 Central Perris Ramona 1-215 interchange 0,00' $17,897,000 $5965000 Central Perris Ramona Perris Evans 1.00 $0 $0 Central Perris Ramona Evans Mid-County(2,800 ft E of Rider) 2.62 $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74(4th) Ellis 1-215 229 $0 $0 . Central Unincorporated Ethanac SR-74 Keystone 1.07 $5,646,000 $5,646,000 Central Unincorporated Gilman Springs Alessandro Bridge 4.98 $15,815,000 $8,105,000 Central Unincorporated Menifee Nuevo SR-74(Pinacate) 4.07 $10,737,000 $10,737,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County Evans Ramona(2,800 it E of Rider) 0.77 $8,587,000 $8,587,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County(Ramona) Ramona(2,800 it E of Rider) Pico Avenue 0.44 $1,161,000 $1,161,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County(Ramona) Pico Avenue Bridge 5.95 $31,413,000 $25,287,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County(Ramona) San Jacinto River bridge 0-00' $23,978,000 $15,835,000 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon San Bernardino County Reche Vista 3.35 $12,457,000 $9,429,000 Central Unincorporated Reche Vista Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit 1.22 $9,180,000 $4,729,000 Central Unincorporated Scott Briggs SR-79(Winchester) 3.04 $16,042,000 $0 Central Unincorporated SR-74 Ethanac Ellis 2.68 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Cajalco 1-15 Temescal Canyon 0.66 $2,306,000 $2,306,000 Northwest Corona Cajalco 1-15 interchange 0.00 $72,546,000 $44,251,000 Northwest Corona Foothill Paseo Grande Lincoln 2.60 $19,330,000 $7,282,000 Northwest Corona Foothill Wardlow Wash bridge 0.00' $5,534,000 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill Lincoln California 2.81 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill California 1-15 0.89 $6,207,000 $4,304,000 Northwest Corona Green River SR-91 Dominguez Ranch 0.52 $3,624,000 $1,000 Northwest Corona Green River Dominguez Ranch Palisades 0.56 $4,214,000 $1,639,000 Northwest Corona Green River Palisades Paseo Grande 2.01 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman San Bernardino County 600'e/o Cucamonga Creek 0.65 $2,271,000 $2,271,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Cucamonga Creek bridge 0.00' $928000 $923000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman 600'e/o Cucamonga Creek Harrison 0-87 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Harrison Sumner 0.50 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Sumner Scholar 0.50 $3,493,000 $3,493,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Scholar AStreet 0.31 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman A Street Hamner 027 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren SR-60 Bellegrave 1.43 $9,976,000 $3,628,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren Bellegrave Santa Ana River 3.60 $25,115,000 $7,444,000 WRCOG 44 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DISI CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest Riverside Alessandro Arlington Trautwein 2.21 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Arlington North Magnolia 5.92 $7,031,000 $7,031,000 Northwest Riverside Arlington Magnolia Alessandro 2.02 $13,957,000 $10,001,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Santa Ana River SR-91 3.44 $7,456.000 $7,456,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren SR-91 Mockingbird Canyon 3.10 $20,845.000 $10,847,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Wood Trautwein 0.43 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Trautwein Orange Terrace 1.27 $3,470,000 $3.470,000 Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Trautwein Vista Grande 1.22 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Vista Grande 1-215 1.26 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco El Sobrante Harley John 0.76 $4,806,000 $3.465,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harley John Harvil 5.79 $80,889,000 $66.905,000. Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harvil 1-215 0.28 $749,000 $749,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Canyon Lo Sierra 3.21 $23,864,000 $23,864,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Wash bridge 0.00 $3,229.000 $3,229,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco La Sierra EI Sobrante 6.11 $45,421,000 $45.421,000 Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Mockingbird Canyon Wood 4.41 $30,785.000 $28,309,000 Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Orange Terrace 1-215 1.89 $7,637,000 $7,637,000 Pass Beaumont Beaumont Oak Valley(14th) 1-10 1.37 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Potrero Oak Valley(San Tmoteo Car SR-60 0.72 $1,615,000 $1.615,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 interchange 0.00 $37,060.000 $23,760,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero UP railroad crossing 0.00 $7,927,000 $7,927,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero Noble Creek bridge 0.00 $2,306,000 $2,306,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 4th 0.45 $2,376.000 $2,376.000 Pass Beaumont SR-79)Beaumont) 1-10 Mellow 0.80 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont SR-79(Beaumont) 1-10 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $5.369.000 Pass Unincorporated SR-79(Beaumont) Mellow California 0.38 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated SR-79(Lamb Canyon) California Gilman Springs 4.87 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Warren Sanderson 1.77 $4,674,000 $4,674,000 San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Sanderson State 2.14 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 Winchester Warren 2.59 $16,085,000 $16,085,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County(Ramona) Warren Sanderson 1.73 $12,065,000 $12,065,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County(Ramona) Sanderson/SR-79(Hemet Bypc interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $37,060,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Sanderson State 2.39 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona State Main 2.66 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Main Cedar 2.08 $11,623,000 $11,139,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Cedar SR-74 1.10 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni SR-79(Winchester) Warren 3.10 $8,173,000 $8.173,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni San Diego Aqueduct bridge 0.00 $2,767,000 $2.767,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Bridge Sanderson 2.95 $7,782,000 $7.782,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Mid-County(Ramona) Bridge Warren 2.35 $12,396,000 $11,045,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-74 Briggs SR-79(Winchester) 3.53 $9,301,000 $9,301,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79(Hemet Bypass) SR-74(Florida) Domenigoni 3.22 $16,990,000 $16.990.000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79)Hemet Bypass) San Diego Aqueduct bridge 0.00 $5.534,000 $5,534,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79)Hemet Bypass) Domenigoni Winchester 1.50 $7.914,000 $7.914,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79)San Jacinto Bypass) Mid-County(Ramona) SR-74)Florida) 6.50 $34,296,000 $30,076,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79(Sanderson) Gilman Springs Ramona 1.92 $5.060,000 $2,376.000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79(Sanderson) San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $12,910,000 $6,100,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79(Winchester) Domenigoni Keller 4.90 $0 $0 Southwest Canyon Lake Goetz Railroad Canyon Newport 0.50 $0 $0 Southwest Canyon Lake Railroad Canyon Canyon Hills Goetz 1.95 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon 1-15 Canyon Hills 2.29 $3,021,000 $3,021,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon 1-15 interchange 0.00 $72,546.000 $28.636,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 1-15 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $17.725,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Copper Craft Toulon 0.83 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Toulon 1-215 0.83 $2.187,000 _$2.187,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith 1-215 Whitewood 0.75 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta French Valley(Date) Murrieta Hot Springs Winchester Creek 024' $3.352,000 $3,352000 Southwest Murrieta French Valiey(Date) Winchester Creek Margarita 0.61 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Menifee City Limit Keller 0.55' $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Keller Clinton Keith 2.00 $2.111,000 $2.111.000 Southwest Temecula French Valley(Date) Margarita