Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02 CC Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 10 -02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.08 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Chapter 15.08, Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program, of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.08.010 Title. This Chapter shall be known as the "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2009." 15.08.020 Findings. In adopting this Chapter, the City Council of the City of Temecula finds and determines that: A. The City is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments "WRCOG a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and 16 Cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, the WRCOG Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials in Western Riverside County (the "Regional System could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee "TUMF on future residential, commercial and industrial development. A map depicting the boundaries of Western Riverside County and the Regional System is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein as though set forth in full (the "Regional System As a Member Agency of WRCOG, and as a TUMF Participating Jurisdiction, the City participated in the preparation of a certain "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Fee Nexus Study dated October 18, 2002 (the "2002 Nexus Study prepared in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code 66000 et seq.) and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. Based on the 2002 Nexus Study, the City adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing the City's participation in a TUMF Program. B. WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, has prepared an updated nexus study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study; 2009 Update" "2009 Nexus Study pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On September 14 and October 5, 2009, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2009 Nexus Study and TUMF R: /Ords 2010 /Ords 10 -02 1 Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program. The 2009 Nexus Study in on file in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein as though set forth in full. C. Consistent with its previous findings made in the adoption of Ordinance No. 06 -04, 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 cost of improving the Regional System, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels of Service. Furthermore, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thus, adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, continuation of a TUMF Program is essential. D. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the 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 2009 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements and the facilities that comprise 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 Chapter shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and right of way acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2009 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. R: /Ords 2010 /Ords 10 -02 2 H. The City Council finds that the 2009 Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional System. The City Council hereby adopts the 2009 Nexus Study. 15.08.030 Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, 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 parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class 'A' Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of three stories; (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 "Project" 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. R: /Ords 2010 /Ords 10 -02 3 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 Project" means any development project that proposes any industrial or manufacturing use allowed in light industrial and business park zones as defined by Title 17, Zoning, of the Temecula Municipal Code, or within a similarly defined planning area within an adopted specific plan. G. "Low 'Income Residential Housing" means residential units in publicly subsidized projects constructed as housing for low- income households as such households are defined pursuant to section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. "Publicly subsidized projects," as the term is used herein, shall not include any project or project applicant receiving a tax credit provided by the State of California Franchise Tax Board. H "Multi Family Residential Unit" means a development project that has a density of greater than eight (8) residential dwelling units per gross acre. "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 commercial use not defined as a service commercial project allowed in the neighborhood commercial, community commercial, highway tourist commercial and service commercial zones as defined in Title 17 of this Code, or within a similarly defined planning area within an adopted specific plan. M. "Service Commercial Project" means any development project that is predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or administrative services, consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal and medical offices as further defined in the professional office as defined in Title 17 of this Code, but excluding any residential uses, or within a similarly defined planning area within an adopted specific plan. 1 R: /Ords 2010 /Ords 10 -02 4 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. 15.08.040 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 Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. The following shall be observed for purposes of calculating the fee: 1. For non residential projects, the fee rate utilized shall be 111 based upon the predominant use of the building or structure identified in the building permit and as further specified in the TUMF Administrative Plan. 2. For non residential projects, the fee shall be calculated on the total square footage of the building or structure identified in the building permit and as further specified in the TUMF Administrative Plan. C. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to the resolution, 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 Chapter, 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 December 1, 2009. D. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional System identified in the 2009 Nexus Study. R: /Ords 2010 /Ords 10 -02 5 E. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the City, unless otherwise exempt hereunder. F. Exemptions. The following new development shall be exempt from the TUMF: 1. Low income residential housing. 2. Government/public buildings, public schools and public facilities. 3. 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. 4. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq, prior to May 28, 2003, the effective date of Ordinance No. 03 -01, 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 this Chapter, the TUMF shall be imposed. 5. Guest Dwellings, as defined in Title 17 of this Code. 6. Additional single family residential units located on the same parcel pursuant to the provisions of any agricultural zoning classifications as defined in Title 17 of this Code. 7. Kennels and Catteries established in connection with an existing single family residential unit as defined in Title 17 of this Code. 8. Detached Second Units pursuant to Title 17 of this Code. 9. The sanctuary building of a church or other house of worship, eligible for a property tax exemption. 10. Any nonprofit corporation or nonprofit organization offering and conducting full -time day school at the elementary, middle school or high school level for students between the ages of five and eighteen years. G. Credit. Regional System improvements may be credited toward the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan and the following: 1 R: /Ords 2010 /Ords 10 -02 6 1. Regional Tier 111 a. Arterial Credits: If a developer constructs arterial improvements identified on the Regional System, the developer shall receive credit for all costs associated with the arterial component based 2009 Nexus Study for the Regional System. WRCOG staff must pre approve any credit agreements that deviate from the standard WRCOG approved format. b. Other Credits: In special circumstances, when a developer constructs off -site improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade separation, credits shall be determined by WRCOG and the City in consultation with the developer. All such credits must have prior written approval from WRCOG. c. The amount of the development fee credit shall not exceed the maximum amount determined by the 2009 Nexus Study for the Regional System or actual costs, whichever is less. 2. Local Tier a. The local jurisdictions shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the Regional System and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program except where there is a Recognized Financing District has been established. b. If there is a Recognized Financing District established, the local agency may credit that portion of the facility identified in both programs against the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan. 15.08.050 Reimbursements. Should the developer construct Regional System improvements in excess of the TUMF fee obligation, the developer may be reimbursed based on actual costs or the 2009 Nexus Study, whichever is less. Reimbursements shall be enacted through an agreement between the developer, and the City, contingent on funds being available and approved by WRCOG. In all cases, however, reimbursements under such special agreements must coincide with construction of the transportation improvements as scheduled in the five -year Capital Improvements Program adopted annually by WRCOG. 15.080.060 Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Fees. 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 Chapter. R: /Ords 2010 /Ords 10 -02 7 B. Payment. Payment of the fees shall be as follows: 1. 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 a. This section should not be construed to prevent payment of the fees prior to issuance of an occupancy permit or final inspection. b. 