Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-05 CC Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 17-05 ' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.08, WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM, AND FINDING THIS ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES 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 of 2017." 15.08.020 Findings. In adopting this Chapter, the City Council 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 18 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. 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. The City also participated in the second major update of the TUMF network entitled the '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. Based on the 2002 and 2009 Nexus Studies, the City adopted and implemented ordinances 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: 2016 Update" ("2016 Nexus Study") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose ' of updating the fees. On July 10, 2017, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2016 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended TUMF Ords 17-05 1 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. C. Consistent with its previous findings made in the adoption of Ordinance No. 10-02, the City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds and determines, 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 2016 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements and the facilities that compromise the Regional System, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development. G. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and real acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2016 Nexus Study. The need for the improvements and facilities is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic and creates the demand for the improvements. H. The City Council finds and determines that the 2016 Nexus Study ' proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional system. Ords 17-05 2 I. The City Council hereby adopts the Transportation Uniform ' Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2016 Update and its findings, a true, correct and complete copy of which is attached to Ordinance No. 17-05 as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein. 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 (exception will be made for March JPA, where height requirements exist); (ii) minimum of 10,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/ exits for commercial uses within the building. B. "Class 'B' Office" means an office building that is typically ' characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, on-site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class 'B" Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of two stories; (ii) minimum of 15,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame, concrete or masonry shell construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/exits for commercial uses within the building. C. "Development Project" or "Project" means any project undertaken for the purposes of development, including the issuance of a permit for construction. D. "Disabled Veteran" means any veteran who is retired or is in process of medical retirement from military service who is or was severely injured in a theatre of combat operations and has or received a letter of eligibility for the Veterans Administration Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Grant Program. Ords 17-05 3 E. "Government/Public Buildings. Public Schools and Public Facilities" means any owned and operated facilities by a government entity in accordance with Section 15.08.040.F., Exemptions. A new development that is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency for government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities shall apply only if all of the following conditions are met: (a) The new development being constructed is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency. (b) The project shall have a deed restriction placed on the property that limits the use to government/public facility for the term of the lease, including all extension options, for a period of not less than 20 years. Any change in the use of the facility from government shall trigger the payment of the TUMF in effect at the time of the change is made. (c) No less than ninety percent (90%) of the total square footage of the building is leased to the government agency during the term of deed restriction the long term and any extensions thereof. (d) The new development is constructed at prevailing wage rates. (e) A copy of the lease is provided to the applicable jurisdiction and to WRCOG. (f) Based on the facts and circumstances WRCOG determines that the ' intent of the lease is to provide for a long-term government use, and not to evade payment of TUMF. F. "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. G. "Guest Dwellings" and "Detached Second Units" mean, according to the State of California legal definition, as follows: 1) The second unit is not intended for sale and may be rented; 2) The lot is zoned for single-family dwellings; 3)The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling; 4) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling; and 5) Are ministerially amended by each jurisdiction's local codes. H. "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. 1 Ords 17-05 4 I. "Industrial Project" means any development project that proposes ' any industrial or manufacturing use allowed within certain zones by Title 17, Zoning of the Temecula Municipal Code, including Business Park Zone (BP), Light Industrial District Zone (LI), a Specific Plan providing for industrial or manufacturing uses, or a Planned Development Overlay District providing for industrial or manufacturing uses. J. "Long-Term Lease" as used in the TUMF Program, shall mean a lease with a term of no less than twenty (20) years. K. "Low Income Residential Housing" means"Residential Affordable Units": (A) for rental housing, the units shall be made available, rented and restricted to "lower income households" (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) at an "affordable rent' (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053). Affordable units that are rental housing shall be made available, rented, and restricted to lower income households at an affordable rent for a period of at least fifty-five (55) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new residential development. and (B) for for-sale housing, the units shall be sold to "persons or families of low or moderate income" (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093) at a purchase price that will not cause the purchaser's monthly housing cost to exceed "affordable housing cost (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5) Affordable units that are for-sale housing units shall ' be restricted to ownership by persons and families of low or moderate income for at least forty-five (45) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residential development. L. "Mixed-Use Development' as used in the TUMF Program, means Developments with the following criteria: (1) three or more significant revenue- producing uses, and (2) significant physical and functional integration of project components. M. "Multi-Family Residential Unit' means a development project that has a density of greater than eight (8) residential dwelling units per gross acre. N. "Non-Profit Organization" means an organization operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial port of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, the non-profit may be a 501(c) (3) charitable organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Service. O. "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. Ords 17-05 5 P. "Recognized Financing District' means a Financing District as defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan as may be amended from time to time. Q. "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. R. "Retail Commercial Project' means any development project that proposes any retail commercial activity use not defined as a service commercial project allowed within certain zones by Title 17, Zoning, of the Temecula Municipal Code, including Neighborhood Commercial Zone (NP), Community Commercial Zone (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial Zone(HT) and Service Commercial Zone (SC), Professional Office Zone (PO), Business Park Zone (BP) a Specific Plan providing for retail commercial activity use not defined as a service commercial project, or a Planned Development Overlay District providing for retail commercial activity use not defined as a service commercial project, which can include any eating/dining facility residing on the retail commercial development premises. S. "Service Commercial Project' means any development project that is predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal, and medical offices eating/dining facilities, and other uses related to personal or professional services. T. "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. U. "TUMF Administrative Plan" means that the TUMF Administration Plan adopted by the WRCOG Execution Committee May 5, 2003, as amended, setting forth detailed administration procedures and requirements for the TUMF program. V. "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. Ords 17-05 6 B. Fee Calculation. The fees shall be calculated according to the ' calculation methodology fee set forth in the WRCOG TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. In addition to data in the Fee Calculation Handbook, WRCOG Staff and the local agency may consider the following items when establishing the appropriate fee calculation methodology: • Underlying zoning of the site • Land-use classifications in the latest Nexus Study • Project specific traffic studies • Latest Standardized reference manuals such as the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual • Previous TUMF calculations for similar uses • WRCOG staff shall approve final draft credit / reimbursement agreement prior to execution WRCOG shall have final determination regarding the appropriate methodology to calculate the fee based on the information provided. In case of a conflict between the applicant, WRCOG, and/or the local agency regarding the fee calculation methodology, the dispute resolution process in the TUMF Administrative Plan will ' apply. C. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to the Resolution reference is subsection A, above, the fees may be increased or decreased to reflect the changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System including, but not limited to, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this 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 the effective date of this Chapter. D. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional System as depicted in the 2016 Nexus Study. E. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the City, unless otherwise exempt hereunder. F. Exemptions. The following types of new development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter and in TUMF Administrative Plan: Ords 17-05 7 1. Low income residential housing as described in ' Subsection K. of 15.08.020, Definitions, and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. 2. Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities as described in Subsection E. of 15.08.020, Definitions, and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Airports that are public use airports and are appropriately permitted by Caltrans or other state agency. 3. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq, prior 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 May 28, 2003, the TUMF shall be imposed. 4. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any habitable structure in use on or after January 1, 2000, provided that the same or fewer traffic trips are generated as a result thereof. 5. Guest Dwellings and Detached Second Units as described in Subsection G. of Section 15.08.020, Definitions, and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. 6. Kennels (including catteries) established in connection with an existing single family residential unit. 7. Any sanctuary, or other activity under the same roof of a church or other house of worship that is not revenue generating and is eligible for a property tax exemption (excluding concert venues, coffee/snack shops, book stores, for-profit pre-school day-cares, etc., which would be assessed TUMF) 8. 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. 9. New single-family homes, constructed by non-profit organizations, specially adapted and designed for maximum freedom of movement and independent living for qualified "Disabled Veterans." 10. Other uses may be exempt as determined by the WRCOG Executive Committee as further defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan. ' G. Credit. Regional System improvements may be credited toward the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan and the following: Ords 17-05 8 1. Regional Tier ' 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 on approved Nexus Study for the Regional System effective at the time the credit agreement is entered into. 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 Nexus Study for the Regional System at the time the credit agreement is entered into 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 2016 Nexus Study effective at the time the agreement was entered into, 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 Zone Transportation Improvement Program's adopted annually by WRCOG. 15.08.060 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 Ords 17-05 9 make all determinations required by this Chapter in a manner consistent with the 1 TUMF Administrative Plan. 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"). However, this section should not be construed to prevent payment of the fees prior to issuance of an occupancy permit or final inspection. Fees may be paid at the issuance of a building permit, and the fee payment shall be calculated based on the fee in effect at that time, provided the developer tenders the full amount of his/her TUMF obligation. If the developer makes only a partial payment prior to the Payment Date, the amount of the fee due shall be based on the TUMF fee schedule in place on the Payment Date. The fees shall be calculated according to fee schedule set forth in this Chapter, or resolution adopted pursuant thereto, and the calculation methodology set forth in the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. 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 the the ordinance adopting this chapter is initially adopted. 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 W RCOG along with a corresponding Remittance Report by the tenth (10) day of the close of the month for the previous month in which the fees were collected for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, TUMF Administrative Plan, and the Mitigation Fee Act. D. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed with WRCOG in accordance with the provisions of the TUMF Administrative Plan. Appealable issues shall be the application of the fee, application of credits, application of reimbursement, application of the legal action stay and application of exemption. 1 Ords 17-05 10 E. Reports to WRCOG. The Director of Building and Safety, or his/her designee, shall prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, periodic reports as will be established under Section 15.08.070. 15.08.070 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. Furthermore, the TUMF Administrator shall use the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time, for the purpose of calculating a developer's TUMF 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. 15.08.08- Effect. No provisions of this Chapter shall entitle any person who has already paid the TUMF to receive a refund, credit or reimbursement of such payment. This Chapter does not create any new TUMF. Section 2 Procedural Findings. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On August 8, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the 2016 Nexus Study, the amendments to Chapter 15.08, and the fees set forth in this Resolution. The public hearing was noticed at least ten (10) days prior to this hearing and the City Council made the 2016 Nexus Study available to the public during this period. B. The City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public at the public hearing 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 public hearing. Ords 17-05 11 Section 3. CEQA. 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 and Section 15061(b)(3) 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 4. 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 5. 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 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective November 1 , 2017. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 22nd day of August, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] i Ords 17-05 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 17-05 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 8th day of August, 2017, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of August, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart, Edwards NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Naggar Randi Johl, City Clerk Ords 17-05 13 EXHIBIT"A" 2016 NEXUS STUDY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE NEXUS STUDY 2016 UPDATE W R C O G FINAL REPORT Prepared for the Western Riverside Council of Governments In Cooperation with The City of Banning The City of Beaumont The City of Calimesa The City of Canyon Lake The City of Corona The City of Eastvale ' The City of Hemet The City of Jurupa Valley The City of Lake Elsinore The City of Menifee The City of Moreno Valley The City of Murrieta The City of Norco The City of Perris The City of Riverside The City of San Jacinto The City of Temecula The City of Wildomor The County of Riverside Eastern Municipal Water District March Joint Powers Authority Morongo Band of Mission Indians Riverside County Superintendent of Schools Riverside Transit Agency Western Municipal Water District Prepared by WSP As adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee, July 10, 2017 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................i LISTOF TABLES....................................................................................................................................ii ES.0 Executive Summa "' ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study.............................................................iii ES.2 Future Growth ..................................................................................................................vi ES.3 Need for the TUMF...........................................................................................................vi ES.4 The TUMF Network..........................................................................................................viii ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis.........................................................................................................x ES.6 Fair-Share Fee Calculation .............................................................................................x ES.7 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................A 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY.....................................................I 1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................1 1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History ................................................................................................2 1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process ..............................................................................................4 1.3.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List.................................................................6 1.3.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs.........................................................7 1.3.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component..............................................................8 1.3.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments ............................................8 1.3.5. Computing the Fee for Non-Residential Developments....................................9 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH.................................................................................................................12 ' 2.1 Recent Historical Trend..................................................................................................12 2.2 Available Demographic Data.....................................................................................12 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis..............................13 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF...........................................................................................................19 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels.............................................................................19 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels......................................................................................22 3.3 The TUMF Concept.........................................................................................................23 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK............................................................................................................25 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network...........................................................25 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network...........................................................28 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs......................................................................31 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System ..........................................36 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding...........................................................................................39 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs.....................................................................39 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost........................................................................................41 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation..............................................................................................51 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................53 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements ..........................................53 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components...............................................................54 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non-Residential Developments...............57 6.0 FAIR-SHARE FEE CALCULATION.........................................................................................58 6.1 Residential Fees ..............................................................................................................58 6.2 Non-Residential