Ynez 0.91 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley(Date) Ynez Jefferson 0.73 $10.199.000 $10.199,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley(Date) 1-15 interchange 0.00' $72.546,000 $55,760,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley(Cherry) Jefferson Diaz 0.56 $5,711,000 $5,711,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley(Cherry) Murrieta Creek bridge 0.00 $7,746A00 $7.746.000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass(Diaz) Cherry Rancho California 2.14 $5,382,000 $5.382.000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass)Vincent Mon Rancho California SR-79(Front) 1.48 $21,961.000 $21,961,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass(Vincent Mon 1-15 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $20,682.000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass)Vincent Mon Murrieta Creek bridge 0.00 $5,534,000 $5.534.000 Southwest Temecula SR-79)Winchester) Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson 2.70 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula SR-79(Winchester) 1-15 interchange 0.00" $17,897,000 $8,442,000 - Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR-79 Eastern Bypass 2.40 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Whitewood SR-79 2.54 $20,104,000 $3.604,000 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Warm Springs Creek bridge 0.00'- $33,200,000 $27,052,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-74 1-15 Ethanac 4.89 $13,064,000 $13.064,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79)Winchester) Keller Thompson 2.47 $17,220,000 $17.220,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79(Winchester) Thompson La Alba 1.81 $12,652,000 $12.652.000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79(Winchester) La Alba Hunter 0.50 $3,514,000 $2,771.000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79(Winchester) Hunter Murrieta Hot Springs 1.14 $513,000 $513.000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon 1-15 Monte Vista 0.32' $793.000 $793.000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Monte Vista Sunset 3.10 $9,850.000 $9.850.000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon 1-15 interchange 0.00, $17.897,000 $7.159,000 Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith Palomar 1-15 0.55 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith 1-15 Copper Craft 2.48 $5,627,000 $4.275.000 Subtotal 255.28 $1,642.525,000 $1,227,955,000 WRCOG 45 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DISI CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMl1MTUMF SHARE Central Menifee Briggs Newport Scott 3.05 $0 $0 Central Menifee Goetz Juanita Lesser Lane 2.61 $6,884,000 $6,593,000 Central Menifee Goetz Newport Juanita 1.36 $0 $0 Central Menifee Holland Antelope Haun 1.00 $13.971,090 $13.971,000 Central Menifee Holland 1-215 overcrossing bridge 0.00 $6,455,000 $6,455,000 Central Menifee McCall 1-215 Aspel 1-23 $0 g Central Menifee McCall 1-215 interchange 0.00 Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee 095 $12,897,000 $16,930,000 W Central Menifee Murrieta Efhanac McCall 1.95 $2.517,0 $2,517,0 $0 $0 0 $0 Central Menifee Murrieta McCall Newport 2.03 $ $0 $0 Central Menifee Murrieta Newport Bundy Canyon 300 $0 $1 Central Moreno Valley Cactus 1-215 Heacock 1.81 $2,022.000 $0 Central Moreno Valley Cactus 1-215 interchange 0.00 $37.060,000 $37,060,000 Central Moreno Valley Day Ironwood SR-60 0.28 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 interchange Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 Eucalyptus 0.0707 $77,897,0$0 $17,897,0$0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus I-215 Tow ngate 1.00 $4,050,000 $4,050,000 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Towngate Frederick 0.67 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Frederick Heacock 1.01 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Heacock Kitching 1.01 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Kitching Moreno Beach 2.42 $339,000 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Moreno Beach Theodore 2.28 $16,882,000 $16,882000 Central Moreno Valley Frederick SR-60 Alessandro 1,55 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Heacock Cactus Son Michele 2.79 $4.482.000 $4,482,000 Central Moreno Valley Heacock Reche Vista Cactus 4.73 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Heacock San Michele Harley Knox 0.74 $1.958.000 $1,532,000 Central Moreno Valley Ironwood SR-60 Day 1.33 $2695,000 $2,695,000 Central Moreno Valley Ironwood Day Heacock 2.01 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle Alessandro John F Kennedy 1.00 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle John F Kennedy Oleander 3.14 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach Reche Canyon SR-60 1.37 $9.548,000 $9.548,000 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach SR-60 overcrossing bridge 0.00 $2,306,000 $2,306.000 Central Moreno Valley Nason SR-60 Alessandro 1.51 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass Ironwood SR-60 0.43 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Cantarini Ironwood 3.23 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Locust 0.35 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Redlands Locust Alessandro 2.68 $78,721,000 $18.013,000 Central Moreno Valley Redlands SR-60 interchange 0,00 $37,060.000 $37,060,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 Eucalyptus 0.26 $1.817,000 $1,817,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $19.096,000 Central Perris Evans Oleander Ramona 0.99 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Ramona Morgan 0.59 $1,562,000 $1.562,000 Central Perris Evans Morgan Rider 0.49 Central Perris Evans Rider Placentia $0 $ Central Perris Evans Placentia Nuevo 1-50 $0 $00 Central Perris Evans Nuevo 1-215 199 $10,527,0$1,347,000 $1,347.000 00 $10.521,000 Central Perris Evans San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $7,378,000 $7,378,000 Central Perris Goetz Lesser Ethanac 1.04 $2,745,000 $1,238,000 Central Perris Harley Knox 1-215 Indian 1,53 $0 $0 Central Perris Harley Knox 1-215 interchange 0.00 $17.897.000 $7,110.000 Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Perris 0.5p Central Perris Harley Knox Perris Redlands 0-50 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Nuevo 1-215 Murrieta 1.36 $9,480,000 $9.480,000 Central Perris Nuevo 1-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897.000 Central Perris Nuevo Murrieta Dunlap 1.00 $2,035,000 $2035.000 Central Perris Nuevo Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge 0.00 $2,767,000 $2,767.000 Central Perris SR-74(Matthews) 1-275 Ethanac 125 $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74(Matthews) 1-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $8,815,000 Central Unincorporated Briggs SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson 2.50 $6,596,000 $6,596.000 Central Unincorporated Briggs Simpson Newport 1.53 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Briggs Salt Creek Bridge 0.00 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Center(Main) 1-215 Mf Vemon 1.50 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Center(Main) 1-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Central Unincorporated Center(Main) BNSF railroad crossing 0.00 $7,927,000 $7,927,000 Central Unincorporated Ellis Post SR-74 2.65 $6,989,000 $6,989.000 Central Unincorporated Mount Vernon/CETAP Corrid<Center Pigeon Pass 0.61 $2.252,000 $2,252,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo Dunlap Menifee 2.00 $5,273,000 $5,273,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $3,688,000 $3,688,000 Central Unincorporated Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Cantarini Mount Vernon 3.38 $25,146,000 $25,146,000 Central Unincorporated Post Santa Rosa Mine Ellis 0.44 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit 3.20 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Redlands San Timoteo Canyon Locust 2.60 $0 $0 WRCOG 46 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DISI CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE NorthwestCorona 6th SR-91 Magnolia 4.50 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Auto Center Railroad SR-91 0.48 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Cajalco Bedford Canyon 1-15 0.15 $1.049,000 $1,049.000 Northwest Corona Hidden Valley Norco Hills McKinley 0.59 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Lincoln Parkridge Ontario 3.20 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Magnolia 6th Sherbom Bridge 0.47 $3,283.000 $1283.000 Northwest Corona Magnolia Temescal Creek bridge 0.00 $2767,000 $2.767.000 Northwest Corona Magnolia Sherborn Bridge Rimpau 