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. c. 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. d. The fees shall be calculated according to the fee schedule set forth in this Chapter and the calculation methodology set forth in the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. e. In accordance with the requirements authorized by Government Code Section 66007, if the fee is not fully paid prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any portion of the project, the property owner, or lessee if the lessee's interest appears of record, as a condition of issuance of the building permit, shall execute an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to pay the fee or charge, or applicable portion thereof, within the time specified in this subsection. (i) The obligation to pay the fee or charge shall inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the local agency that imposed the fee or charge, regardless of whether it is a party to the contract. (ii) The agreement shall contain a legal description of the property affected, shall be recorded in the office of the Riverside County Recorder and, from the date of recordation, shall constitute a lien for the payment of the fee or charge, which shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the property owner or lessee at the time of issuance of the building permit. 1 R: /Ords 2010 /Ords 10 -02 8 (iii) The agreement shall be recorded in the grantor grantee index in the name of the City as grantee and in the name of the property owner or lessee as grantor. (iv) The City shall record a release of the obligation, containing a legal description of the property, in the event the obligation is paid in full, or a partial release in the event the fee or charge is prorated. (v) The agreement may require the property owner or lessee to provide appropriate notification of the opening of any escrow for the sale of the property for which the building permit was issued and to provide in the escrow instructions that the fee or charge be paid to the local agency imposing the same from the sale proceeds in escrow prior to disbursing proceeds to the seller. 2. The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment is due under this Chapter, not the date when this Chapter was initially adopted by Ordinance No. 10 -02. The City shall not enter into a development agreement which freezes future adjustments of the TUMF. 3. 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. 4. Fees shall not be waived. C. Disposition of Fees. All fees collected hereunder shall be transmitted to the Executive Director of WRCOG within thirty (30) days of receipt by the City for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and the Mitigation Fee Act. D. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed with WRCOG in accordance with the provision 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 Safety, or his or her designee, shall prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, periodic reports as will be established under Section 15.08.070 of this Chapter. 1 R: /Ords 2010 /Ords 10 -02 9 15.080.070 Appointment of the TUMF Administrator. A. 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 Chapter and the Mitigation Fee Act. The detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this Chapter shall be contained in the TUMF Administrative Plan adopted May 5, 2003, and as it may be amended from time to time. Furthermore, the TUMF Administrator shall use the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as it may be amended from time to time, for the purpose of calculating a developer's TUMF 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. B. 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 2. 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 3. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby find and determines that: A. On January 12, 2010, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the "Mitigation Fee Act on the 2009 Nexus Study described in Section 2 of this Ordinance, the resolution adopting the TUMF proposed to be adopted under the 2009 Nexus Study, and this Ordinance. B. At least ten (10) days prior to this hearing, the City Council made the 2009 Nexus Study, the TUMF Resolution and this Ordinance available for public review. C. At the Public 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. R: /Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 10 Section 4. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby determines, in accordance with 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines "CEQA Guidelines that the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program as described in this Ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The Ordinance establishes a funding mechanism for potential transportation improvements and does not approve the construction nor cause the construction of any specific transportation improvements within Riverside County. This Ordinance will have no effect on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(d) and 15062, the City Manager is hereby directed to cause a Notice of Exemption to be prepared, executed and filed for the foregoing determination in the manner required by law, that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, not environmental impact assessment is necessary. Section 5. 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 6. 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 ninety (90) days of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. Section 7. Ordinance No. 06 -04. This Ordinance supersedes the provisions of Ordinance No. 06 -04 provided this Ordinance is not declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction or not approved by a referendum. If, for whatever reason, this Ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction or not approved by a referendum, Ordinance No. 06 -04 and all other related ordinances and policies shall remain in full force and effect. Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective sixty (60) days following its adoption. Section 9. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner required by law. R: /Ords 2010 /Ords 10-02 11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 26 day of January, 2010. Ar Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Jo_ City C1= k [SEAL] 1 1 R: /Ords 2010 /Ords 10 -02 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 10 -02 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 12 day of January, 2010, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 26 day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Susan Jones, MMC City Clerk R: /Ords 2010 /Ords 10-02 13 0 n �p N o J C S 9 E g c mm m a 8, ij a J J J O J O N H L W H 9 7, 4 z. K o i. t O N 2 a- N M CO R u J 1- N' U Q E E U Olt nr T V u k W a ch q 'et a 4\ j 4 a S t r' r q L ,0 fi t. i saw— kr oidati7asy*, 1 gy p 1E4 v wd CP.) now 6. 1� �tI G'�` 1F7tj s v min 11� t.i=i 4 r''�eivi�' I o P s r Cel 6Y y 44 IPA c�- /C 1, J .�F x� lip I y I t''' ill I ct.c -a -X MS c fi i i ,-.1- :,!,:r, /4 i tt as v r. l4 C�� F. 2 e I O :1 IV' 3 p r a t L s1F E y y S is a z I R N r v z "8. sl y c g, F F; a Fa 1 TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE NEXUS STUDY 2009 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 Hemet 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 Western Municipal Water District Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhofl. DRAFT OCTOBER 1, 2009 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ES.0 Executive Summary iii ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study 6.2 Future Growth ES.3 Need for the TUMF v ES.4 The TUMF Network vi ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis viii ES.6 Fair -Share Fee Calculation ix ES.7 Conclusions ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY 1 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH 4 2.1 Recent Historical Trend 4 2.2 Available Demographic Data 4 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis 5 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF 10 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels 10 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels 13 3.3 The TUMF Concept 14 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK 16 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network 16 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network 19 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs 22 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System 26 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding 27 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs 27 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost 28 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation 37 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS 39 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements 39 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components 40 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non Residential Developments 42 6.0 FAIR SHARE FEE CALCULATION 44 6.1 Residential Fees 44 6.2 Non Residential Fees 45 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 47 8.0 APPENDICES 48 WRCOG DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 12 F TABLES LIST O TA LE Table ES.1 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County x Table 2.1 Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 5 Table 2.2 Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 7 Table 2.3 Population, Households and Employment In Western Riverside County.... 8 Table 3.1 Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2007 2035)* 11 Table 4.1 Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction 24 Table 4.3 Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures 26 Table 4.4- TUMF Network Cost Estimates 31 Table 4.5 -TUMF Transit Cost Estimates 37 Table 4.6 Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2035 Base vs 2035 TUMF Network)* 38 Table 5.1 2035 Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone 41 Table 5.2 2035 Percent Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone 41 Table 5.3 Backbone Secondary Network Share Calculation 42 Table 5.4- Residential vs. Non Residential Person Trip Production 43 Table 6.1 Fee Calculation for Residential Share ($2.61 billion) 45 Table 6.2 Fee Calculation for Non Residential Share ($1.16 billion) 46 Table 7.1 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County... 