Fees......................................................................................................59 7.0 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................61 8.0 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................62 ' WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update I July 10, 2017 1 LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1 -Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County..............A Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County.................13 Table 2.2- Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County............15 Table 2.3- Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) ........................................................................................................16 Table 2.4- Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison)..........................................................18 Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline to 2040 No-Build)........................................................................................................20 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction.....................................34 Table 4.2-Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County.........................................34 Table 4.3- Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures.............................................................38 Table 4.4-TUMF Network Cost Estimates..................................................................................44 Table 4.5-TUMF Transit Cost Estimates......................................................................................51 Table 4.6-Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build Scenarios to 2040 TUMF Build Scenario)...................................52 Table 5.1 -2040 Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone.................................................55 Table 5.2-2040 Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone..................................55 Table 5.3- Backbone-Secondary Network Share Calculation .............................................56 Table 5.4- Peak Period VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County ' (2012-2040)...........................................................................................................57 Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share....................................................................59 Table 6.2- Fee Calculation for Non-Residential Share ...........................................................60 Table 7.1 -Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County...............61 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process..................................v Figure ES.2 - Population. Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) ........................................................................................................vii Figure ES.3 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network Improvements ..ix Figure 1.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process....................................5 Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County...............14 Figure 2.2- Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County...........15 Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) ........................................................................................................17 Figure 2.4- Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison)..........................................................18 Figure 4.1 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County.....27 Figure 4.2-The Backbone Network of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County....................................................................................................................29 Figure 4.3- Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) ......................30 Figure 4.4- Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network Improvements...43 ' WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Execuffve Commlffee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update I, Juty 10, 2017 ' ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000's, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. Although the economic recession of the late 2000's, and the associated crises in the mortgage and housing industries, has slowed this rate of growth, the region is expected to rebound and the projected growth in Western Riverside County is expected to increase. This increase in growth could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieto and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for southwest Riverside County. In August 2000, the concept was expanded to include the entire WRCOG sub- ' region. The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority, the Riverside Transit Agency and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future development will contribute toward addressing the impacts of new growth on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Draft Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. The results of the first review of the Program were WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update III July 10, 2017 1 documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015 leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015. The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015 where it was resolved to "delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments' 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the Nexus Study". The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016 enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is illustrated in Figure ES.1. Each technical step is denoted with a number on the flow chart with the numbers correlating to the detailed description of each step provided in Section 1.3 of the Nexus Study Report. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those ' steps that involved the application of the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM), steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in the Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the final results of the third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program to incorporate the revisions completed during 2016. This version of the document also incorporates revisions in response to comments received during the 45 day review of the earlier Draft TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017. ' WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update iv Juty 10, 2017 Igvn[s.t-nawcnuyl OF K"slew In Net WIN Nr sleet'7t'«..s nW%e,r aw vmv a.Gyprx wum •�.,�, �� �°� •,rte-. • ��-,�s:- �F *..�. v or n t - pF. ep.r� rrrr. I elt ► —__.._ .n wr.mr FrrnYe Ra♦1.lriw ftY.. m~WFw \ n.d.s:\Mrr4 O+w6i 6MriYY4 mobRM .,: tiA. Up pt'pMi N T •FAA ®FP• �.._ •� 1 7 F04.Y.�pY bee. WKOG Adopted NA17 N. u\Mudy-2016 Aoyro UpdAdopted WKOG hacunra July 0Mle 10.2017 ES.2 Future Growth For earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Recognizing the need to develop a more comprehensive source of socioeconomic data for Riverside County, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the University of California, Riverside in 2005. RCCDR provided demographic estimates and forecasts for Riverside County as input to the SCAG regional forecasts as well as providing the demographic basis for the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM). RCCDR data was used as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. As directed by the WRCOG Executive Committee, the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS demographics forecasts were utilized as the basis for this 2016 Update of the TUMF Nexus Study. A major distinction between RCCDR data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data used for this 2016 Update is the change in the base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2035 to 2040. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation. ' The population of Western Riverside County is projected to increase by 37% in the period between 2012 and 2040. During the same period, employment in Western Riverside County is anticipated to grow by 87%. Figure ES.2 illustrates the forecast growth in population, household and employment for Western Riverside County. ES.3 Need for the TUMF The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the TUMF study area included total vehicle miles of travel (VMT), total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E). As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure, particularly the arterial roadways, with the peak period VMT on the TUMF Network estimated to increase by 63% between 2012 and 2040. By 2040, 57% of the total VMT on the TUMF Network is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing peak period LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on the TUMF Network will increase over 4.97o per year. The need to improve these roadways and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the travel demand. ' WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update A July 10, 2017 ' Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) 2.ow.0oo 1.500.000 129.633 ( Household Type. 1.000.000 )a73.9J5� '� a Single-Farray �__ /� eMwwFor.ar 201.328 500.000 539.631 366.588 —�� Employment Sector. ' 120.736 528092 olntlusiriol 0 253.372 eRebi of lf` eServKe As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. Weekday system ridership for RTA bus transit services is approximately 31,016 riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2015. By 2025, bus transit services are forecast to serve approximately 46,572 riders per weekday. This represents an average increase of 1,414 weekday riders each year. Based on this rate of ridership growth, weekday ridership is estimated to increase by 41,011 riders per weekday between 2012 and 2040. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer-distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation. INRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-20 16 Program Update vR Juty 10,2017 The fee should be assessed proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each use on the transportation system. ESA The TUMF Network The Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the TUMF Network) is the system of roadways that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied select performance guidelines were identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. This framework was reviewed by representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions and private sector stakeholders, and endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The TUMF Network was refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance". The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system and on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. Figure ES.3 illustrates the TUMF improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.76 billion. Accounting for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $2.96 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $2.71 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $92.6 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $43.3 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $112.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. ' WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update viii July 10, 2017 ! • Pass Zone Central Zone Northwest Zone ,:_ :� ; ' ® .,,.....°•-• • e ��HerhetlSan Jacinto • .r F,. • 3 «. . .�.4� Zone Southwest Zone • nee -I (J e w•COO v. Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program I Figure ES.3 ' ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis There is a reasonable relationship between the future growth and the need for improvements to the TUMF system. These factors include: Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. D 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. D Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. ' The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of peak period trips between zones. The overall result is that 50.7%of the regional travel is attributable to the backbone network and 49.3% is assigned to the secondary network. In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, peak period growth in VMT between 2012 and 2040 was derived from RivTAM and aggregated by trip purpose. It was concluded that home-based person trips represent 71.0% of the total future person trips, and the non-home-based person trips represent 29.0%,of the total future person trips. ES.6 Fair-Share Fee Calculation The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $2.96 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their"fair share" of the ' WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update x July 10, 2017 costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.96 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 71.0% ($2.10 billion( will be assigned to future new residential development and 29.0% ($858.7 million( will be assigned to future new non-residential development. ES.7 Conclusions Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be demonstrated that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: • Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. • Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways; • The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County; ' • Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development; • Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program; • Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automotive travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. The fair share fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table ES.1. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update xi July 10, 2017 Table ESA -Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development Fee Per Unit Total Revenue Change ($million) Single Family Residential DU 173,043 $9,418 $1,629.8 Multi Family Residential DU 77,039 $6,134 $472.5 Industrial SF GFA 64,710,138 $1.77 $114.8 Retail SF GFA 17,920,500 $12.31 $220.5 Service SF GFA 105,211,915 $4.56 $480.0 Government/Public I SF GFA 2,696.349 $16.08 $43.4 MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $2,961.0 WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update xii July 10, 2017 ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY 1.1 Background Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering on area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000's, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. Although the economic recession of the late 2000's, and the associated crises in the mortgage and housing industries, slowed this rate of growth, the regional economy is continuing to rebound and the projected rate of development in Western Riverside County is expected to increase. This increase in growth could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. Development exactions only provide improvements near the development site, and the broad-based county-level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half-cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. In anticipation of the continued future growth projected in Riverside County, several ' county-wide planning processes were initiated in 1999. These planning processes include the Riverside County General Plan Update, the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Related to these planning processes is the need to fund the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development. Regional arterial highways in Western Riverside County are forecast to carry significant traffic volumes by 2040. While some localized fee programs exist to mitigate the local impacts of new development on the transportation system in specific areas, and while these programs are effective locally, they are insufficient in their ability to meet the regional demand for transportation infrastructure. Former Riverside County Supervisor Buster recognized the need to establish a comprehensive funding source to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional arterial highways. The need to establish a comprehensive funding source for arterial highway improvements has evolved into the development of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for Western Riverside County. In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieto and lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a TUMF. The intent of this effort was to have the southwest area of Western Riverside County act as a demonstration for the development of policies and a process for a regional TUMF Program before applying the concept countywide. From February 1999 to September 2000, the Southwest Area Transportation Infrastructure System ' WRCOG 1 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Funding Year 2020 (SATISFY 2020) Program progressed with policy development, the identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates, fee scenarios and a draft Implementation Agreement. In May 2000, Riverside County Supervisor Tavaglione initiated discussions in the northwest area of Western Riverside County to determine the level of interest in developing a TUMF for that area of the county. Interest in the development of a northwest area fee program was high. In August 2000, the WRCOG Executive Committee took action to build upon the work completed in the southwest area for the SATISFY 2020 program and to develop a single consolidated mitigation fee program for all of Western Riverside County. This action was predicated on the desire to establish a single uniform mitigation fee program to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system, rather than multiple discrete and disparate fee programs with varying policies, fees and improvement projects. A TUMF Policy Committee comprising regional elected officials was formed to recommend and set policies for staff to develop the TUMF Program and provide overall guidance to all other staff committees. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future new development will contribute toward addressing its indirect cumulative traffic impacts on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements such as new arterial highway lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act), which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow two basic rules when instituting impact fees. These rules are as follows: I) Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development impact fee's use and the type of project for which the fee is required. 2) The fee must not exceed the project's proportional "fair share" of the proposed improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems or to make improvements for existing development. 1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for ' WRCOG 2 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority, the Riverside Transit Agency and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. A current list of the standing WRCOG TUMF related committees and committee membership is included in Appendix A. The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. Its purpose was to establish the nexus or reasonable relationship between new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the proposed development impact fee that would be used to improve regional transportation facilities. It also identified the proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development. Consistent with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act, the WRCOG Executive Committee has established that the TUMF Nexus Study will be subject of a comprehensive review of the underlying program assumptions at least every five years to confirm the Nexus. Acknowledging the unprecedented and unique nature of the TUMF Program, the Executive Committee determined that the first comprehensive review of the Program should be initiated within two years of initial adoption of the Program primarily to validate the findings and recommendations of the study and to ' correct any program oversights. The results of the first review of the Program were documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015 leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015. The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015 where it was resolved to "delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments' 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the Nexus Study". The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016 enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the final results of the third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program to incorporate the revisions completed during 2016. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017. To ensure new development continues to contribute a fair share of the cost to mitigate its cumulative regional transportation impacts in the period between the ' comprehensive review of program assumptions completed at least every five years, the WRCOG 3 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10. 2017 1 WRCOG Executive Committee has also established that the TUMF Schedule of Fees will be reviewed annually, and adjusted, as needed, on July 1st to reflect current costs. The revised schedule of fees will be recalculated in February of each year based on the percentage increase or decrease in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the twelve (12) month period from January of the prior year to January of the current year, and the percentage increase or decrease in the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Median Sales Price of Existing Single Family Homes in the Riverside/San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area for the twelve (12) month period from the 3rd Quarter of the second year prior to the 3rd Quarter of the prior year (to coincide with the publication of the most recently updated index). If approved by the Executive Committee, the resultant percentage change for each of the indices will be applied to the unit cost assumptions for roadway and bus transit costs, and land acquisition costs, respectively, to reflect the combined effects of changes in eligible project costs on the resultant per unit fee for each defined land use category. 1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process In coordination with WRCOG, city and county representatives, developers, and other interested parties reviewed and updated the underlying assumptions of the Nexus Study as part of this comprehensive program review. In particular, the most recent socioeconomic forecasts developed by SCAG as the basis for the 2016 RTP/SCS were incorporated, as resolved by the WRCOG Executive Committee at the September 14, ' 2015 meeting. This use of the most recent SCAG forecasts resulted in a shift of the program base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as a shift in the program horizon year from 2035 to 2040. Furthermore, the TUMF Network was re-examined in detail based on travel demand forecasts derived from the most recent version of the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM) to more accurately reflect future project needs to address the cumulative regional impacts of new development in Western Riverside County as well as eliminating those projects having been completed prior to the commencement of the Nexus review in 2016. The subsequent chapters of this Nexus Study document describe the various assumptions, data inputs and analysis leading to the determination of each major variable in the TUMF calculation, and ultimately leading to the determination of the TUMF Schedule of Fees that indicates the maximum "fair share" fee for each of the various use types defined in the TUMF program. The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is summarized in this section, including the flow chart in Figure 1.1 that illustrates the various technical steps in this fee calculation process. Each technical step that was followed to determine the TUMF Schedule of Fees and establish the program nexus is summarized below, with the numbers denoted on the flow chart correlating to the steps described. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of RivTAM, steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in this Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step. ' INRCOG 4 Adopted INRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update Juty 10, 2017 � _ ! § ` ] 01 @ , .�0 "q�!] .0 ■ 3 . . § I e ® ® ' 1 ® J \ � ° ® I . I ; �`_ � � � | , . { # 10 rk • ] | , [■! ■ ] � � © | � i ` ----� ! ■ | � � � |� 1.1.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List The roadway network in Western Riverside County must be evaluated to determine how new development activity will impact the performance of the network, and how the resultant traffic impacts can be mitigated by completing various roadway improvements. The following steps integrate the latest SCAG socio-economic forecasts into RivTAM as the basis for determining future roadway deficiencies and identifying the list of eligible improvements to address these future deficiencies. The rational and methodology for accomplishing these steps is further explained in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report, with the resultant TUMF Network described in Chapter 4. 1) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2012 as its base year. This officially-adopted dataset was updated for the base for the TUMF 2016 Nexus Update, including redistribution of the SCAG data to correspond to the RivTAM TAZ structure. 2) The RivTAM model' has datasets available that represent the capacity of the different facilities in the road network for several different study years. For this nexus update, the RivTAM 2012 base network that was developed following the adoption of the SCAG 2012 RTP was selected as the one most closely resembling current conditions. This network was subsequently reviewed and updated, including a detailed review by WRCOG and participating jurisdictions, as well as partner entities, including BIA, to identify projects that were completed on the arterial network in the period between 2012 and December 2015. The arterial network was then recoded to reflect the changes to the TUMF Network to create a 2015 existing network as the basis for analysis. 3) RivTAM was run using the 2012 socio-economic data (SED) and the 2015 road network to produce the baseline volumes on the roads in the TUMF Network. 4) The baseline volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio was then determined. The target LOS for TUMF facilities is "D", meaning that facilities with LOS "E" or "F", i.e. those with a V/C ratio of 0.9 or higher, are deemed to have inadequate capacity. The result of this step is a list of roads that have existing capacity deficiencies. 5) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2040 as its forecast horizon year. This officially-adopted dataset was also used as the future base year for the TUMF update calculation. 6) RivTAM was run using the arterial road network for 2015 with the land use assumptions for 2040. This "No Build" scenario was used to determine where ' The macro-level traffic forecasting was conducted using the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM). RivTAM is a version of SCAG's six-county model with additional detail (traffic analysis zones and local roads) added within Riverside County. It was developed for use in traffic studies in Riverside County as a replacement for several older models that covered different portions of the county.RivTAM has both the geographic scope needed to analyze all TUMF facilities and conformity with regional planning assumptions.There is a memorandum of understanding among the jurisdictions of Riverside County that encourages the use of the RivTAM model for use in traffic studies. WRCOG 6 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update Juy 10, 2017 deficiencies would occur in the roadway system if development occurred as expected but no roadway improvements were implemented. 7) Comparing the existing capacity deficiencies with the future deficiencies showed where new deficiencies would occur that are entirely attributable to new development. Comparing the existing and future traffic volume to capacity ratio on the roads that are currently deficient shows the portion of the future deficiency that is attributable to new development. 8) It is generally acknowledged that the TUMF program cannot and should not attempt to fund every roadway improvement needed in western Riverside County. WRCOG has adopted a set of selection criteria that was used to choose which roadway improvements would be eligible for TUMF funding. 9) The selection criteria were applied to the forecast deficiencies to identify projects for the TUMF Project List. The project list was subsequently reviewed to confirm the eligibility of proposed projects, including projects previously included in the TUMF program, as well as additional projects requested for inclusion as part of the current update. The project list was then subsequently updated to reflect those projects considered eligible for TUMF funding as part of the 2016 Nexus. 1.1.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs The estimated costs of proposed improvements on the TUMF Network are calculated based on the prices of construction materials, labor and land values for the various eligible project types included as part of the TUMF program. The approach and outcomes of the following steps is described in Chapter 4 of this report. 10) The TUMF program has design standards covering the road project components that are eligible for TUMF funding. This ensures that projects in jurisdictions with different design standards are treated equally2. 1 1) The unit costs for the various construction components were updated based on the current cost values for labor and materials such as cement, asphalt, reinforcing steel, etc., as derived from Caltrans cost database, RCTC and other sources, effective March 2016. Additionally, the ROW cost components per square foot for various land use types were also updated based on current property valuations in Riverside County as researched by Overland, Pacific and Cutler in March 2016. 12) The design standards and the unit costs were combined to create conceptual engineering cost estimates for different eligible project types (road costs per lane-mile, typical costs per arterial-freeway interchange, bridge costs per linear foot, etc.). The unit costs from the previous step were then applied to the project list to estimate the costs of the improvements on the TUMF project list. 2 A jurisdiction may choose to design to a higher standard,but if it does so TUMF will only fund up to the equivalent of ' what costs would have been had the TUMF design standards been followed. WRCOG 7 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' 13) The percentage of each project that was attributable to new development was then applied to the costs of TUMF road projects to find the total road project cost that is attributable to new development. 1.1.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component A portion of the TUMF funding is made available for transit services that provide an alternative to car travel for medium-to-long distance intra-regional trips. The eligible transit projects and their associated costs are determined using the following steps, with additional explanation provided in Chapter 4 of this report. 14) The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) commissioned a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) that was completed in January 2015. This analysis looked at existing and future ridership and identified potential projects to expand and improve transit service in Riverside County. 15) The COA's ridership figures for 2015 and 2025 were extrapolated to 2012 and 2040 to match the analysis years used for TUMF road projects. 16) The growth in ridership between 2012 and 2040 was compared to total ridership in 2040 to determine the portion of 2040 ridership that is attributable to existing passengers and the portion attributable to new growth. 17) As was the case for road improvements, possible transit projects from the COA were screened using a set of criteria to determine whether they should receive ' TUMF funding. The COA project list was then reviewed by WRCOG and RTA staff to confirm the validity of the project list and to reflect any changes in RTA project recommendations established since the adoption of the COA to establish a final recommended transit project list to be included as part of the program. The result was the TUMF Transit Project List. 18) RTA provided information on current costs for transit infrastructure. 19) The cost information was then used to determine the cost of the items on the TUMF Transit Project List. 20) The percent attribution from Step 21 was applied to the project cost estimates from Step 24 to determine the cost of transit improvements that are attributable to new development. 21) The costs for road and transit projects that are attributable to new development are then combined along with information on other (non-TUMF) funds to determine the total cost for TUMF projects that is to be cover by new development through the imposition of the fees. The available alternate funding sources were reviewed as part of the Nexus update, specifically including the completion of a detailed review of available federal, state and local funding sources administered by RCTC. 1.1.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments Having determined the total project costs to be covered by new development under the TUMF program, it is necessary to divide these costs among different types of ' WRCOG a Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 1 developments roughly in proportion to their expected traffic impacts. The following steps described the process for determining the proportion attributable to new residential development. These approach for accomplishing these steps along with the findings of this analysis are described in detail in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report. 22) California legislation encourages the use of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the primary indicator of traffic impacts because it takes into account both to the number of vehicle trips and the average length of those trips to reflect the proportional impact to the roadway network. As a result, the methodology for determining the relative distribution of traffic impacts between residential and non-residential uses for the purposes of TUMF was revised from a trip based approach used in the earlier nexus studies to a VMT based approach for the 2016 update. The RivTAM 2012 existing and 2040 no-build model runs were examined to determine the VMT of various trip types that would take place in Western Riverside County (excluding through trips). The results were compared to determine the growth in VMT for each trip type. Per WRCOG policy (based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) recommended practice) trips originating in or destined for a home are attributed to residential development while trips where neither the origin nor the destination are a home are attributed to non-residential development. 23) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socio-economic forecasts were used to estimate the number of single-family and multi-family dwelling units that will be developed during the 2012 to 2040 period. ' 24) The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE's) trip generation rates, which come from surveys of existing sites for various development types, were then used to estimate the daily number of trips that will be generated by future single- and multi-family developments that will occur in the region from 2012 to 2040. 25) The cost to be covered by residential development was divided into the portion attributable to new single-family dwellings and portion attributable to new multi- family development to calculate the cost share for each use. 26) The cost share for single-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings was divided by the number of dwellings of each type to determine the fee level required from each new dwelling unit to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the impacts of new developments. 1.1.5. Computing the Fee for Non-Residential Developments A process similar to that used for residential units was used to determine the fee level for non-residential development. However, the determination of fees for non-residential development involves additional steps due to the additional complexity of accounting for a greater variety of development types within each use category. Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report provide additional explanation regarding the methodology for accomplishing these steps along with the results of this analysis. 27) like most impact fee programs, TUMF groups similar development projects together into general use categories in order to simplify the administration of the program. TUMF groups the various land use categories found in ITE's Trip WRCOG 9 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Generation Manual into four non-residential categories (industrial, retail, service, and government/public sector) based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is also used by the U.S. Census Bureau and SCAG for demographic classifications, and is the basis for such classifications in the SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model as well as and the RivTAM model. The ITE trip generation rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates. The median value for the trip- generation rates for all uses within each category was used in the nexus study to represent the trip-generation characteristics for the category as a whole. 28) The trip-generation rates of retail uses and service uses were adjusted to take into account the share of pass-by trips these uses generate. Pass by trip rates for various retail and service uses were derived from the ITE Trio Generation Manual to determine the median value of all uses as the basis for the adjustment. The ITE pass by trip rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy and updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates. 29) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socio economic forecasts included non-residential employment for 2012 and 2040. These forecasts were used to estimate the growth in employment in each of the four non-residential uses. 30) The SCAG employment forecasts are denominated in jobs while development applications are typically denominated in square feet of floorspace. The ratio of floorspace per employee was determined as a median value derived from four ' studies, including a comprehensive study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties conducted in 1990, an OCTA study conducted in 2001, a SCAG study (including a specific focus on Riverside County) conducted in 2001, and the Riverside County General Plan adopted in 2015. It should be noted the SCAG study and Riverside County General Plan were identified and included as part of the 2016 Nexus Update in response to a recommendation made during the review of the prior draft 2015 Nexus Study. 31) The forecast growth in employees was multiplied by the floorspace per employee to produce a forecast of the floorspace that will be developed for each of the four non-residential use types. 32) The trip-generation rate for each of the four uses was multiplied by the forecast of new floorspace to estimate the number of trips generated by each use. 33) The amount of project costs to be covered by non-residential development was split between the four non-residential uses to determine the TUMF cast share for each. 34) The TUMF cost share for each of the four non-residential uses was divided by the forecast growth in floorspace to determine the fee level required from each new square foot of non-residential development to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the impacts of new developments. 35) WRCOG has adopted a TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook that allows for fee adjustments to be made to account for unusual circumstances for certain types of residential and non-residential development (fuel filling stations, golf courses, high-cube warehouses, wineries, electric charging stations, etc.) These ' WRCOG 10 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' adjustments are intended to calculate a fairer proportional fee based on the unique trip generation characteristics of these particular development types. The outcome of this process is a schedule of fees for the various use categories identified as part of the TUMF program. The study conclusions including the Schedule of Fees is presented in Chapter 7 of this report. The schedule of fees represents the maximum fee permissible under California law for the purposes of the TUMF program. The WRCOG Executive Committee has the option to adopt lower fees, however, in doing so each use category subject to a lower fee would not be contributing a fair share of the cost of their impacts. This would in turn create a funding gap for the program that would necessitate identifying additional project funding from some other source in order to ensure the cumulative regional impacts of new development are being mitigated fully in accordance with the program. 1 ' WRCOG t Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 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 SCAG to be 381,000 representing a 46% increase (or 3.9% average annual increase) over the 1990 employment of 261,000. Despite the impacts of the Great Recession and the associated residential mortgage and foreclosure crisis, Western Riverside County continued to grow due to the availability of relatively affordable residential and commercial property, and a generally well-educated workforce. By 2010, the population of the region had grown to 1.742 million, a further 47%, growth in population from 2000. Similarly, total employment in the region had also grown from 2000 to 2010 with 434,000 employees estimated to be working in Western Riverside County. This represents a 12% increase from the 381,000 employees working in the region in 2000. 2.2 Available Demographic Data ' A variety of alternate demographic information that quantifies future population, household and employment growth is available for Western Riverside County. For earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by SCAG. SCAG is the largest of nearly 700 Councils of Government (COG) in the United States and functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties in Southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and plan for issues of regional significance including transportation and growth management. As part of these responsibilities, SCAG maintains a comprehensive database of regional socioeconomic data and develops demographic projections and travel demand forecasts for Southern California. Recognizing the need to develop a more comprehensive source of socioeconomic data for Riverside County, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the University of California, Riverside in 2005. RCCDR was responsible for establishing and maintaining demographic information and ensuring data consistency through a centralized data source of demographic characteristics. RCCDR provided demographic estimates and forecasts for Riverside County as input to the SCAG regional forecasts as well as providing the demographic basis for RivTAM. RCCDR forecasts were utilized as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. ' WRCOG 12 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 1 The functions of the RCCDR have been subsequently integrated into the Riverside County Information Technology - Geographic Information Systems (RCIT-GIS) group. and their role in the development and distribution of SED has recently diminished. Although RCIT-GIS, WRCOG and other regional partners participated in the process to develop regional demographic forecasts as part of the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG remained the lead agency in the compilation and dissemination of the forecasts that were ultimately adopted in 2016, including those specific to Western Riverside County. For this reason, the SCAG forecasts adopted for the 2016 RTP/SCS were used as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update, with the adopted SCAG data being disaggregated to correlate to the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure utilized for RivTAM. 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis A major distinction between RCCDR data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data used for this 2016 Update is the change in the base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2035 to 2040. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation. The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data were compared to the RCCDR 2007 data used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. As can be seen in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, the 2012 ' data reflects o modest increase in population, a very slight decline in households, and a modest decline in overall employment, with a notable shift in employment away from industry and government/public sector to retail. These changes reflect a restructuring of the regional economy in response to the influences of the Great Recession during this time. Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County SED Type 2009 Update 2016 Update Change Percent (2007) (2012) Total Population 1,569,393 1,773.935 204,542 13% Total Households 890 9 525,149 -5140 -1 Single-Fornly 395.409 366.588 -28,821 -7% Multi-Famil Total Employment 1 515,914 460.787 -55127 -11% Industrial 175.571 120,736 -54,835 -31% Retail Service Govemment/Public Sector 43,954 20,791 -23.163 -5396 Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008:SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 WRCOG 13 Adopted WRCOG Execuffye Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County i I.SDO.000 1.600.000 ----- - — 1.600.000 1.200.000 1.aao,aoo 1.77S.9S6 800. 