0.52 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Magnolia Rimpau Ontario 1.17 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main Grand Ontario 0.88 $2,325,000 $575,000 Northwest Corona Main Ontario Foothill 0.89 $0 $0 Northwest Corona - Main Hidden Valley Parkridge 0.35 $2,427,000 $1,912,000 Northwest Corona Main Parkridge SR-91 0.86 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main SR-91 S.Grand 0.86 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley Hidden Valley Promenade 0.40 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley Promenade SR-91 0.33 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley SR-91 Magnolia 0.31 $2346.000 $2,346,000 Northwest Corona McKinley Arlington Channel bridge 0.00 $923,000 $923,000 Northwest Corona McKinley BNSF railroad crossing 0.00 $55,472,000 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario I-15 EI Cerrito 0.89 $6,217,000 $4,924,000 Northwest Corona Ontario Lincoln Buena Vista 032 $2.242.000 $1,883,000 - Northwest Corona Ontario Buena Vista Main 0.65 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Main Kellogg 0.78 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Kellogg Fullerton 0.32 $2410,000 $1,785.000 Northwest Corona Ontario Fullerton Rimpau 0.42 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Rimpau 1-15 0.60 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Railroad Auto Club Buena Vista 2.45 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Railroad BNSF railroad crossing 0.00 $15,851,000 $15,851.000 Northwest Corona Railroad Buena Vista Main(at Grandl 0.58 $4,052,000 $3,203,000 Northwest Corona River Corydon Main 2.27 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Serfas Club SR-91 Green River 0.96 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Archibald San Bernardino County River 3.63 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Mission Bellegrave 3.03 $2,158,000 $2158,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Bellegrave Amberhill 0.20 $528,000 $528,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Amberhill Limonite 0.71 $3.222,000 $3,222,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Limonite Schleisman 1.00 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Schleisman Santa Ana River 1.00 $2,638.000 $2638,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite 1-15 East Center 0.35 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite 1-15 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite East Center Hamner 0.27 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale limonite Hamner Sumner 1.00 $1,319,000 $1,319.000 Northwest Eastvale limonite Sumner Harrison 0.50 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Harrison Archibald 0.49 $1.293,000 $1.293,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Archibald Hellman Keller SBD Co-) 1.12 $5,910,000 $5.910,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge 0.00 $3,688,000 $3,688,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Armstrong San Bernardino County Valley 1.53 $1,601,000 $1,601,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Bellegrave Cantu-Galleano Ranch Van Buren 0.29 $759.000 $759,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Cantu-Galleano Ranch Wineville Bellegrave 1.82 $2,400,000 $2400,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda San Bernardino County SR-60 1.00 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda SR-60 Limonite 3.00 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite 1-15 Wineville 0.40 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley limonite Wineville Etiwanda 0.99 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Etiwanda Van Buren 2.72 $14,345,000 $12,319,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Van Buren Clay 0.79 $1,672,000 $1,672,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Clay Riverview 2.45 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Rubidoux Santa Ana River 1.74 $4,605,000 $4,314,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Santa Ana River bridge 0.00` $9,222,000 $7,849,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission Milliken SR-60 1.61 $0. $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission SR-60 Santa Ana River 7.39 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Riverview Limonite Mission 0.95 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux San Bernardino County Mission 2.65 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux SR-60 interchange 0.00' $17,897,000 $8,948.000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Valley Armstrong Mission 0.48 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 10 Parkridge Mountain 0.26 $677,000 $677,000 Northwest Norco 1st Mountain Hamner 0.26 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 2nd River 1-15 1.44 $3,789.000 $3.789,000 Northwest Norco 6th Hamner California 1.71 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 6th 1-15 interchange 0.00` $17,897.000 $5,593,000 Northwest Norco Arlington North Arlington 0.97 $2570,000 $2,570,000 Northwest Norco California Arlington 6th 0.98 $6,848,000 $6,848,000 _ Northwest Norco Corydon River 5th 1.46 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River bridge 0.00 $22,132,000 $0 Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River Hidden Valley 3.05 $21,325,000 $21,325,000 Northwest Norco Hidden Valley 1-15 Norco Hills 1.52 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Hidden Valley Hamner 1-15 0.13 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Norco Corydon Hamner 1.20 $0 $0 Northwest Norco North Califomia Arlington 0.81 $0 $0 Northwest Norco River Archibald Corydon 1.14 $1,114,000 $803.0W WRCOG 47 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DOCITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE NorthwestRiverside 14th Market Martin Luther King 0.89 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside lst Market Main 0.08 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside 3rd SR-91 1-215 1.34 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside 3rd BNSF railroad crossing 0.00 $36,980,000 $36,980.00 _ Northwest Riverside Adams Arlington SR-91 1.56 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 Lincoln 0.54 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 interchange 0.0 $17,897,000 $17,897,00 Northwest Riverside Buena Vista Santa Ana River Redwood 0.30 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Martin Luther King Central 0.95 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Central Country Club 0.59 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Country Club Via Vista 0.94 $2,990,000 $1,855.00 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Via Vista Alessandro 0.68 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Chicago I-215/SR-60 2.15 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central SR-91 Magnolia 0.76 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Alessandro SR-91 2,05 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Van Buren Magnolia 3.53 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Chicago Alessandro Spruce 3.42 Northwest Riverside Chicago Spruce Columbia 0.75 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Columbia Main Iowa 1.09 $0 $0 $o $0 Northwest Riverside Columbia I-215 interchange 0.0 $17,897,00 $17,897,00 Northwest Riverside Iowa Center 3rd 2.25 $13,815,00 $13.815,00 Northwest Riverside Iowa 3rd University 0.51 $o bo Northwest Riverside Iowa University Martin Luther King 0.51 $3.530,00 $3.265,00 Northwest Riverside JFK Trautwein Wood 0,48 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside La Sierra Arlington $R-91 3.56 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside La Sierra SR-91 Indiana 0.19 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside La Sierra Indiana Victoria 0.78 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lemon(NB One ways Mission Inn University 0.08 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Van Buren Jefferson 2.0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Jefferson Washington 1.0 $4,331.00 $4,331.000 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Washington Victoria 1.43 $8,193,00 $8,193,00 Northwest Riverside Madison SR-91 Victoria 0.86 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Madison BNSF railroad crossing 0.0 $15,851,00 $10.851,00 Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF Railroad Tyler 2.70 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF railroad crossing 0.0 $15,851,00 $15.851,00 Northwest Riverside Magnolia Tyler Harrison 0.65 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia Harrison 14th 5.98 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Main 1st San Bernardino County 