47 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.1 Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County v Figure ES.2 Regional System of Highways and Arterials -TUMF Network Improvements. vii Figure 2.1 Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 6 Figure 2.2 Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 7 Figure 2.3 Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County 9 Figure 4.1 Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County.....18 Figure 4.3 Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) 21 Figure 4.4 Regional System of Highways and Arterials -TUMF Network Improvements 30 WRCOG Il DRAFT October t, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study- 2009 Program Update 13 ES.O EXECUTIVE.SUMMARY_ ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study Western Riverside County includes 16 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Until recently, 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 recent crisis In the mortgage industry and the associated economic downturn 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 the transportation infrastructure. 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 of 2000 the concept was expanded to include the entire WRCOG sub region. The TUMF Program is intended to be implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. 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 Proiects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs imposing development Impact fees in California. 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. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the results of the second major review of the TUMF Program conducted in 2008 and 2009. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 12. 2009. ES.2 Future Growth For previous versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by WRCOG 111 DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 14 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 is responsible for establishing and maintaining demographic information and ensuring data consistency through a centralized data source of demographic characteristics. With the availability of demographic Information developed specifically for Riverside County, the socioeconomic forecasts developed by RCCDR for Western Riverside County were used for this update of the TUMF Nexus Study and associated fee schedule. A major distinction between the SCAG 2004 RTP data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update and the RCCDR data used for this 2009 Update is the change in both the base year and horizon year; from 2000 and 2030 to 2007 and 2035. This shift in the base 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 62% in the period between 2007 and 2035, a compounded rate of approximately 1.7% annually. During the same period, employment in Western Riverside County is anticipated to 111 grow by 111% or 2.7% annually. Figure ES.1 illustrates the forecast growth in population, household and employment for Western Riverside County. WRCOG ly DRAFT October 1. 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 15 Figure ES.1 Population, Households and Employment In Western Riverside County a. ccom EmpbYTMISaU II� abrbst,c,, assume! i Xou.&o d Type: c te r t Mal de tty E$.3 Need for the TUME The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional SCAG model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total vehicle daily miles of travel (VMT), total daily 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 VMT estimated to increase by 55% or 1.6% compounded annually. By 2035, 36% of the total VMT on the regional arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on arterial highways will increase over 5.4% per year. The need to improve these roadways and relieve future WRCOG DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 16 congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the travel demand. 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. RivTAM outputs indicate that by 2035, regional transit services are forecast to provide approximately 27.969 trips per day. This translates into a forecasted increase of 10,358 trips per day or 59 A substantial number of the trips will be served by bus transit services within Western Riverside County. 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. 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. 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. ES.4 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 the respective 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.2 illustrates the TUMF improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. WRCOG vl DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 17 e 1 07 CI I c 1 ft a.. co v) al E E c 0 To 2. k i I. 1 CO 14 cif c, O 91 LW' i c Z. a. 0 0 4 CI CO C a °l it 4 2 a E. e r d I C r C r cv a te .....c 44 -ca (3 n s O s o !t =.-ag os uz,;&111- z.cc. gi ,,,3333n03 CO 3g.,.5 i t. n$ 4•%t 0 ge G, 01 c* ID CO 4 OA c" 0 L 0 I /1: L. E ZZZ -0 )Z moc e e•Zyt,C1 t it, E c. re c IN n 0 i C I i it 15. cla 3 a. ..i. i Pa a l 0, 1 1 i 4 k; 1 I I i t P.- al, I ft it g g 1 "Aw ki z T. wIt 1 I /F 0 011 I ISIS I i am 4 r—',. I A I 4 1 i e 1 le II tt ti il 1 ,r I t ...J....at: .i. .1*•-k.„ i 1 jai ii r 11. 1 i S 10',1 1 1 I 1 I ,j--- i__. 11117: .i. .f M. 1 -e'... i 4: si 1 a i i 1 i 4.- I i s I 2 i 0 L 4 i 4? wi e P,1 1§ 0 1 i a* -r f 3. 4 A- rgg 1 I 1 siwirm sr 0 r io 1 kr irilt". 04 NZ IR, 1 4 40 :1 I l Og 1 --i 8 The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $4.26 billion. Accounting for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs, the estimated maximum eligible value 61'the TUMF Program is $3.77 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $3.54 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $61.8 million ineligible transit related improvements. An additional $60.0 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 $107.9 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. ES.6 TUMF Nexus Analysis There is a reasonable relationship between the future growth and the need for improvements to the TUMF system. These factors include: Westem 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 o matrix of trips between zones. The overall result Is that 52.0% of the regional travel is assigned to the Backbone network and 48.0` o 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. 2035 Base person trip productions from the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM) were aggregated by trip purpose. It was concluded that home -based person trips represent 69.2% of the total future person trips, and the non home -based person trips represent 30.8% of the total future person trips. WRCOG vlll DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 19 1 ES.6 Fair -Share Fee Calculation The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $3.77 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 $3.77 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 69.2% ($2.61 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 30.8% ($1.16 billion) 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 and development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF Program. p Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: S. Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as o result of future new development. Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arteriatroadways; 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- dependant travelers and to provide an alternative to automotive travel. The Nexus Study evaluation hos 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 lx DRAFT- October 1. 2009 TUMF Nexus .Study- 2009 Program Update 20 Table ES.1 Transportation Uniform MltigaUon Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development Fee Per Unit Total Revenue Change (5 million) Single Family Residential DU 156,745 $8,873 31.390.8 Multi Family Residential DU 194,934 $6,231 $1,214.6 Industrial SF GFA 57.535.808 $1.73 $99.3 Retail SF GFA 21,758,982 $10.49 $228.2 Service SF GFA 105.461,087 $4.19 $442.3 Government /Public SF GFA 39.061.333 $9.98 $389.9 MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $3,765.1 WRCOG x DRAFT- October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 21 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY Western Riverside County includes 16 Incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Until recently, 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 recent crisis in the mortgage industry and the associated economic downturn 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 the 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 rapid 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 2035. 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. 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 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. WRCOG 1 DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 22 1 In May 2000, Riverside County Supervisor Tavaglione initiated discussioris 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 buld 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. The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. 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 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 111 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 tee 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. 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. WRCOG 2 DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 23 Consistent with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act, the WRCOG Executive Committee has established that the TUMF Nexus Study will be reviewed at feast' every five years. Furthermore, 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 primarly 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. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the results of the second major review of the TUMF Program conducted in 2008 and 2009. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 12, 2009. A current list of the standing WRCOG TUMF related committees and committee membership is included in Appendix A. 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 the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research RCCDR) were incorporated to correspond with the newly developed Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model RivTAM) that was also utllized for this update. This use of Rivram and the RCCDR forecasts resulted in a shift of the program base and horizon years from 2000 and 2030 to 2007 and 2035. Additionally, the underlying unit cost assumptions were recreated to utl'¢e the most recent available materials, labor and property cost values. Furthermore, the TUMF network was re- examined based on the RivTAM model results to eliminate those projects having been completed prior to the new program base year, and to more accurately reflect future project needs to address the cumulative regional impacts of new development in Western Riverside County. WRCOG TUM 3 DRAFT- October 1, 2009 F Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 24 2.0 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 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to be 381,000 representing a 46% increase for 3.9% average annual increase) over the 1990 employment of 261,000. Despite the recent economic recession and the associated residential mortgage and foreclosure crisis, Western Riverside County continues to grow due to the availability of relatively affordable residential and commercial property, and a well educated workforce. By 2007 the population of the region had grown to 1.569 million, a further 32% growth in population from 2000. Similarly, total employment in the region had also grown from 2000 to 2007 with 516,000 employees estimated to be working in Western Riverside County. This represents a 35% 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 previous 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 is responsible for establishing and maintaining demographic information and ensuring data consistency through a centralized data source of demographic characteristics. RCCDR subsequently coordinates with SCAG by providing demographic estimates and forecasts for Riverside County as input to the SCAG regional forecasts. The RCCDR forecasts are also used as the basis for the recently created RivTAM. WRCOG 4 DRAFT October I, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 25 2.3 Demographic Assumpflons Used tor the Nexus Study Analysis With the availability of demographic information developed specifically for Riverside County, the socioeconomic forecasts developed by RCCDR for Western Riverside County were used for this update of the TUMF Nexus Study and associated fee schedule. A major distinction between the SCAG 2004 Regional Transportation Plan OUP) data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update and the RCCDR data used for this 2009 Update is the change in both the base year and horizon year; from 2000 and 2030 to 2007 and 2035. This shift in the base 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 RCCDR 2007 data were compared to the SCAG 2004 RTP data used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update. As can be seen in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, the 2007 data reflects considerable growth in 'population, households and all employment sectors except retail. It should be noted that the decline in retail Is mostly reflective of a revision in data analysis methodology between retail and service uses than any significant change in retail or service employment in Western Riverside County. Table 2.1 Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Westem Riverside County Sector 2000 2007 Change %Change (SCAG) (RCCDR) Population 1,193,862 1,569.393 375.531 31% Households 381,182 530.289 149,107 39% Employees Industrial 140,284 175,571 35,287 25% Retail 74,356 39,576 34,780 -47% Service 133,567 256,813 123.246 92% Government /Public 39,556 43,954 4,398 11% Total 387.763 515,914 128,151 33% Notes: Y2000 Population, Household. and Empbyment data from the SCAG FinaSzed 2004 RTP Y2007 Population. Household. and Empbyment data from RCCDR WRCOG 5 DRAFT October i. 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 26 Figure 2.1 Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County Amon smpo sedan: I ace 7 it ,_1 51 4 tt fi a e Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2 compare the socioeconomic forecasts for the Program horizon years; Year 2030 used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update with the Year 2035 forecasts used in this study. Most of the difference between the two sets of future socioeconomic data can be attributed to the increase in forecast year from 2030 to 2035. However. the new forecasts incorporate the most recently available data and account for current trends including the influence of the current economic recession on the rate of growth in Western Riverside County. U WRCOG DRAFT- October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 27 1 Table 2.2 Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County Sector 2030 2035 Change Change (SCAG) (RCCDR) Population 2,400,017 2,537,583 137,566 6% Households 784.447 881,968 97.521 12% Employees Industrial 278,152 276,782 -1,370 0 Retail 197,494 87,170 110,324 -56% Service 364,291 595,039 230,748 63% Government /Public 75,729 131,842 56.113 74% Total 915,666 1,090,833 175.167 19% Notes: Y2030 Population. Household. and Employment data from the SCAG Finarzed 2004 RTP Y2035 Population. Household. and Employment data from RCCDR Figure 2.2 Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County i 1 aaoax- 6norWmeMSeclwr. SGSXA- Li 3 s 0Co er. —e,.. II II i d, 1 11 II WRCOG 7 DRAf1- October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 28 1 Table 2.3 and Figure 2.3 summarize the socioeconomic data obtained" from RCCDR and used as the basis for completing this Nexus Study analysis. The RCCDR employment data for 2007 and 2035 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 Utaities; 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 Sector Year 2007 Year 2035 Change Change Population 1,569,393 2,537,583 968,190 62% Households Single-Family 395,409 552.154 156.745 40% Multi Family 134,880 329,814 194,934 145% Total 530,289 881,968 351,679 66% Employees Industrial 175,571 276,782 101,211 58% Retail 39.576 87,170 47,594 120% Service 256,813 595,039 338.226 132% Government /Public 43,954 131.842 87,888 200% Total 515,914 1,090,833 574,919 I 11% Notes: Population. Household, and Employment data from RCCDR WRCOG 8 DRAFT- October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 29 1 Figure 2.3 Population, Households and Employment In Western Riverside County 3O ;.O:xl- xscr..cc-. 1 =LC= 1 1111 EmPloymenl5ttlw: T:xaoo Oae: �i aye, :::.n bUJ.G.J F i Household Type 59 5 .ro I1 y -yam' lai Y 'E WRCOG 9 DRAFT October i. 1009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 30 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 traffic congestion and decreasing the level of service (LOS). 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 (62% growth in population and a doubling of employment in under 30 years) 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 o 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 2035 Base travel demand forecasts for Western Riverside County developed using RivTAM. The Year 2035 Base evaluates the effects of 2035 population, employment and resultant traffic generation on the 2007 transportation network. 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the transportation system in Western Riverside County, existing (2007) and future (2035) traffic data were derived from RivTAM. To quantify traffic growth impacts, various traffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for each of the two scenarios. The WRCOG 1 The Hiahwav Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, 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 Fj, 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 typicatly used in planning efforts to ensure an acceptable operating service For facility users. Therefore, L05 E represents the threshold for unacceptable LOS. WRCOG 10 DRAFT October I, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 31 TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating rneasures Western Riverside County only. Measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total vehicle daily miles of travel (VMT), total daily 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 and screen shots of the respective results dialog boxes 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 also calculated for a total of all facilities including arterials, freeways, freeway ramps, freeway connectors and High- Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Table 3.1 Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2007- 2035)' Measure of r 2007" 1 2035" 1 %Change %Annual VMT TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 39.187,718 60.772.353 55% 1.64% VMT FREEWAYS 24. 056.704 32.920.502 37% 1.17% TOTAL ARTERIAL VMT 15,131,014 27,851,851 84% 2.29% VHT TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 1.362.725 2.385.725 75% 2.10% VHT FREEWAYS 885.753 1,301.737 47% 1.44% TOTAL ARTERIAL VM 476,972 1,083,988 127% 3.07% VHD -TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 540,363 1.049.291 94% 2A9% VHD FREEWAYS 457,562 704.578 54% 1.61% TOTAL ARTERIAL VHD 82401 344.713 316% 5.42% VMT LOS E TOTAL ALL FACILIDES 25.847.218 50.001.659 93% 2.47% VMT LOSE- FREEWAYS 20.422.906 31. 864.589 56% 1.66% TOTAL ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 5,424,312 18,137,070 234% 4.57% %of ARTERIAL VMT LOS E or wane 21% 36% Based on RivTAM volume is adjusted by PCE factor NOTES: VMT veNcle miles of travel (the total combined distance that al vehicles travel on the system) VHT vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that al vehicles are traveing on the system) VHD vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that al vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the dfference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time) LOS level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios. Dolly capacity was calcuated as ten times AM peak hour capacity) LOS E or Worse was determined by a V/C ratio that exceeds the 03 threshold as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan. WRCOG 11 DRAFT- October t. 