0 1.569.3931 600.000 --- _ Household Type: 0SMole-Fomly 395,6W 1 175.571 6— ■MWtI-FOrtMIy %6.588 120.73 200.000 Employment Sector: 156.813 0 M 372 a meusma A ry ■ReM ■C:ovemrnent Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2 compare the socioeconomic forecasts for the program horizon year of 2035 used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and 2040 for this study. The most recent forecasts reflect a reduction in the horizon year population, households and overall employment in Western Riverside County, as well as shifts in the projected growth in employment sectors away from govemment/public sector and service towards retail. These changes are considered to be consistent with the influence of the economic recession on the rate of growth in Western Riverside County. ' WRCOG 14 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 1 Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County SED Type 2009 Update 2016 Update 2035 2040 Change Percent Total Population 2,537,583 2 429 633 -107,950 -4% Total Households 881.968 775,231 -106 737 -1276 Sin le-Famil 552.154 539.631 -12,523 -2% MultkFamil Total Em to ment 1 090 833 861 455 -229,375 . -2176 TUMFlndustriol 276,782 201,328 -75,454 -27% TUMF Retail IA AM 1 17411 TUMF Service TUMF Government Public Sector ] 1 30,306 -101 -7M Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008;SCAG 2016 RTP;WSP,April 2016 Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 3 000.000 1 2.500.000 z ca0 aac 1 sao aoo 57J 5g3 429633 i.aa0 00o _ 276,782- No uehwd Type: -p8�2... 5521541 :{ MI 3" 0Sing a-Fa vN ' 539,631 ■M�IILFpniy 141 i3_7_ 595,039 Employment Sectors: 0 529.092 �"+ .13t 9.2�- OInWfMd �,� OR9taY ' WRCOG 15 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 2.3 and Figure 2.3 summarize the socioeconomic data obtained from SCAG and used as the basis for completing this Nexus Study analysis. The SCAG employment data for 2012 and 2040 was provided for thirteen employment sectors consistent with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) Major Groups including: Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade: Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities: Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service; and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Study, the EDD Major Groups were aggregated to Industrial (Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade: Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities), Retail (Retail Trade), Service (Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service: Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service( and Government/Public Sector (Government). These four aggregated sector types were used as the basis for calculating the fee as described in Section 6.2. Appendix 6 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 - Populatlon, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) SED Type 2012 2040 Change Percent ' Total Population 1,773.935 2,429,633 655.698 37% Total Households 525.149 775,231 250,082 48% Sin ale-Family 366.588 539.631 173,043 47% Multi-Fomil Told Employment 460,787 861,455 4001668 87% TUMF Industrial 12C 736 201.328 80,592 67?7 TUMF Retail TUMF Service TUMF Government/Public Sector 20,791 30,306 9,515 46% Source: SCAG 2016 RTP: WSP,April 2016 ' WRCOG 16 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10. 2017 1 Figure 2.3 • Population, Households and Employment in Westem Riverside Count' (2012 to 2040) 2.500.000 ` I 2,000.000 1,500,000 I 1 ` 129. Houwheld Type: 1 000.000 1.773, 500.000 F fW1,631 ~ - 201.328 —__ 366.508 20.736 Employment Sector: ' OInWShial 0 ;r P 1 c OGov¢rnmant The combined effects of the changes in the base year and horizon year socioeconomic data is a notable reduction in the total growth in population, households and employment for the current Nexus Update compared to the 2009 Nexus Update. Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4 provide a comparison of the changes in population, households and employment between the 2016 Nexus Update and the 2009 Nexus Update. The table and figure clearly illustrate the reduction in the rate of growth in Western Riverside County largely attributable to the effects of the economic recession. This reduced rate of growth in the region will serve as the basis for reevaluating the level of impact of new development on the transportation system in the next section, as well as providing the basis for the determination of the fair share fee for each land use type. WRCOG 17 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10. 2017 Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) SED Type 2009 Update 2015 Update Difference Percent (2007-2035) (2012-2040) Total Po ula8on 968.190 655.698 -312,492 -32%b Total Households 351,679 250,082 -101,597 •29% Single-Family 156.745 173,043 16,298 1017 Multi-Family Total Employment 574.919 400,668 -174,251 -30% TUMF Industrial _ _ 'I.2I I _ 8C.592 -20.6'9 _ -20� TUMF Retail 47,594 35,841 -11,753 -25% TUMF Service 338,226 274,720 -63.506 -19%9 TUMF Government/Public Sector 87.888 9,515 1 -78,373 -89% Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008: SC AG 2016 R-P: WS'. Apri' 20,16 Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) 1,000.000 �_- --- --- --- --- ------- 9w000 ------------------- I _ eoo.000 ------------ ------- 700.000 600,000 '— 500.000 - 101.211 400.0001 Q_,594 655.698 -- - ---- Household i 300.CM I Type: 80.592 56745 200.000 '-� aSingle-fOMRy I sse.2xe ■Molli-FamNy 100.000 173.0431 _ _ n�' Employment Sector: 0 97 aee - ❑InNShid aReloM eSelvice �� I oaovemment ' WRCOG 1 B Adopted WRCOG Executive CommI fee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update Juty 10, 2017 ' 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF All new development has some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a community, city or county due to an increase in travel demand. Increasing usage of the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing VMT, traffic congestion and decreasing the level of service (LOS)3. In order to meet the increased travel demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become necessary to sustain pre-development traffic conditions. The projected growth in Western Riverside County (37% growth in population and 87% growth in employment in under 30 years) and the related growth in VMT can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial highways and roadways that carry a significant number of the trips between cities, since traditional sources of transportation improvement funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to serve new development. Development exactions generally provide only a fraction of The improvements with improvements confined to the area immediately adjacent to the respective development, and the broad-based county-level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half-cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. ' This section documents the existing and future congestion levels that demonstrate the need for future improvements to the transportation system to specifically mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. It then describes the TUMF concept that has been developed to fund future new developments' fair share of needed improvements. The forecast of future congestion levels is derived from Year 2040 No-Build travel demand forecasts for Western Riverside County developed using RivTAM. The Year 2040 No-Build scenario evaluates the effects of 2040 population, employment and resultant traffic generation on the 2015 existing arterial highway network. 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the existing arterial highway system in Western Riverside County, existing (2012) and 3 The Highway Caaacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2010,pp 2-2, 2-3) describes LOS as a "qualify measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream,generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience." Letters are used to designate each of six LOS (A to F),with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. According to the Highway Capacity Manual,LOS C or D is typically used in planning efforts to ensure an acceptable operating service for facility ' users. Therefore, LOS E represents the threshold for unacceptable LOS. WRCOG 19 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 tfuture (2040) SED were modeled on the existing (2015) arterial highway network using RivTAM. To quantify traffic growth impacts, various traffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for the AM and PM peak periods for each of the two scenarios. The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total VMT, total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E). These results were tabulated in Table 3.1. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix C. Total Arterial VMT, VHT, VHD and LOS E Threshold VMT were calculated to include all principal arterials, minor arterials and major connectors, respectively. Regional values for each threshold were calculated for a total of all facilities including arterials, freeways, freeway ramps and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline to 2040 No-Build) Peak Periods Total Measure of Performance' 2012 2040 %Change %Annual VMT-Total ALL FACILITIES 19,532,437 29,277,587 50%, 1.5% VMT- FREEWAYS 11,019,155 14.487.570 31% 1.0% ' VMT-ALL ARTERIALS 8,513,282 14,790,016 74% 2.0% TOTAL-TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 5,585.202 9,089,495 63% 1.8% VHT-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 575.154 1.361.907 137% 3.1% VHT- FREEWAYS 296,542 736,433 148% 3.3% VHT-ALL ARTERIALS 278,611 625,474 124% 2.9% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 181,151 396,981 119% 2.8% VHD-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 175,765 739,075 320% 5.3% VHD- FREEWAYS 117.430 502,549 328% 5.3% VHD-ALL ARTERIALS 58,334 236,527 305% 5.1% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 45,080 172,944 28417. 4.9% VMT LOS E-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 6.188.644 16.966.992 174% 3.7% VMT LOS E-FREEWAYS 4,532,703 10,156,363 124% 2.9% VMT LOS E & F-ALL ARTERIALS 1,655,941 6,810,629 311% 5.2% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/LOS E or worse 1,462,061 5,160,911 2537. 4.6% of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/LOS E or worse 26% 57%, 'Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transoortation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP,September 2016. NOTES: Volume is adjusted by PCE factor VMT=vehicle miles of travel(the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT=vehicle hours of travel (the fatal combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD=vehicle hours of delay(the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow(ideal) travel time) LOS=level of service(based on forecast volume to capacity ratios) LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan. ' WRCOG 20 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values: VMT= Link Distance `Total Daily Volume VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time 'Total Daily Volume VHD = VHT- (Free-flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time " Total Daily Volume) VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90) Note: Volume to capacity(v/c)ratio thresholds for LOSE are based on the Transportation Research Board 2010 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed(Exhibit 14-5.Chapter 14,Page 14-51. The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build, and the average annual change between 2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build. As can be seen from the RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1, the additional traffic generated by new development will cause VMT on the arterial highway network to increase by approximately 747o by the year 2040 (approximately 2.0% per year). In the absence of additional improvements to the transportation network in Western Riverside County, the growth in VMT will cause congestion on the highway system to increase almost exponentially, with the most significant increase in congestion observed on the arterial highway system that includes the TUMF Network. Many facilities will experience a significant increase in vehicle delay and deterioration in LOS to unacceptable levels as a result of new development and the associated growth in traffic. According to the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research ' Board, 2010), LOS C or D are required to "ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users." LOS E is generally recognized to represent the threshold of unacceptable operating service and the onset of substantial systemic traffic congestion. The Congestion Management Program for Riverside County (CMP) published by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 2011 designates LOS E as the "traffic standards must be set no lower than LOS E for any segment or intersection along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways" in Riverside County. "The intent of the CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality." 