2.19 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Market 14th Santa Ana River 2.03 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Martin Luther King 14th 1-215/SR-60 2.11 $6,340,00 $6.340,00 Northwest Riverside Mission Inn Redwood Lemon 0.79 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Redwood(SB One way) Mission Inn University 0.08 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Trautwein Alessandro Van Buren 2.19 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyer SR-91 Magnolia 0.43 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyer SR-91 interchange 0.0' $37,060,00 $3,069.000 Northwest Riverside Tye, Magnolia Hole 0.27 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler Hole Wells 1.06 Northwest Riverside Tyler Wells Arlington 1.35 $0 $O.0 $9,443.00 $9,4430 Northwest Riverside University Redwood SR-91 0.86 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside University SR-91 1-215/SR-60 2.01 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Victoria Lincoln Arlington 0.16 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Victoria Madison Washington 0.52 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Washington Victoria Hermosa 2.05 $14,352,00 $14,352.00 Northwest Riverside Wood JFK Van Buren 0.70 $923,000 $923,000 Northwest Riverside Wood Van Buren Bergamont 0.11 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Wood Bergamon} Krameria 0.39 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Cantu-Golleano Ranch Hamner Wineville 0.94 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Dos Lagos(Weirick) Temescal Canyon 1-15 0.21 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated EI Cerrito 1-15 Ontario 0.56 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated EI Sobrante Mockingbird Canyon Cajalco 1.05 $3,337,00 $3.226,000 Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Washington Scottsdale 0.12 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Harleylohn Scottsdale Cajalco 1.19 $3,134,00 $3,134,00 Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra Victoria EI Sobrante 222 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra EI Sobrante Cajalco 2.36 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Mockingbird Canyon Van Buren EI Sobrante 3.29 $10,454,00 $9,03,00 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Ontario Tuscany 0.65 $1.644.00 $740,00 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Tuscany Dos Lagos 0.91 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dos Lagos Leroy 1.10 $3,507,00 $3,507,00 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Leroy Dawson Canyon 1.89 $5,994,00 $5,994,00 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dawson Canyon 1-15 028 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon 1-15 interchange 0.0` $17,897.00 $17,897,00 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon 1-15 Park Canyon 3.41 $12,661,000 $12.661,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail 2.55 $8,094,00 $8,094,000 Northwest Unincorporated Washington Hermosa Harley John 3.96 $7,840= $7,840,00 Northwest Unincorporated Wood Krameria Cajalco 2.99 $7,880,00 $7,880,00 WRCOG 48 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2077 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DISIC11Y STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTFO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Pass Banning 8th Wilson 1-10 0.54 $0 $0 Pass Banning Highland Springs Wilson(8th) Sun Lakes 0.76 $2,661.000 $2.661,000 Pass Banning Highland Springs 1-10 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Pass Banning Highland Springs Oak Valley(I 4t h) Wilson(8th) 0.73 $5,128,000 $5,128,000 Pass Banning Highland Springs Cherry Valley Oak Valley(14th) 1.53 $0 $0 Pass Banning 1-10 Bypass South 1-10 Morongo Trail)Apache Trail) 3.29 $22,952,000 $22,952,000 Pass Banning 1-10 Bypass South 1-10 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Pass Banning 1-10 Bypass South San Gorgonio bridge 0.00 $2,767,000 $2.767,000 Pass Banning 1-10 Bypass South UP railroad crossing 0.00 $18,490,000 $18,490.000 Pass Banning Lincoln Sunset SR-243 2.01 $0 $0 Pass Banning Ramsey 1-10 8th 1.70 $0 $0 Pass Banning Ramsey 8th Highland Springs 3.55 $0 $0 Pass Banning SR-243 1-10 Wesley 0.62 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Home Sunset 1.00 $13,971,000 $13,971,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Smith Creek bridge 0.00 $3,688,000 $3,688,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Springs Highland Home 1.33 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sunset Ramsey Lincoln 028 $0 $0 .Pass Banning Sunset 1-10 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Pass Banning Wilson Highland Home 8th 2.51 $0 $0 Pass Banning Wilson Highland Springs Highland Home 1.01 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 1st Viele Pennsylvania 1.28 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 1st Pennsylvania Highland Springs 1.10 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 6th 1-10 Highland Springs 2.24 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Desert Lawn Champions Oak Valley(STC) 0.99 $912,000 $912,000 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley(14th) Highland Springs Pennsylvania 1.13 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley(14th) Pennsylvania Oak View 1.40 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley(14th) Oak View 1-10 0.65 $2,270,000 $2,270,000 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley(14th) 1-10 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $11,660,000 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley(STC) Beaumont City Limits Cherry Valley(J St/Central Over 3.46 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley(STC) Cherry Valley it St/Central C 1-10 1.67 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania bth 1st 0.53 $3,018,000 $3,018,000 Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania 1-10 interchange 0.00 $8,949,000 $0 Pass Calimesa Bryant County Line Avenue L 0.38 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Calimesa County Line 1-10 0.80 $0 $0 Pass Calimeso Calimesa 1-10 interchange 0.00 $37.060,000 $37.060,000 Pass Calimesa Tukwet Canyon Roberts Palmer 0.50 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa County Line Roberts Bryant 1.86 $6,497,000 $6,497.000 Pass Calimesa County Line 1-10 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Pass Calimesa Desert Lawn Palmer Champions 1.42 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Singleton Avenue L Condit 1.86 $11,834,000 $11,834,OD0 Pass Calimesa Singleton Condit Roberts 0.85 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Singleton 1-10 interchange 0.00 $37.060,000 $37,060,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Noble Desert Lawn 3.40 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley 1-10 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $36,617.000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley San Tim oteo Wash bridge 0.00 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Live Oak Canyon Oak Valley(STC) San Bernardino County 2.81 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Oak Valley(STC) San Bernardino County Beaumont City Limits 5.65 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Oak Valley(STC) UP railroad crossing 0.00 $18,490,000 $18,490,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Beliflower Noble 1.47 $7,757,000 $7,757,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Highland Springs Bellflower 0.44 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Acacia Menlo 0.98 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Domenigoni Stetson 1.08 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson RR Crossing Acacia 0.42 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Stetson RR Crossing 0.58 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Menlo Esplanade 1.00 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74(Florida) Women Cawston 1.02 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74(Florida) Columbia Ramona 2.58 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74/SR-79(Florida) Cawston Columbia 4.03 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Domenigoni Chambers 1.31 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Chambers Stetson 0.51 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Florida Esplanade 1.74 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Stetson Florida 1.25 $9,377,000 $9,377.000 Son Jacinto Hemet Stetson Cawston State 2.52 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Women Cawston 1-00 $2,635,000 $2.635,000 San Jacinto Hemet Warren Esplanade Domenigoni 4.99 $13,163,000 $13,163,000 San Jacinto Hemet Warren