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 32 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: Voklme to capacity (v /c) rota thresholds for LOS E ae based on the Transportation Research Board 2000 Edition of the Highway COPOrity Manual (HCM 2000) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Row Speed (Exhibit 21 -2. Chapter 21. Page 21-3). The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2007 and 2035, and the average annual change between 2007 and 2035. As can be seen from the RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1, the additional traffic generated by new development in the region will cause congestion on the highway system to increase almost exponentially in the absence of additional highway infrastructure investments, with the most significant increase in congestion observed on the arterial highway system. Many faclities 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, 2000), LOS C or D are required fo "ensure on 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 2003 designates LOS E as the "minimum LOS standard for intersections and segments 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. 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 tor measuring system performance and accounting for existing needs. This approach ensures a more conservative accounting of existing system needs as part of the determination of the "fair share" of mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of future new development on the transportation system. 2 Congestion Management Program for Riverside County Executive Summary (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2003) Page ES-3, ES -1 WRCOG 12- DRAFT- October 1.2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 33 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. 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 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the Western Riverside County system of arterial roadways estimated to increase by 55% or 1.6% compounded annually. As shown in Table 3.1, the VMT on arterial facilities experiencing LOS of E or worse will increase by 234% or 4.6% compounded annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2007 and 2035. By 2035, 36% of the total VMT on the regional arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on arterial highways will increase by over 5.4% per year. The combined influences of increased travel and worsened LOS that manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay highlight the continuing need to complete substantial capacity expansion on the arterial highway system to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development. The RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1 clearly demonstrate that the hovel 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 and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the 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 Westem Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. Transit trip forecasts were derived from RivTAM. Consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section 3.1, year 2007 and year 2035 scenarios were used to represent existing and future transit trips, respectively. Transit person trips internal to Western Riverside County (both originating in and destined for Western Riverside County) were aggregated. The year 2007 and year 2035 aggregated Western Riverside existing and future transit person trips were compared in order to assess the impact of new development on transit demand. The RivTAM outputs indicate that regional transit services accommodated approximately 17,611 trips per day in Western Riverside County in Year 2007. By 2035, regional transit services are forecast to provide approximately 27,969 trips per day. This translates into a forecasted increase of 10,358 trips per day or 59 WRCOG 13 DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 34 1 RivTAM outputs for transit person trips in the WRCOG region are summarized 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. While some of the future transit trips Identified by RivTAM will be accommodated by regional transit services such.as Metrolink, a substantial number of the trips will be served by bus transit services within Western Riverside County. 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 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 cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer- distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve 1 transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation. Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, whle 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 (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 the public transportation infrastructure (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 (Le. 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 I WRCOG f 4 DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 35 111 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 is levied on new development throughout Western Riverside County. D. The fee is assessed 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 area in which it was generated to fund capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that Zink the communities in that area; and a portion of the fee is used to fund improvements to the public transportation infrastructure within the region. 1 WRCOG 15 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study-2009 Program Update 36 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 Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA: also referred to as 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 County 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 by 2035. 4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 (LOS E) or greater in 2035. 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 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 subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. 3 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 lips and the associated cost to mitigate the impact of pass through hips (and other Inter- regional freeway hips) is addressed in the Riverside County Transportation Commission Western Riverside County Freewav Strategic Plan. Phase II Detailed Evaluation and Impact Fee Nexus Determination. anal Report dated May 31, 2008. WRCOG 16 DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update .37 1 The RSHA is illustrated in Figure 4.1. Although the TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the Nexus Update, there were no significant changes to the composition of the network that was originally adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. 1 WRCOG 17 DRAFT October 1. 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 38 >A_ i f f g• 1 ill e 1 e 1 ti± 1-1-- li i 0 la 1 gi I lifyl aft 0. I ale? IPS I I A g 1 1 la I J e i 111 e l• i 1? t a Ili \\C.( qt w 1 I 1 1 4 w r ;•'s L 1 i I. I 1 f i gi w e. 0 Nt 11■„1 n... /61.4 e. I i j. r l 1 ill N. .,,--u 4 r 0 Q 1 All I 144ilif z ei 111 ot i...,._;; A 1 ze 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." Faclities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at general plan build-out extend across and /or between multiple Area Planning Districts (APD the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area) or zones, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2035. 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 fee is specifically designated for improvement projects on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG zones are illustrated in Figure 4.3. 4 Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated of 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 (2035). 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. WRCOG 19 DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 40 I av k i Tv I i P.1 1-- 1, 1 ir r j 1 ilri:Ii. 4-■ Fit no TIP air In el A q ri A Is. ,it NS 9 i r„ •e 1 i; 4 r 1 ..........a 1 e R 1_4 ,e .1 .........nia- k 1 k ...a.-..... 4 0 1 0 .7 or l es 0 s 0 0 a 7 1 t.:- \e l k 4 .1,1 I a 431 ••••••4 I ci. I IP 1? 4 le ,:li, I t a I I., 7 F 3 ••=ina I 44, i :,I ref ..4.4-,'.3 CD I NI I N 4 i e te I CO -tr I Is r d 0 4 I tic 1 A es 1 08 it* ZC e 41 I HS!: 1 i.11::: r. i z N LI 7•,r; e 1 ?xi g la c..-.., f# WI. 11.J------a 1. 1 u• ;J.. !J il 4 4 git 1 Q. 11 16 I T 2 2 c I r i S tu z cl 1 t•-•,,, ii. f: I i 0 i U Pt I ‘i i -.I i..k..... .t...- 1 l■■•—r i ;k•Nowns. I kt ..,a .1, 1 1 P. 1.. .ri I :k '1 ss' t A ."---fg .-4?- qb 1 I IA V 1, I ilik NA 1 1 al 7 I let- 1 in? r—I. 1_ I a.;... ..,241 fl-- 1.-‘ i tr-• 1 g.- i iiir- tr ii3 .6 if 1. f L' I aaa P 1r. I 4 I. 7 0 i a a F. le) W 0 W W 1: ie. I C* 1 1411 k l SI; 4 +1 -ant- t a.... 4 S !i Cii: "W°. 1S;'S 1 fl i tk 1 al I Z 40 -2-42 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)s, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates" (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 I), 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. For the purposes of the TUMF Nexus Update, the original unit cost categories were reviewed to generate entirely new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction cost, labor cost and land acquisition cost values. In addition, supplemental categories have been added to the cost assumptions to better delineate 5 Parsons Brinckerhoff /Coachella Valey Association of Governments, 1999, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) 6 TKC /Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SA11SFY2020 Summary of Cost Estimates WRCOG DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 22 43 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 Toussig and Associates, Inc., July 1, 2003) section 5.3.1.2 which states thot 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 lo 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. Appendix F provides a detailed outline of the assumptions and methodology leading to the revised TUMF unit cost assumptions. Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate, including a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions and the current revised unit cost assumptions developed as part of this review of the TUMF Nexus. 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. WRCOG DRAFT- October 1. T009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 23 44 1 Table 4.1 Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction Component Cost Assumptions Cost Assumptions Cost Assumption Tye as pubrished per 2005 Update per 2009 Nexus Description October 18, 2002 February 6.2006 Update Pertain 1 (.950.000 5640000 '.5628,000 Caewe tun COe per leer m".e 'f:eeree, Terrain 2 $850.000 5990,000 $761,000 ConeeCeancoe eel Litw man ..Oi,p•e.tr Terrain 51.150000 51.340.000 $895,000 con:mc!n,•coi, ner nro mw.,r,+,r -rn'A o,ca• Landuse 1 $900.000 51,820,000 51,682,000 MOW cost ano.pre nee mn. _mon etas Landuse 2 5420.030 $850,000 Landuse 3 5240.030 5485000 $237.000 :•pv. cost tc of pe Interchange 1 n/a 546.500000 (j43,780,000.5 centric-. ”s... ..nm•: rrec beet- cos: Interchange 2 520.000,000 523.300.000 522,280,000 o:•. .,ro.e,c- nh ,rc.:,..,,: '..r :er.-.. Interchange 3 $10.000,000 $11.650.003 $10,890,000 Mtid 'ere ..,e n. "0. erne. o.:, cos. Interchange4 $2,000000 $2.330000 n!a M+ a :wa._. .�.�r, :_,•....o..: r. Interchange 5 n/a 52.500030 No -u! ...a L. •0 Bridge 1 52000 52.350 RRXng' 1 $4,500.000 55.240,000 $4.550.000 :'s RRXIng 2 52.250,000 52.620.000 Intersection 1 $300000 $350000 Planning 10% I0X .10% cos I ec!5u2 c ob ant PgeC sLry m. V :r.S!p:.:,c'm['r'vN co ,Aeonso %rnn^ :COI$ paw; Or Engineering 25% 25% 25% comwcroncos: o.:, Contingency 10% 10% 10% COri.eeeeycoss cnsea Cw.ew: sonrno cos: IUM. P.agtun eel rn nsretb. bale:i a Adminishation n/a n/0 3% ;MO e.l :aa :dw.ve ea: TUMF OO.npa 0! M5! :ciao 0...0.e :OM: M$$ CP n/a 5% 5% cayec coca ,ctc „con •RRxing Raitoad Crossing 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 part of the 2009 Program update, the list of proposed improvements included in the initial Nexus Study and validated during the 2005 update was reviewed for accuracy and, where necessary, amended to either remove projects completed prior to the new base year of the TUMF Program (2007), remove projects that are no longer needed based on changes in the patterns of growth within the region, or add further improvements to accommodate additional projected traffic growth associated with new development. The specific network changes were screened by the WRCOG Public Works Committee for consistency with TUMF network guidelines and were I WRCOG 24 DRAFT- October I, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update subsequently reviewed by representatives of the public and privates sectors at a series of workshop meetings conducted In June 2009. Based on the findings of the network screening and workshop reviews, elements of specific projects were revised to reflect necessary network corrections, modifications to project assumptions and to incorporate a limited number additional segment improvements following further review and recommendation through the WRCOG standing committee structure. A matrix summarizing the disposition of the requests received as part of the TUMF Nexus Update was developed and is 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 ralroad crossings; 8. Expansion of existing Network -to- Network intersections. All eligible improvement types provide additional capacity to Network faclities 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 $3.92 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 TUMF obligation to the MSHCP as Indicated In the TUMF Network cost fee fable is approximately $62.4 mllion. The TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program 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 3% of the WRCOG 25 DRAFT October 1. 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 46 total eligible cost of new lane segments (including interchanges, bridges and railroad grade separations) on the TUMF Network and new transit services. The cost for WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $107.9 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 will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter- community trips is generally provided in the form of public transit bus services and in particular express bus services between strategically located community transit centers. Transit needs to serve future travel in Western Riverside County via public transit bus were provided by the Riverside County Regional Transportation Agency (RTA). The identified public transit needs include transit centers, express bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements to develop express bus service within the region. Metrolink commuter roil 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 t system. Updated cost estimates for improving the infrastructure serving public transportation, including construction of transit centers, express bus stop upgrades, and capitol improvements needed to develop express bus 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 Expendllures Cost Assumptions Cost Assumptions Cost assumptions Component Type as published per 2005 Update per 2009 Nexus Description October 18, 2002 February 6, 2006 Update Transit Center $6.000.000 $6,990.000 $5.655,000 Regional Transit Centers Bus Stop $10.000 511.600 $27,000 Bus Stop Amenities Upgrade Service Capital $540,000 $630.000 5530,000 Regional Conitlw Tromit Service Capitol Vehicle Fleet $325.125 $38 5350.000- Regional Fryer Vehicle Fleet The estimated total cost for future transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $166.9 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 26 DRAFT- October 1. 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 47 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. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the 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 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 $270.8 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 guidelines that stipulate 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 same 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 value 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. 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 WRCOG 27 DRAFT- October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 48 incremental traffic growth on those segments with existing need. The following approach was applied to account for this oversight in the initial existing need methodology: 1. Identify those segments with an existing need by evaluating the RivTAM base year model networks and delineating those segments included on the TUMF RSHA that hove a daily volume to capacity (V /C) ratio exceeding 0.90. 2. Calculate the initial cost of addressing the existing need by estimating the shore of the particular roadway segment 'new lane' cost (including all associated ROW and new lane construction soft costs but not including interchange, railroad grade separation and bridge costs and their associated soft costs). It should be noted that where the TUMF network identifies more than one new lone in each direction, only the first lane in each direction is considered to be addressing existing need and any additional new lanes would be fully eligible under TUMF for addressing exclusively future needs. 3. Determine the incremental growth in V/C by comparing the weighted average base year V/C for the TUMF segment (delineated under step 1) with the RivTAM 2035 baseline assigned model network V/C for the corresponding segments. 4. Determine the proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development by dividing the result of step three with the total 2035 baseline V/C in excess of LOS E. 5. For those segments experiencing a net increase in V/C over the 2007 base year, 'discount' the cost of existing need improvements by the proportion of the incremental V/C growth through 2035 compared to the 2007 base year V/C (up to a maximum of 100%). The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs (including the related MSHCP obligation) totals $225.2 million. Appendix 11 includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment 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 $105.1 million representing 37% 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 $270.8 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. Since these improvements are already funded with other available WRCOG 28 DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 49 revenue sources, these projects cannot also be funded with TUMF revenues. Furthermore, the total cost of the unfunded existing improvement needs is $330.1 million. These improvements are needed to provide for existing transportation needs 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 is $4.26 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 $3.77 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $3.54 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $61.8 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $60.0 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 $107.9 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 4.3 summarizes the TUMF network cost calculations tor 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 4.4 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 29 DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 50 i 1 i lt 44 C i 2 is- >e 0 4 0 D C e 3 a g. c a <a 41 k v esr al r's gI g 8 i ii I 2, .i 3 a. a N wt tO a) 9 N V 2 N 2 Pa r; o Ut 3 19- tX n :•g o o 40 e e s ai 1 S Aiii i int T f 0 1,, 1.6 1 IA gi i• .1. ..i. g 1 0 4.1. .,t i 4:1c._ r f 47- k W. i ii- sr ,r- I 0 I 1 7 rctx._ ---e-. Ca ,o 4 ningir 0 it -.0.,/ fi ',I._ Amor 4 La 1 In 'WIN li 1 11 >Ni,h 1 .t:-.-z-'1 1 c 4,, i 01 I it.. }i c) a 1 ',I P I 41411 Pt n i til I"" I I I V 1 I I I' .v 1 t 0 0 I i I' ea •?1). Mr VI W 11 1 i t. v p I C Je e i N rt 4?) vet I r .4./5:lc FE 0., 1 it 'WK. 1 0 I woo •C i i 1 1 ills Ocil ci 1 Table 4.4 TUMF Network Cost Estimates sm-Lainass. COO ISMIM ..1r•:.c1n.