Salt Creek bridge 0.00' $2.767,000 $2.490,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Ramona Mountain 0.20 $2,794,000 $2,794,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Mountain State 2.55 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade State Warren 3.53 $9.320,000 $9,320,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Sanderson Ramona Esplanade 3.55 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79(North Ramona) State San Jacinto 1.02 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79(San Jacinto) North Ramona Blvd 7th 0.25 $1,722,000 $1,722,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79(San Jacinto) 7th SR-74 2.25 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Ramona Esplanade 1.99 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Gilman Springs Quandt Ranch 0.76 $2.007,000 $1,138,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto State San Jacinto River bridge 0.00' $4,611,000 $3.162,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Quandt Ranch Ramona 0.70 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Women Ramona Esplanade 3.47 $9.156,000 $9,156.000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Sanderson State 2.54 $6,714,000 $3,462,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Massacre Canyon Wash bridge 0.00 $923,000 $570,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79)Winchester) SR-74(Florida) Domenigoni 3.23' $0 WRCOG 49 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIS,CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Southwest Lake Elsinore Corydon Mission Grand 1.53 $2.019,000 $2,019,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Diamond Mission 1-15 0.24 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Franklin(integral to Railroad 1-15 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $14,629,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Lincoln Toft 1.29 $0 $p Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Taft SR-74(Riverside) 0.86 $1.357,000 $1,357,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake 1-15 Lincoln 3.10 $14,794,000 $13,592,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake 1-15 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $7,291,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake Temescal Wash bridge 0.00 $1.973,000 $822,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Mission Railroad Canyon Bundy Canyon 2.39 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols 1-15 Lake 1.80 $3,324,000 $3,324,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols 1-15 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $37,060,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74(Collier/Riverside) 1-15 Lakeshore 2.10 $29,357,000 $28,315,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74(Grand) Riverside SR-74(Ortega) 0.64 $8,892,000 $7,495,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74(Riverside) Lakeshore Grand 1.74 $21,830,000 $21,830.000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon 1-15 Lake 1.21 $3,846,000 $3,846,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon Temescal Wash bridge 0.00 $2,270,000 $2,270,000 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jefferson 1-15 0.32 $555,000 $555,000 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks 1-15 Jackson 0.50 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jackson Clinton Keith 1.76 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jackson Whitewood Ynez 0.53 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Palomar Nutmeg 1.02 $2.691,000 $2691.000 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Nutmeg Murrieta Hof Springs 2.37 $21.520,000 $21,520,000 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Murrieta Hot Springs Cherry 2.26 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Keller 1-215 Whitewood 0.75 $1,571,000 $1,571,000 Southwest Murrieta Keller 1-215 interchange 0.00 $17.897,000 $17,897,000 Southwest Murrieta Los Alamos Jefferson 1-215 1.77 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson 1-215 1.11 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs 1-215 Margarita 1.48 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Margarita SR-79(Winchester) 1.01 $2,660,000 $2660,000 Southwest Murrieta Nutmeg Jefferson Clinton Keith 1.97 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieto Whitewood Clinton Keith Los Alamos 2.01 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Los Alamos Murrieta Hof Springs 1.93 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Murrieta Hot Springs Jackson 0.80 $8,066,000 $8,066,000 Southwest Murrieta Ynez Jackson SR-79(Winchester) 1.22 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Jefferson Cherry Rancho California 2.29 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Margarita Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79(Temecula Pkwy) 7,38 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Old Town Front Rancho California 1-1S/SR-79(Temecula Pkwy) 1.45 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy SR-79(Temecula Pkwy) Via Gilberto - 1.32 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy Via Gilberto Pechanga Pkwy 1,44 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Jefferson Margarita 1.89 $6,824,000 $6.824.000 Southwest Temecula Rancho California 1-15 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $12.009,000 Southwest Temecula Rancho Califomia Margarita Butterfield Stage 1.96 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Butterfield Stage Glen Oaks 4.26' $32,064,000 $32,064,000 Southwest Temecula SR-79(Temecula Pkwy) 1-15 Pechanga Pkwy 0.64 $1,692,000 $1,576,000 Southwest Temecula SR-79(Temecula Pkwy) Pechanga Pkwy Butterfield Stage 3.08 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Briggs Scott SR-79(Winchester) 3.39 $8.950,000 $8,950,000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Murrieta Hot Springs Calle Chapos 0.82 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Calle Chapos La Serena 0.70 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage La Serena Rancho California 0.90 $2,860,000 $2,860,000 Southwest Ur,ncorporated Butterfield Stage Rancho California Pauba 0.85 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Pauba SR-79(Temecula Pkwy) 1.69 $269,000 $269,000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage SR-79(Winchester) Auld 2.28 $7,245,000 $7.245,000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Auld Murrieta Hot Springs 223 $14,172,000 $14,172000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Tucalota Creek bridge 0.00' $3.688,000 $3,688,000 Southwest Unincorporated Horsethief Canyon Temescal Canyon 1-15 0.17 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Indian Truck Trail Temescal Canyon 1-15 0-18 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79(Winchester) Pourroy 1.75 $0 $p Southwest Unincorporated Pala Pechanga San Diego County 1.38 $0 $p Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Horsethief Canyon Wash bridge 0.00 $2,214,000 $2,214,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Truck Trail I-15 2.57 $8,166,000 $8,166,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Wash bridge 0.00 $941,000 $941,000 Southwest Wildomar Baxter I-15 Palomar .0.37 $974,000 $921,000 Southwest Wildomar Baxter 1-15 interchange 0.00- $17,897,000 $7,159,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Mission 1-15 0.94 $6.537,000 $6,537,000 Southwest Wildomar Central Baxter Palomar 0.74 $5,143,000 $5,143,000 Southwest Wildomar Central Grand Palomar 0.51 $3,570,000 $3.570.000 Southwest Wildomar Grand Ortega Corydon 4.96 $34,648,000 $25,0T 1,000 Southwest Wildomar Grand Corydon Central 2.02` $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Mission Bundy Canyon Palomar 0,84 $p $0 Southwest Wildomar Palomar Clinton Keith Jefferson 0.74 $1,941,000 $1,691,000 Southwest Wildomar Palomar Mission Clinton Keith 2.79 $7,358,000 $7,358,000 Subtotal 473.09 $1,803,495,000 $1,484,916.000 Totals Network 728.37 $ 3,446,020,000 $ 2,712,871,000 Transit $ 153,120,000'$ 92,639,000 Administration $ 112,220,400 $ 112,220,400 MSHCP $ 45,401,000 $ 43,308,000 Total $ 3,756,761,400 $ 2%1,038,400 WRCOG 50 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.5 -TUMF Transit Cost Estimates LEAD UNITS(number/ MAXIMUM TUMF AREA PLAN DISI AGENCY PROJECT NAME LOCATION length in miles( UNIT COS( TOTAL SHARE Northwest RTA Riverside Mobility Hub at Vine Street Riverside 1 $6,000,000 $6.000,000 $3.630,000 Cenral RTA Moreno Valley Mobility Hub Moreno Valley 1 $9,000,000 $9.000,000 $5,445,000 Northwest RTA Jurupa Valley Mobility Hub Jurupa Valley 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5.445,000 Pass RTA Banning Mobility Hub Banning 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 Southwest RTA Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake Mobility Hb Lake Elsinore 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 Southwest RTA Temecula/Murrieta Mobility Hub Temecula 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 San Jacinto RTA Hemet Mobility Hub Hemet 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 San Jacinto RTA San Jacinto Mobility Hub - San Jacinto 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 San Jacinto RTA Mt.San Jacinto College Mobility Hub San Jacinto 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $605,000 Regional RTA Regional Operations and Maintenance Facilit Riverside 1 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $30,251,000 Regional RTA Annual Transit Enhancements Program Various locations region wid 290 $40,000 $11,600,000 $7,018,000 Central RTA Central Corridor RapidLink Implementation UCR,Riverside to Perris 42 $60.000 $2,520,000 $1,525,000 Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Medium Buses Various locations region wid 7 $155,000 $1,085,0001 $656,000 Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Large Buses Various locations region wid 29 $585,000 $16,965,000 $10,264,000 Regional IRTA IComprehensive Operational Analysis Study IVarious locations region wall 1 $950,000 $950,OWI $575,000 Total $15$.13#!, ""Stow 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation To assess the effectiveness of the proposed TUMF Network improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development in Western Riverside County, the proposed network improvements were added to the 2015 existing network in RivTAM and the model was run with 2040 socioeconomic data to determine the relative impacts on horizon year traffic conditions. To quantify the impacts of the TUMF Network improvements, the various traffic measures of effectiveness described in Section 3.1 for the 2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build scenarios were again calculated for the 2040 TUMF Build scenario. The results for VMT, VHT, VHD, and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E) were then compared to the results presented in Table 3.1 for the no-build conditions. The 2040 TUMF Build comparison results are provided in Table 4.6. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix H. As shown in Table 4.6, the 2040 VMT on arterial facilities experiencing LOS of E or worse will decrease with the addition of the TUMF Network improvements while the share of VMT on the regional arterial highway system experiencing daily LOS E or worse will be reduced to 38% (which is still above the level experienced in 2012). It should be noted that the total VMT on the arterial system increases as a result of freeway trips being diverted to the arterial system to benefit from the proposed TUMF improvements. Despite a greater share of the total VMT in 2040, the arterial system is able to more efficiently accommodate the increased demand with the proposed TUMF improvements. Although VMT on the TUMF improved arterial system increases by approximately 9% in 2040 compared to the No Build condition, VHT on the arterial system decreases by approximately 11% indicating traffic is able to move more efficiently. Additionally, a notable benefit is observed on the freeway system with VMT and VHT being substantially reduced following TUMF Network improvements. By completing TUMF improvements, the total VHD experienced by all area motorists would be reduced by over one third from the levels that would be experienced under the 2040 No-Build scenario. These results highlight the overall effectiveness of the TUMF Program to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development commensurate with the level of impact being created. WRCOG 51 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.6 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build Scenarios to 2040 TUMF Build Scenario) Peak Periods Total Measure of Performance* 2012 Baseline 2040 No-Build 2040 Build VMT-Total ALL FACILITIES 19,532,437 29,277,587 31,022,272 VMT- FREEWAYS 11,019,155 14,487,570 13,411,377 VMT-ALL ARTERIALS 8,513,282 14,790,016 17,610,895 TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 5,585,202 9,089,495 9,902,433 VHT-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 575,154 1,361,907 1,180,647 VHT-FREEWAYS 296,542 736,433 530,849 VHT-ALL ARTERIALS 278,611 625,474 649,797 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 181,151 396,981 354,639 VHD-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES - 175,765 739,075 489,238 VHD- FREEWAYS 117,430 502,549 312,669 VHD -ALL ARTERIALS 58,334 236,527 176,569 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 45,080 172,944 114,833 VMT LOS E-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 6,188,644 16,966,992 14,299,498 VMT LOS E- FREEWAYS 4,532,703 10,156,363 8,982,566 VMT LOS E & F-ALL ARTERIALS 1,655,941 6,810,629 5,316,932 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 1,462,061 5,160,911 3,735,762 %of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 26% 57% 38% Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP,September 2016. NOTES: Volume is adjusted by PCE factor VMT=vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT=vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD=vehicle hours of delay(the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow(ideal) travel time) LOS=level of service(based on forecast volume to capacity ratios). LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan. WRCOG 52 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the correlation between future development and the need for transportation system improvements on the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of this new development, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components of the TUMF concept. 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements Previous sections of this report documented the projected residential and employment growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic congestion and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system improvements that will serve these future inter-community travel demands. The following points coalesce this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates to the need for improvements to the TUMF system. ➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing. Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate of growth into the foreseeable future. Current projections estimate the population is projected to grow from a level of approximately 1.77 million in 2012 to a future level of about 2.43 million in 2040, while employment is projected to grow from a level of about 461,000 in 2012 to approximately 861,000 in 2040 (as shown in Table 2.3). ➢ Continuing growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.1). Without improvements to the transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy delays. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development in Western Riverside County. Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since longer-distance trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity,improvements to the transportation system will be needed to alleviate the future congestion caused by new development. To maintain transportation service at or near its current levels of efficiency, capacity enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing WRCOG 53 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2076 Program Update July 10, 2017 roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, or grade separation of at-grade rail crossings. The completion of improvements to the arterial roadway system would enhance regional mobility, and reduce the total peak period vehicles hours of travel (VHT) by approximately 13%, reduce peak period vehicle hours of delay (VHD) by approximately 34%, and reduce the share of traffic experiencing congestion in the peak periods by 16% (as shown in Table 4.6). The specific needs and timing of implementation will depend on the location and rate of future development, so the specific improvements to be funded by the TUMF and their priority of implementation will be determined during future project programming activities as improvement needs unfold and as TUMF funds become available. ➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. The criteria used to identify roads for the TUMF network (future number of lanes, future traffic volume, future congestion level, and roadway function linking communities and activity centers and serving public transportation) were selected to ensure that these are the roadways that will serve inter-community travel and will require future improvement to alleviate congestion. ➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. Since a portion of the population does not own an automobile and depends on public transportation for mobility, the public transportation infrastructure and service will need to be enhanced and expanded to ensure continued mobility for this segment of the population. In addition, improvements to the public transportation system will be required to ensure that transit service can function as a viable option for future new Western Riverside County residents and employees who choose to avoid congestion by using public transportation. For the reasons cited above, it can be readily concluded that there is a rational nexus between the future need for transportation improvements on the TUMF system and the future development upon which the proposed TUMF would be levied. The following sections evaluate the rational nexus in relation to the system components and the types of uses upon which the fee is assessed. 