•r.- .•nucor ^..•var: o•: .•+.••rs .n j_mrnr +.o�••. „•.a•urr..1r..'i -1 WYLL' �—P J Y0.0 1 TiST .r4l •..r^ -Y f.Z^aSIS=16�u.u"`'. S8i.It._- xr.�rtrrrrr'aa fn"n.:�'.�St-]•�l_. .nm+n ra'S'^^'mit"=1 M3L'Puf>•G.•.SMIL Sl LESS Sit 'all XSIS =IESINESINIS a aru. r. 'r -r. rma rr. as._ iva;± +.•l-- n+r-- a_ ""T'flan inu p]r.n C MIMI= r.."—i'":"1■1Maft liaissr ESMIIIESSSinlIEEMENIIMME MEN SSE SWISS SZ SS ,Q+Z'1�"•�'�..' i .t. Li 1"• ➢i•L�iflffi• a41i1�.Lv :F1iT... LG:TJ.�QflZ. jiomn:casnv..::r =-.1 44 =S IIIIS= Tp =Mal ��S m.^:.s iQ =BL Ss'tE' S .m.- r 1 ^"".TamW^��i,�aia.^..:S SSS .rrrS la F'••n v. 1 Sinn ffika...1 i• /wnrti .J fl .sz ai tar- ..^-�5mai 'u' E*! r"';ie''"n�-t fi r. u •�'n�..- �w r i l fl =L f. •arcn .raa... rn�.•rrr. `g;ioatronniiw•vm =1=S 5=SISIZSIS SAS any, •ra ^'r., TI_ �S••^r�.��t' ?i =ME n^r.-rr. M:a.+ LflS ]F�. i �6Lc= WRCOG 31 DRAFT- October I, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 52 Table 4.4 TUMF Network Cost Es}lmates (continued) cannicaraassimmase .tar R:nnn.ra;;��...;.j. p:d :IIc.r• gy�n•1flI• _�nn•vr•arr ^n.r.a alMICTSISINIEM■Satialt iat loch lo ga c� wa Jab gal 5e.1'i .100 JOCM1b locM1b��J�1f656G7.R r.. I. .va'.� ln I•'.^�::u.u1Tr.11111■'� '?R a V:G�l1 a c rt-nna�rmvr--r•-�rcxzcc. y� .valM frva:� Cola s'fourn�FY..1.. la:J' •1 1 2 11J.{.".rRir� —{il. �.�1:'1�1.t' �}�'LS'u— S.Q '!lTil'��^J-J.W�i.�17 'v>:� Q•J��'r�i%S tf w \nTx {"�1rla:ro+.^ fJL• II:^�:r. >r l .T.' lz 'Jt1TJ.r �;e•rrvvn}:' �EP�iz T:1::.�Y4•;Tr:: r.- :.;sera --ar. xr•' =ran r.,.\r..c.:>_6 fl dp! a. r, a!+a�:: 2t= �_wnt^a r. r>_1ir..c.->_ r. �L1��511�uer.:r ∎•a .nl..� v lg�_ rr.: S S M S4d11@P 'rr. •n n V I s 1!a ia.\e a e i 77. nnl�i]7G'1 •yP�s6.9imacr�c C=a MUMS ?:IT-s.n/iM a=::■ flan mr9)• ''wzr1 S9Si1\ah!_ laasvn 1=M1111cJ'_f6u S Sdiecc *:.c eclat,.. ..CSC'- "-.ua� L�..1"� '-r•.a''"'� nl r .rn-•ca =MN SIZ N SLllitwar.nitw+s:" .`n. -r- -_.te marl .^.R;:r.-r: m.�r�. r.vy.n.�laZ SFS9i\ r inRaa r. e\n- 1niKaWaMC SVJY OppyMMJ 1 a lI JincOrpuvb0 n tem muMml ourt%* on comic SaINfgFsimilyila an r O.Tamr r" 1■11:r_=11=•11WSvr csZE=._.rn:rr. -^ar- 1an9rnr".0 111Si t raar.•.r ryS.a anr -.r.n: a tm'MILLI iS WRCOG 32 DRAFT October 1. 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 53 111 Table 4.4 TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) w .alr�ixotr��q:;�sc^.•.: L'9 fl�i• m nit m-�2L'1.'T1■N" 'fib llara6.1it�m�n•:.�1Pd116:! a-nr._."Qv°aS fit^... Naf31mulams!aimai w- 1Mnw. !na yy asS.6'- ...LAW' ai8 Mire vrri arS�'•'.^'['f �J' 'I'�al�'ny L�MM[S •�i'JH C /afyH. m' fftelatin .Cr i.�. S FWri. �.L17i1T[ro,l.; �cw.:• .-r•nr>•..•r-l• 'lam.. C•1;7�if8�:.�L K'aT_^r'..Tr:'tl• il.�. -.s 'a 1.-�^T l ∎:12 n. a.yn� Cl r Rr .n cr "s fl.L m:.:��e>•ur. mr .•:.rrz.�L a �imr„�.rais;a z..- rnnrrrr•li t IMM I 7S',�.uS� Spa iunr. a Rtt ar�nr _�r•rrrc�,+a+.rr���,c�v.:� III E.L r r 3'�i•— r"••�!"'aa 1111 f.ou o: wa.r. G3i aui sras�¢:� SaaLrjifaia:.n tern .r -arz:SSaaflac a•ar.!lir e a laal w,..w pZ S J1i. I la S L: L' �r.�iYbt9:n .rl _Ctia'SIalGL•uSs9Marze•n .11S raSSISaWatEU m _n+r•,a-n-s n i3-CCnMM7N/EM +..ell' L_lIIiiv' MELS ID S /a r aaz.:i tl "t mxFS^ry.,=C59.� °0.�.aS•SL mTMMIt .L71 a n- —1 ■........7'a a r>• x, r ant= i y7�— P1'.a.^..TA.INF -r-. 2 fire :!'ffr.1^..� a l iii; l'.i:. ZUS as: rr ir C=SE tt� GJ7L"tF�P.17�5'°.i'i�15 fl-. .w.ul"ul 1 '2•• u' J .�®•.•�S3>aa•mCs 11•A�.� ��i�•1 1Ra.iq .L ^IT.^.1—. —aka_ J�[.1Y�____�'.i.(iILJaT. "..{•F .r^TT..��':.� Ith= •.f 18i/wl"� ii9aa_L'. 1 =1:S Sleal•Ntate rani 4=■'Sli a al MSS aMISIKEtt .n1 mna Ada Mb J -91 wen PM« urb it WRCOG 33 DRAFT- October I. 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 54 Table 4.4 TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) nuinata SEMIS in rnw :..n,.y' ru mi••rsl:n n:•:oa:or. "arc. nc....� ,nr,rv.. flalalEaantandan axles a.. ®emu a i t IIUIS r.- srS11 n: 'MEZIM :n uans i.E1[Lunss•ov:::. "Sal Granflittan fan =Ian alla flan =ME I/Tl7nnm. .rr.��s i4r n:^:- 1.� r:r•. .-.r.^ca+rn gnnmarr:�"3.S' �S'� a fo nm Z r im12 '�WTT�L::d.:�l61iPa C 11.1^..JS a,..,::��]3:�2=a SXC S6.'ii ¢n,rr,��•:ne� �37GL�S48Sr +r �a- .:'�:ST7.�.u�I��')1St�✓nn.:: i$�S:{L':: 7amzual ::_r__ iallIM i Na• fllaallnannannitan t1 EflanNI Z S7f7iis non• :.p c z i�irc�ern a:i�S71. 4 :n xra ■n 7..7at^�.� croe. al an n l_ 2.-•-c_mmmaMNIIIUS ■311 aitM =ZS= Sal all L ∎2. :allr9'o..;,:�v:n- .r.^arr.�tr.^nana- .nrer.>_=Ul yL'��n....,:. :m l•it ia.nn:n�vnl..n. rarnc:!' :rten p a na•aS'.dSnaw:::. 1v'z. .v: n.^rnMM n •r^:� :aX71 :n r^�I�a I.-.•'n- r an�a::: ]n.-n 31 ∎G r^s l p aia d �taan� -i wry::. 1=1•Can:rg-nli=rn flan FT'�ii W., S1 1"�.•'�_LUifklJ:..lit.t91..'•Y r•. li+T'...'�. -f^n11= 0• fl 7. &__S�" kSi�1�L l�C�� SS..asI 14 4 "I ft Caporoe4 i �fr.�lf- �l.•r^t.I+� wG{I t Y'JII� ft CtlOS' OBO FIMOI•o J 1 WRCOG 34 DRAB- October I, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 55 Table 4.4 TUMF Network Cost Esfmotes (continued) rrrv wrm:n• n: nr trwcia: ••r "IxMM____ lr"'•r" rr� :m.:••rfl r-��iuu �""vri' lLu'1i 2phla.na fe:.orro L. ^._r.�•_. 7. •yam W1:� MlEigg1 ;a.r_a:m iti e ateSGyyn� S 1 ti �n+..�:v;�1tryL'LS SEM,� :r� y .^�..r��ra�r.- i LZ LZ_�m5;l 7G.u""'�• wanve�i•'i :r..- ••ar�n• r9 ]..'S.fl.+n._�Imm'CiL'�t�.:7 —fv ..�i r: nrrn: r�.- �o1�T �r-•nrrrr: �L yE��� -n T:_ r Tr.r1 ^.1_ y�sm$JiM[N�. iani r�- :n�ra�r• n;�l•u'➢k�(i3ru©tlgl�l •_w.� 0.1. .aMIMIN lm+111∎Gi :..,.rm.T. 1r.:SG.mRL1IEMMEIM RIM o wtmlm wr 1'rl w... mie.a. igemilemm :ter^.7Ie L: ^r"�^�� FaMIROMMk.alta.MII=M3;121 MEM i 1 isl::.'^L;Jt• N'TS SZ1nw Herr::: '0U anaara'SNIBIIMISMIa .-rteoc>zzoon•,r.:47nz.. 01 tiSl r°. Ca/IS '9=cn�D ^>•c?nNty NIn aIM-•-•fl Sa]CL171LG1!•i:..0 •11■1'r" t](jMMINO111(i'TSIli! -r.T ■1111lI'.S 1�-r^am.- rrrrrncn-u•:•.� IS arc ../11111•1aSIIESt IS;; flIIISM 's M11/FS'L41!+�i['�+ s 1ZUMME aw.rv.a. ozss:.: :-r INII MI NNI E: L?'rt:.•t_'y ;,:•Grr"^'�:7u^J•'� la f 'T. 'rrT•'�SCi4SIIS'6L"L 11 e dr3TSIMM:i j 1 .l!T.^ r •:l:v.u"7iLu Q.• u'��S'Jirntit::: xal&l.'.: nz�.1 Jnra'r• •ee:ar: +�:"S'-r.-.Srsa'1> YLllui 'WMM rann rc lermw.: a l:21a��:- ..non• '.'^...'�S'Pd S¶• .771 717"'.- '.rte 11 flI �Y: mrn7:W""7i.s•na :o=OM ;C:=S rrmra SLd•S113 Het ESE. C>'n .^,ri�i7u�: :sir•..-.r:�SRDSii:� ar,facr_:rc =SS d,• r. IIME •_p 7 •fl_ tl==■•••=n:S1111fl WRCOG 35 DRAFT- October 1. 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 56 I Table 4.4 TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) q. .1 :S t ,.IR,1:r,•1 .R• Sl(t.: P '-:nl. .:a II nrr'1 senv+ r .,r s tn '�IRr..r:i rr� i!, ns. dza:s L aa.5 ass ;r. CIMMINIalliMIIII■SIIIMEIIIMIalMa CIE nSIr En∎ld 14=SI IIMMItaIMI is I naa�.r -wn h1 >_pp'y�'a7rv-I.. �aaaaaaaa 4 1 .1 .7 crrvrvc r..a i caa gI ra ar ami J :.rnrm: -.nom `Y1!S�'i. +rno.acl ig i., t= 'rc ��tli'S no =am all =laill111■1■152 SSE Ira •lr-nl;x.:SE daIES all GS at 1R'= i n .?slaa• Irrflnrrl_m_. y���,�� L mo ∎111 1111 OCR= =Mil 1 +mr+sA 11 5 1 1 1t9C�1 nrzucr r- y�:rmi'2-�j.SL azcJCicmvr:i emrvaa�lrn:.v�S. [.r+i— �ap��gL'dilu �P� HEM wnwa EMMEN atallE .rar.^71■ 'rw:..a• m l'L Sail= w r .r. m ,wnwnl to nbto Hot Stahel :IS •po:b .ojNovel .n to IIIsla Hol Wigs a..,0n 491 to.mwoO uMb an410 Hol phy aagqoolIa LP ri 1w4annwl 1 v,. iA .o,Il,w.d mkto ..,.nw e141un Unto Y.an 4 Mw.N to Ilewm4 Inbo r•'. as Nto s i Inwml o 50110 .11.nal ,aY Pao ho b Cana MI M smixolo 14410 Hot Sp oOt DP Pt •nitcoo ��S .'91�I r tarni -•�m:- -.-.qtr:.. �1a$'eam:� .�JIIa� j:'II".7' r i =1.1. -'�1 ]•iiLR1F.. 1G1dAriif =a dadd�TF ^�a^!1 •r:'r..;.r.�3'L =:=11111•111111•1•14211a 't rr•111•11=SINIISCII■LLS Mae. ••n •c-l-: I CL Tai r,..y� Air-! -v la s a l a .?L'. ^�L;tI:a.- oarr.•QT al =I •.rr l an i.c:w.-.: 2 rtn:c•••;.�) an- .r.>: '1 r 'atr.'rt,_: rnnr iLa .x- nr,_spa .a :7, -L =am mi i- ^.a hr rc dM=IIIMI flE 1.I�" '.1ff•�w1f—� -rr. '.T'i'S'1:11a all I co 3 •i: rnrflia �i la I ;;y 'u�'iS�i527�m.nanrnsu.:ar:.: G•SLID.�7r11z °r- IZIMmaa tt s171.- ∎141 1 1 �...�TI -.,t n_ =aim Said s rau y t.�.: a +ec:it --yam. 'alraa�aar' f �s m; ...nom&] o m L L. Ll]:•• l��i 4 ctl palal tlnM anal Mtn n.Cr m 1. ./'i. Riob rani 746 40 1 3 5 I n MOM 5 a 2..1.` s_ n,' MAD) CO 5 10,16 01.4.0 4aalmctllm I 5 4 N. ill 5 MO 5 ^_1[29Y 000 �tlm 5 !]0. 11)A]1 5 37W110 AZ WRCOG 36 DRAFT- October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 57 Table 4.5 Transit Cost Estimates AtAPLAN LEAD AC,2'NCY PRCRC NAME LOCA MY S S J.. IC:b:IC RIA Rev C'a a m' VrXbvi b'. .•CC 1 .L IW/ Re pbM RSA Bus 1 •Wsl:Tmcf ..c 9C NaRwvfl /Cenral RIA CenRrd SDhc Se,v<e CCprq! Colo.'3 i yentie. MQ.enpVaiRy 24 ":CC t,Ilwesllpnn RIA SRSO Regbca Nye, Cc✓I,o SR- 60 cc: KV Rom SS Co. to Scarping 45 2 >.'91.'•^ NcoweWSanJOclntRIA 6215 /1914 RCgRU' o: Ayer Co29I ISS /SP/3Co,fcr nom RNenlOc s3[m ;24C1 39 2ajSc.xID ,.3.a,: NotlMlestl3w(nn'esl NIA I -15 Regional Nye CCpla ISCrb::r Eam111 Co. :c Temccen 4 9 24.95=0 116; c Regbicd RSA Rcgc.in RIR, Re:tieReef VUIWA 10::105 mgt.' welds 32 I 1A:10.Ulo f.5i3Sb loot 144,141.000 •IAtlOal 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 2035 Baseline network in RIVIAM and the model was run to determine the relative Impacts on traffic conditions. To quantify the impacts of the TUMF Network improvements. the various traffic measures of effectiveness described in Section 3.1 for the 2007 and 2035 base networks were again calculated for the 2035 TUMF Network 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 2035 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 VMT on arterial facilities experiencing LOS of E or worse. will decrease by 14% with the addition of the TUMF Network improvements while the shore of VMT on the regional arterial highway system experiencing daily LOS E or worse will be reduced to 33 It should be noted that the total VMT on the arterial system Increases by 8% 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 2035, 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 8 VHT on the arterial system decreases by 6% indicating traffic is able to move more efficiently. Additionally, a substantial benefit is observed on the freeway system with VHT reduced by 5% following TUMF improvements. By completing TUMF improvements, the total VHD experienced by all area motorists would be reduced by 24% over the levels that would be experienced in 2035 without TUMF improvements. These results highlight the overall effectiveness of the TUMF Program to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. WRCOG 37 DRAFT- October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 58 1 Table 4.6 Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2035 Base versus 2035 TUMF Network? Measure or Performance (Dally) 2035 (Base)•• 2035 (TUMF Network?' Change VMT TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 6,0.772.353 62.457.677 3% VMT FREEWAYS 32,920,502 32.321,916 -2% TOTAL ARTERIAL VMS 27,851,851 30,135,761 8% VHT TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 2.385,725 2.274.736 -5% VHT FREEWAYS 1. 