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components As noted in Section 3.2, the TUMF concept includes splitting the fee revenues between the backbone system of arterials, the secondary system of arterials, and the public transportation system. This section evaluates the travel demands to determine the rational nexus between the future travel demands and the use of the fee to fund improvements to the future system components. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle trips that are relatively local (between WRCOG 54 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future combined AM and PM peak period travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones to show the percentage of trips that remain within each zone in relation to the volume that travels to the other zones. This analysis was completed using the Year 2040 No-Build scenario trip tables from RivTAM. The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the TAZs in the model and the five WRCOG TUMF zones (i.e. Northwest, Southwest, Central, Hemet/San Jacinto and Pass). The TAZs were then compressed into six districts (the five WRCOG zones and one for the rest of the SCAG region). Table 5.1 shows the estimated peak period vehicle trips within and between each of the zones. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of peak period vehicle trips within and between the respective zones. Appendix I includes the detailed RivTAM outputs used to develop the regional trip distribution profile shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2. Table 5.1 - 2040 Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone To Central Hemet/San Northwest Pass Southwest Outside TOTAL From Jacinto WRCOG Central 285,556 15,102 60,146 6,274 34,821 41,799 443,699 Hemet/San Jacinto 14,876 190,792 7,396 5,256 17,138 13,851 249,310 Northwest 64,066 8,082 742,299 6,569 25,648 211,686 1,058,350 Pass 6,721 5,563 6,536 103,901 1,791 32,830 157,341 Southwest 34,785 17,514 24,135 1,785 452,345 28,424 558,988 Outside WRCOG 43,352 14,690 212,699 33,337 29,242 433,3 TOTAL 449,357 251,743 1,053,210 157,123 560,984 2,801,0 Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No-Build scenario Table 5.2 - 2040 Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone To Central Hemet/San Northwest Pass Southwest Outside TOTAL Fro:m::::� Jacinto WRCOG Central 64.4% 3.4% 13.6% 1.4% 7.8% 9.4% 10070 Hemet/San Jacinto 6.0% 76.5% 3.0% 2.1% 6.9% 5.6% 100°]'0 Northwest 6.1% 0.8% 70.1% 0.6% 2.410 20.0% 100% Pass 4.3% 3.5% 4.2% 66.0% 1.1% 20.9% 10070 Southwest 6.2% 3.1% 4.3/0 0.3% 80.9% 5.1% 100°/'0 Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No-Build scenario WRCOG 55 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2077 Table 5.3 summarizes the calculation of the split between the backbone and secondary highway networks as derived from the peak period trip values provided in Table 5.1. Peak period vehicle trips to and from areas outside Western Riverside County were subtracted from the calculation, on the presumption that most of their inter- regional travel would occur on the freeway system. Peak period trips between zones (regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Peak period trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the secondary network in proportion to their lane-miles, since roadways on both networks serve intra-zonal trips. The backbone network includes approximately 40.5% of the lane-miles on the future TUMF system, and the secondary network includes approximately 59.5% of the lane-miles. The backbone network is therefore assigned all of the inter-zonal peak period trips plus 40.5% of the intra-zonal peak period trips. The secondary network is assigned 59.5% of the intra-zonal peak period trips and none of the inter-zonal peak period trips. The overall result is that 50.7% of the regional travel is assigned to the backbone network and 49.3% is assigned to the secondary network. Table 5.3 - Backbone-Secondary Network Share Calculation Calculation Value Description Input Values Backbone Backbone Secondary Secondary Valve Share Value Share Total Western Riverside County 2,801 f008 Peak Period Vehicle Trips . Less Internal/External Peak Period r Vehicle Trips Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips Internal o Western Riverside 2,139,098 r�. Countyt _ter Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between 364,205 , TUMF Zones Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within s U 1,774,893 MF Zones TUMF Future Network Lane-Miles 3,151.1 1,277.7 40.5% 1,873.4 59.5% Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between 364,205 364,205 100.0% 0 0.0% TUMF Zones Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within TUMF Zones (as share of intra- 1,774,893 719,679 40.5% 1,055,214 59.5% zonal trips) Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips 2,139,098 1,083,884 50.7% 1,055,214 49.3% Assigned 1 Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No-Build scenario;TUMF Nexus Study Exhibit H-2 WRCOG 56 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2077 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non-Residential Developments In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, the growth in peak period VMT between the 2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build Scenarios from RivTAM were aggregated by trip purpose. RivTAM produces person trips (irrespective of mode choice) on the basis of five trip purposes: home-based-work (HBW), home-based-other (HBO), home-based-school (HBSC), work-based-other (WBO), and other-based-other (OBO). NCHRP Report #187 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978) details operational travel estimation techniques that are universally used for the travel demand modeling. Chapter 2 of this report, which details trip generation estimation, states that "HBW (Home Based Work) and HBNW (Home Based Non Work) trips are generated at the households, whereas the NHB (Non-Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere." In accordance with NCHRP Report #187, growth in peak period VMT was aggregated into home-based growth in peak period VMT (combining the first three purposes: HBW, HBO, HBS) and non-home-based growth in peak period VMT (combining the last two purposes: WBO, OBO). The home-based growth in peak period VMT represent 71.0% of the total future growth in VMT in the peak periods, and the non-home-based growth in peak period VMT represent 29.0% of the total future growth in VMT in the peak period as shown in Table 5.4. Appendix J includes the RivTAM outputs used to develop the trip purpose summary in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 - Peak Period VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2012 - 2040) 2012 BASELINE 2040 NO-BUILD PEAK PERIOD PEAK PERIOD VEHICLE TRIP PURPOSE PEAK PERIOD PEAK PERIOD VMT GROWTH VMT VMT VMT GROWTH SHARE Home-Based-Work 5,849,895 8,331,921 2,482,026 52.9% Home-Based-Other 2,214,102 2,932,929 718,827 15.3% Home-Based-School K-12 413,303 542,911 129,608 2.8% Work-Based-Other �4 )� �. 4 � .4 : { r % Other-Based-Other % TOTAL 11,194.859 15,884,463, 4,689,605 Home-Based Trips 3,330,462 71.0% Residential Uses Non-Home-Based Trips t`�1 Non-Residential Uses 3 Based on RivTAM Year 2012 Baseline Scenario,September 2016 and RivTAM Year 2040 No Build Scenario,September 2016 WRCOG 57 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 6.0 FAIR-SHARE FEE CALCULATION The fee amounts, by type of development, that are justified to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on transportation facilities in Western Riverside County are quantified in this section. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.76 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals $303.5 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development represent $492.2 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $2.96 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their "fair share" of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.96 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 71.0% ($2.10 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 29.0% ($858.7 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. 6.1 Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new residential development through the TUMF is $2.10 billion. Since this future transportation system improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through the Year 2040, the fee will be spread between the residential developments projected to be constructed between 2012 and 2040. The projected residential growth from year 2012 to 2040 is 250,082 households (or dwelling units) as is indicated in Table 2.3. Different household types generate different numbers of trips. To reflect the difference in trip generation between lower density "single-family" dwelling units and higher density "multi-family" dwelling units, the TUMF was weighted based on the respective trip generation rates of these different dwelling unit types. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, single family dwelling units are those housing units with a density of less than 8 units per acre while multi-family units are those with a density of 8 or more units per acre. According to the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS forecasts included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to constitute 69.2% of the growth in residential dwelling units in the region between 2012 and 2040. Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition (2012) show that, on average, single-family dwelling units generate 9.52 vehicle trips per dwelling unit per day, whereas apartments, condominiums and townhouses (considered to be representative of higher density multi-family dwelling units) generate a median of 6.20 vehicle trips per unit per day. The growth in dwelling units for single-family and multi-family, respectively, were multiplied by the corresponding trip generation rates to determine the weighted proportion of the WRCOG 58 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 change in trips attributable to each use type as the basis for determining the per unit fee required to levy the necessary $2.10 billion to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new residential development. Table 6.1 summarizes the calculation of the fee for single-family and multi-family dwelling units. Appendix K includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the residential (and non-residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County. Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share 2012 2040 Dwelling Trip Percentage Residential Sector Dwelling Dwelling Unit Generation Trip Change of Trip Fee/DU Units Units Chan a Rate Change Single-Family 366,588 539,631 173,043 9.52 1,647,369 77.5% $9,418 Multi-Family 158,561 235,600 77,039 6.20 477,642 22.5% $6,134 otal 525,149 1 775,231 1 250,082 2,125,011 100.0% Household data based on SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and WSP,April 2016; Trip Generation based on ITE Trip Generation (2012). 6.2 Non-Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new non-residential development through the TUMF is $858.7 million. Estimates of employment by sector were obtained from the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socioeconomic data included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B. From the 2040 employment forecast, the amount of employee growth in each sector was calculated. The employment figures were then translated into square footage of new development using typical ratios of square feet per employee derived from four sources including: Cordoba Corporation/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas (PBQD), Land Use Density Conversion Factors For Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20, 1990; Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange County Subarea Model Guidelines Manual, June 2001; SCAG, Employment Density Study, October 31; 2001; and the County of Riverside, General Plan, As Amended December 15, 2015. Worksheets showing the development of the TUMF employee conversion factors and the application of the conversion factors to calculate the square footage of future new non-residential development in Western Riverside County are included in Appendix L. To account for the differences in trip generation between various types of non- residential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation rate for each sector. Typical trip generation rates per employee were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation - Ninth Edition (2012), and were weighted based on a calculated value of trips per employee as derived from the employee conversion factors and ITE typical trip generation rates per square foot of development, before being assigned to the non-residential categories as follows: Industrial -3.8 trips per employee, Retail - 16.2 trips per employee, Service - 4.6 trips per WRCOG 59 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 employee, and Government/Public - 12.0 trips per employee". These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new trip-making, and the $858.7 million was then allocated among the non-residential categories on the basis of the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate non-residential fee share by sector was then divided by the estimated square footage of future new development to obtain the rate per square foot for each type of use. The calculation of the non-residential fee by sector is shown in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 - Fee Calculation for Non-Residential Share Trip Change in Employment Generation Percentage Square Non-Residential Sector Change Rate per Trip Change of Trip Feet of Fee/SF Employee Change Gross Floor Area Industrial 80,592 3.8 302,220 13.4% 64,710,138 $1,77 Retail 35,841 16.2 580,624 25.7% 17,920,500 $12.31 Service 274,720 4.6 1,263,712 55.9% 105,211,915 $4.56 ,Government/Public 9,515 12.0 114,180 5.1% 2,696,349 $i6.o8 Total 400,668 2,260,7361 100.0% I190,538,901 Employment Change data based on SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS;Trip Generation based on ITE(2012),Change in Square Feet conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990),OCTA (2001),SCAG(2001)and County of Riverside(2015). 11 The median trip generation rate for 'Retail' and 'Service' was reduced to reflect the influence of pass-by trips using the weekday PM peak median pass-by trip rate for select uses as derived from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (June 2004). WRCOG b0 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be seen that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the ongoing TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: ➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. ➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. ➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. ➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in Western Riverside County in rough proportionality to the cumulative impacts of future residential and non-residential development in the region. The respective fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table 7.1. Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development Fee Per Unit Total Revenue Change ($ million) Single Family Residential DU 173,043 $9,418 $1,629.8 Multi Family Residential DU 77,039 $6,134 $472.5 Industrial SF GFA 64,710,138 $1.77 $114.8 Retail SF GFA 17,920,500 $12.31 $220.5 Service SF GFA 105,21 1,915 $4.56 $480.0 Government/Public SF GFA 2,696,349 $16.08 $43.4 MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $2,961.0 WRCOG 61 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Plexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Neil R.Winter STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) Mayor COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF MENIFEE ) Matthew Liesemeyer Mayor Pro Tem 1, Sarah Manwaring, City Clerk of the City of Menifee, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2017-229 was duly adopted by the City Council of the Greg August City of Menifee at a meeting thereof held on the 4t" day of October, 2017 by the Councilmember following vote: Lesa A.Sobek Ayes: August, Denver, Liesemeyer, Sobek, Winter Councilmember Noes: None Absent: None John V. Denver Abstain: None Councilmember P Sa ah A. Manw /ri , City Clerk 29714 Haun Road Menifee,CA 92586 Phone 951.672.6777 Fax 951.679.3843 www.cityofinenifee.us