301.737 1.230.030 TOTAL ARTERIAL VIII 1,083,988 1,044,706 4, VHD TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 1.049.291 909.428 -13% VHD- FREEWAYS 704,578 647.606 -8% TOTAL ARTERIAL VHD 344.713 261.822 -24% VMT LOS E TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 50. 001,659 47A05.020 -6% VMT LOSE FREEWAYS 31.864.589 31.321.324 -2% TOTAL ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 18,137,070 15483,696 -44% of ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 36% 33% Based on RiYTAM Volume is adjusted by PCE factor NOTES: VMT vehicle miles of travel (the total combined dstonce that all vehicles travel on Ilse system) VHT vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles ore traveling on the system) VHD vehicle hours of delay (the total combined 8rne that aR vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free -lbw (Ideal) travel time) LOS level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios. Doily capacity was calculated as ten times AM peak hour capacity) LOS E or Worse was determined by v/C ratio Mot exceeds a 0.9 threshold as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan. WRCOG 38 DRAFT October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 59 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 improvements on the TUMF system, 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 congeston and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system improvements that will serve these future inter- community travel demands. The following points bring together 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 current level of 1.57 million to a future level of over 2.54 million in 2035, while employment is projected to grow from a current level of 516,000 to a future level of over 1,091,000 (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 long- 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 roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, grade WRCOG 39 DRAFT-October 1.2009 TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update 60 aa »a a a uR 3... -a aaur a ua A 3a3. a3': :.a 31 a/ j 3 ti !"114!!11Q115Rg111 S 1/ 11112$ 111115. 9511411 2114 aA1 A1 1 a l 3 Ci7i J 5 ..77 333 aAaAaaaABAAAAAaAaaaaaAAAAAAAaAaAAaAAaA AAaassaaaaAAAAaAaAASAAAaaaaaBaAAaAABAaAaa aaaaa: gBaAAAAaaAAaAAaAaAAAAABAgAAarsa d aAAAAA aga AAaRAAAA sasaasAaaga aaaaa BBA$A1AAaa3: a x a a» 1 i a d w a ^AaAAAAmarasaaAgs§AAAaasa aAAAiiaagAAAAaBaAAAaAaasaaag aAAABaBagasBBaaB BABA amass: 1 1 1 1 E kg 1 1 3 ggg g 1 y j y j y{ 6i y g F agag s} py L i �$A s aAIing §q g s sW� A g algtggi ir a raligagASMIM W§Il s lR A7 3» a I R »a :b 99 2 gAg Aa alggg"g gill§ R gag§ ga 11212 aAAg g AAg AA Aj A5 a tlal I g En 5 d 2-' s A A i i x 44 42 2»X42 a2 a ad g on e :?cs c »3 »d z »AAB »Ax u aX a 4 Z 00000000 00000000000.. 00000000000000000_0000000000000 000000000000000 0000000000000 -00.. I 0000000000000 ..0§00.. 0 1 000000 1 0 ee ..00000 Y F �ee0 000000000 00000 00000, i F 0000000n 0000000000000000000- 00000.0000000000 000000. 000 »0000 0000000000000- 0000..00 n0000. 0000000n wwnnn0n00n0000nn00000000000000n nnwwwww 00 .000« 000 14« 1414n0 nnwnwwn «nwnwwwwn«nnw «wwwi D .aaaaagga gggagaaggrgvaagIggagaaggaggagggggggggaaggaggggqLgliagm egggggggggeggeggggggel 5 e 000...0.0 n..nrv.rvnnnnrv.wn.nnn «.non «no.nrvnnw..•o+ onn« 000nnwe «oo..ww........• «wwe.e.... e� z a i rv.n0..0. .nn..nnrvnn..nwnenn «0rv..n.... onn «0. 0.0 «.e.0............. «n.. 0000. .......0..0 3 i 2 $$3°t $3 "S-$ 1 A' RR !$f. RttCCY M R y�3 (yp !fpB C Q wJ l tl6� el a6 tl.l.{n of �N�tltl3 a�^ xt� �iiitlM� 9°«{ a�' agF `l� «�dO.�indd��2�Q� ^.:d�e�- S I jj fo pp gg E 6» 2 r r0. il a 1 P 1' 1 a »Ip t .f�ft f' iliiii. li aifIai Iiiilliali `iii l is P.. iii ildi nm.aa< ._�a�s =-�o E 3 1 1 i i. F 1 E a C Q i d 7 i ._g e fpUOyQt _s 7 ?E 581.1 9 d 9 1 90_0 lig 41 @-01 8.1-1.__ Mil a p -11 44!!!1!1 44 RAf!!!1 A 21141 $4$!11 4 !a iira 2 RAAAARAStRRARRRRRRARAAAAAAARARRRAAAAAAAAAAAAR g 'gAARAra rl RRAAAAARAAuiRRARRRkAARulRlRA $Rash 33 33 343 F E A AAAAAARitRARRm 251423451 4 §AAARAAlAAARRRRRAAl a 2 g R R p A3g: �k$R4AAx�FRAAA� "xitttlf L{ X G -:LA p p a a p t »t» »p a A p 41$4 1 21 4 §R R3RRA4� 4 4 $21 i id li 5e :s IA IN Li:!dit d4 i 2ttxx x.� »R 8171 2c »x 3Ax��� A aeaoaaoeeaeeaeea°ooeaaee °ae aaeeeeaeen u i §eoe°eagal eeeeo ee°ee$B "o rooplopoo i �i .l �q1 q oeeaononae000000OO no OOOOnn0000ooX°eaeeenea°° none., »»»nn X Xeeeee mein eeeX- nn..nn»nn Xeeeee eXXnX S 2 0 44 gg 1�6` ge gg33I6'1�C36�6`444gggg3b`oggfgg ggg6'Lb�ggE L e 1 R one \n....Xf Xn XteneX o....... O•.Oen e...... nXXO 5 1 L 5 .l0Xt0e0.Xnitn...n0. *00 O.tX.n0... X OOOOOOO... S 1431Film!FS!!53.9959P554 4 g s 6 i 110 If i i i e a _a gig. s3 (a a 1 .1 y a 4 364 s a g pp ,.,..."4„:„., i 1. In id YiE 1. a: a a a ax x a a 'R a a auaa a 'SR 4 a 2 a Rgaa gaaRaMRA appR§IBaa pgi MalM11§ §ilgaaa AagaagagaAsa �aaRRA ARgaRK 3ka as A ®z4» a x 51.%e ,-4 as »a l a a l z tt »a a 1» a e$» RA saa aaasassaRAAAAARRAassaa $AAAARRaaaaaaaassass§assuasap ARAassaasaap n a a 4 A n asagssRasasaAAAgA RAaaasasaa RARaRAAAAAaa” asapaRAaaRasasaaa RAAARAaaaps RAaassasaAAARA: a I y 3 1 2 A a asa as psa Rgaaaass§Raa UlasaRa RRRRARagRAg agssagsap aRasasasaasRRRARaRAAAARAARSRRaRARA gA: Aggg §lgasWalABg a aga RIRgaRM M iRgRRR aasasap a psWiasgaaalaR a p 1 2xa as a aapi s a a »-a '�a a» a x x »x s 0 Im mipallsspal w Rpq$RgA R RR!gg8$ glAla w gasassagsagspIssugas§ssagss§a R 1 z ooedooe0000000 deeeeood 000 eeee o000000dee000000000rveooe000rv000000ee0000- od00000rve0000eoe. u p 000r oeoogoo000goA00000000ooe000$oo oeogoodrdr Odr oe0000 g000000000$00000000eooeeedo• G ooeeeneeeeN OOOdeeneeennooerveneee0000neeneryeeonooneeeoeeeedoo0odeooe000e0000eee000000 no nnNnnnnnnnnrv..ry rvNnnnrvnryNrvrvnrv_ NnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnNnnrvnnnnnn- ..nNNnnnnn__n -rvNN NNnnnnrvn. 6 NOVrvNNtNedNrvedNONFNrv OFrvONONONtNtOONrvNNVM 1 ryVrvOtOVnNM1Nrvt000000NOONONONOOPNNOONO00NOOrvOrvON1 NOOOVn rytryVVVVntrvFNN 1 NNVnryrytooVOttVNNNOVrvOntOVONryFnNONN vvvvvvv ryttaiVatf •aaVVaVrytVFtNtNl y� Q J p '�j y 4 nN4P31PFM- isPin5 R”,9d��r,a7S.mr E!oa99.4 p aoonA ;Qno$M ssoa�nod_eo153n5o5odp:o 44111.9 a 6 o doo ='d. �Ii�uRb 2 E' 2 t`YS�3aLdz�£� z% zg rr 5 p u 12 9v 4F2b12i Bab !I a$adB� S_yi =:s_�a 2 1 QIEc _.3$9 cg& E, ?S II _c Asc S6 .3 a w w w 0 'RAA8AAilAAAgAAA mRAAAAAARn aparaA mAA AARARAgpmlR pgmmalgaRgASoRARAA y pw AAA$ARRRAARsagm RRRRAAAARRgl$A g AAAAAAARARRRRRRRARRAARRAAAAAAAAAARARRRARRRRRARAAARAAAR RR A SA RAARARARARRRRRRRAARAAARAAAARRRRAARRRRA$ AASARRRRRRAAAR$ RARRRARRRRA $ARARRAAARARAS 5 RRRAAAARRAAAARRSARRRASAAAAAAA AAAAAARARRRAARAARARAARAAAAAARAARRRRRRRRAARR ARAARRRRRA @AR ARRRAApARgARRSRpRARAAAA §AAARRRRpRR wRARRRRRR R C R spaRi apses R ARAAgAR R 0 e °ARARARpRR AARRA$RRAAARAR ARARAASRRRR »RRARAlARA$ Amp p a g m alisA SARlBRgAAgRAglR arop 000n0000000000- NN00000000eorv« orvoo00o000000000eeeee00000a000ooeo00000eo00e0000000ee00op Y 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 o00ao00o0o0000 0 00eoo0o000 0 00000 QQ 0000000 0 0000000 n000000e0000000000000000000N00000000000000000000000000000no000000000n00 n«NNnnnnM1nnn nnnnnnnnnnnrvNNNNnnnn M1nnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn a x 2 2 0 0 OOOOOOONOOONOOOOOn00000 NOOOOOOOnO00nYNO0000NO0onnOnnnNOYONOOntnanOnOONNpOYNONOOnOOM1O 3 tl tYYYY•n vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv n Y• Na•• v•••• t• YM YaYVN• tNNNYM1NNNYOYnYYYNYM1NYN •NYY•AM1VYn•fN•YNO A p �1 .$o "ddd2>o'o NONRSesNO$ :adP;g5 �.EEnR5e�d5ed4Ndoa9Hn E5!”5!5',51M! '15 �t'HE5534:9i^3a° d6N�p0 dO�ndo d� oOdNd d o 1 p 8 ggg T ,pp o a pl P 1 Sgt S �P B Ih Ig �Y$ i d s s 3's _ghil p S ��P b 41Atiam -fi actin i t -0 ab Id `y e�F F§ a JEe P rig J >iF .4. �p LS 6 bg.i s£�33.4°.R�i ,e�>>Fii�� �J r g s3fi 5 s 2 3 I d a i z:$ <asp5 a, 5. i5 5s ees #l{aF$ 8 R. a €3. :e ,9.6 os.R, iSe 5 iga $AAAA A$Awswa§ A$il At g vmsgaAAA §AAAAAAgA mA AAgA A §RA AAAAAAAAAAA$ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAAA 8 A A 0 I AAAAilaasagaAAAAAAAAAA�AAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AA8 55 1 AAAARAAAAAAgAAAAAApagasAAA §AgAA A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA gla m aAAAlAgAg AAgillAA§ ARAmAg$ i88g A§ A sl S In 3 K ik 99 a a n 3 ,15 a A AAAAA$ ARBAAtslaRA��AA8 iiillAAAAAAlAAAAAalalpla w alarga as »x 9 a 2 7 c§ N �a 3 »aaa!s a 7 3 ax a G is eeeeoeeeeeee_ eeeeecceeeeeee- 0000000000 _eeeceoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee o00e80000r0 000000000ro x0000000000§ 000§000eeeeeeeee§00000000§00g M M E 8 M a 0000 n 0 0 0000 n 0 0 00 0 0 n 00«0 0 0000 M100oon e« 0 000 0 000000 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 .nnn«n rynnnryNNn nnnnn« nn« n.. rynnrynnnnnnnn. ,nnnnnrynnry..nN_nNnNneelM1N«NnOnnn S gru ggggcmSo6' kGgggv igggggCggr0000ggggggg6ggkoGogEggggggggggggggg 6 noM oM ry. n. noee000n000000ryeNM1.enM1eo «ononNO N« nNON«. M1pVnVnnnVryf ..NM1NNnNn. «NnOn044n «VVVVn NVNM1O.M1«44.M1VN.nnry 3 "E”, ”592 5 ”B ^11992 99g1P -55 M 9 6 u to 6 u� p pp g -SP t 11 w a:4 w A :3 3 U 99 aaa 3 q 9 S AAAAA. AAA9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA3, .AA AARAAAAAAARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAApAaAAAAAAw AA ARAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAApAA AAAAAAAAAAAAapsag c g a gg a A A m AA rAABAAAAAAAg ag Ai§ m m $AR g, 1R gkES oeeeeeee000000000000ea00000e0000000000eeeeee000a eeoeoe000000 oyjoe00000000000000eeeeeeAeoAooe000 8 i eoe000ONOOOOOOe000000000n000n000000cec0000 ,l000.- NN NNNM1 rvnnNNnnnnnNn N -N NNNM1ryNNNNNNNNryNNNNnN -_.-n r rvM1nN nry P 9 onne... nee.. Nrvaorv0000000NnnorvNrvoryrvry .NN.nNn.eoM1 NNVNNNw.Itle44nntl r...t..tl...aaM14NM1tNNNeNNe \NN 3 4 F s II Ill Ei yy 2qt p VV 5 EE j C p b 44 s III 6j! 4