4 The CMP provides a mechanism for monitoring congestion on the highway system and, where congestion is observed, establishes procedures for developing a deficiency plan to address improvement needs. The reactive nature of the CMP to identify and remediate existing congestion differs from the proactive nature of the TUMF program to anticipate and provide for future traffic needs. For this reason, the TUMF program follows the guidance of the Highway Capacity Manual in establishing LOS E as the threshold for unacceptable level of service, and subsequently as the basis for measuring system performance and accounting for existing needs. This approach ensures a more conservative accounting of existing system needs as part of the 4 Congestion Management Program for Riverside County-Executive Summary (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 201 1) Page ES-3. ES-1 WRCOG 21 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' determination of the "fair share" of mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of future new development on the transportation system. The continuing need for a mitigation fee on new development is shown by the adverse impact that new development will have on Western Riverside County's transportation infrastructure, and in particular, the arterial highway network. As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure with the total VMT on the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA; also referred to as the TUMF Network) estimated to increase by approximately 63% or 1.8%compounded annually. As shown in Table 3.1, the VMT on arterial facilities within the TUMF Network experiencing LOS of E or worse will increase by approximately 253% or 4.6% compounded annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2012 and 2040. By 2040, 57%, of the total VMT on the TUMF arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the TUMF arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on TUMF arterial highways will increase by approximately 4.9% per year. The combined influences of increased travel demand and worsened LOS that manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay highlight the continuing need to complete substantial capacity expansion on the TUMF arterial highway system to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development. ' The RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1 clearly demonstrate that the travel demands generated by future new development in the region will lead to increasing levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The need to improve these roadways to accommodate the anticipated growth in VMT and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the additional travel demand. 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Transit represents a critical component of the transportation system by providing an alternative mode choice for those not wanting to use an automobile, and particularly for those who do not readily have access to an automobile. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. While some future transit trips will be accommodated by inter-regional transit services such as Metrolink, a substantial number of the trips within Western Riverside County will be served by bus transit services and for this reason the provision of regional bus transit service is considered integral to addressing the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new developments. Regional bus transit services within Western Riverside County are primarily provided by RTA. To support the evaluation of regional bus service ' WRCOG 22 Adopted WRCOG Execuffve Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' needs to accommodate new development, daily transit trip forecasts were derived from the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysiss. Weekday projected system ridership for 2015 and 2025 were interpolated to 2012 and 2040 to represent existing and future transit trips consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section 3.1. The interpolated year 2012 and year 2040 existing and future transit ridership were compared in order to assess the impact of new development on transit demand. The weekday projected system ridership indicates that RTA bus transit services accommodate approximately 31,016 riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2015. By 2025, bus transit services are forecast to serve approximately 46,572 riders per weekday. This represents an increase in projected weekday ridership of 15,556 between 2015 and 2025, or an average increase of 1,414 weekday riders each year. Based on these projected weekday ridership levels and rate of ridership growth each year, the interpolated weekday ridership for 2012 is 26,773 while the interpolated weekday ridership for 2040 would be 67,785. This translates into an increase of 41,011 riders per weekday between 2012 and 2040. Weekday projected system ridership for 2015 and 2025, as presented in Table 7 of the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis Executive Summary, along with the interpolated weekday system ridership in 2012 and 2040 are included in Appendix D. The significant future growth in demand for public transit services is reflective of the cumulative regional impacts of new development, and the associated increase in demand for all types of transportation infrastructure and services to accommodate this growth. Furthermore, bus transit ridership is expected to grow as the improved services ' being planned and implemented by RTA attracts new riders and encourages existing riders to use transit more often as an alternative to driving. Attracting additional riders to bus transit services contributes to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development by reducing the number of trips that need to be served on the highway system. The need to provide additional bus transit services within Western Riverside County to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the demand. 3.3 The TUMF Concept A sizable percentage of trip-making for any given local community extends beyond the bounds of the individual community as residents pursue employment, education, shopping and entertainment opportunities elsewhere. As new development occurs within a particular local community, this migration of trips of all purposes by new residents and the new business that serve them contributes to the need for transportation improvements within their community and in the other communities of Western Riverside County. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute uniformly to paying the fair share cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer-distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee is intended to be used primarily to improve transportation 5 Riverside Transit Agency (RTA),Comprehensive Operational Analysis Executive Summary, January 2015,Table 7 WRCOG 23 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 1 facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (in particular, arterial roadways and regional bus transit services). Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, while some also serve trips between more distant communities within the region. The differing roadway functions led to the concept of using a portion of the fee revenues for a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve the longer-distance trips (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region), while using a second portion of the fee revenues for a secondary system of arterials that serve inter-community trips within a specific subregion or zone (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the communities most directly served by these roads - in effect, a return-to-source of that portion of the funds). Reflecting the importance of public transit service in meeting regional travel needs, a third portion of fee revenues was reserved for improvements to regional bus transit services (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region). Much, but not all, of the new trip-making in a given area is generated by residential development (i.e. when people move into new homes, they create new trips on the transportation system as they travel to work, school, shopping or entertainment). Some of the new trips are generated simply by activities associated with new businesses (i.e. new businesses will create new trips through the delivery of goods and services, etc.). With the exception of commute trips by local residents coming to and from work, and the trips of local residents coming to and from new businesses to get goods and services, the travel demands of new businesses are not directly attributable to ' residential development. The consideration of different sources of new travel demand is therefore reflected in the concept of assessing both residential and non-residential development for their related transportation impacts. In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following: A uniform fee that is levied on new development throughout Western Riverside County. • The fee is assessed roughly proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each new use on the transportation system. • A portion of the fee is used to fund capacity improvements on a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve longer-distance trips within the region: a portion of the fee is returned to the subregion or zone in which it was generated to fund capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that link the communities in that area: and a portion of the fee is used to fund improvements to regional bus transit services that serve longer-distance trips between the communities within the region. ' WRCOG 24 Adopted WRCOG Executive Commltiee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK 4.1 identification of the TUMF Roadway Network An integral element of the initial Nexus Study was the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system. As a result, this system also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The TUMF Network does not include the freeways of Western Riverside County as these facilities primarily serve longer distance inter-regional trips and a significant number of pass-through trips that have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County6. The TUMF Network is the system of roadways that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The RSHA for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transportation network and performance guidelines as follows: 1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at ultimate build-out (not including freeways). 2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between ' communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County. 3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day in the future horizon year. 4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 (LOS E) or greater in the future horizon year. 5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services. 6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Appendix E includes exhibits illustrating the various performance measures assessed during the definition of the RSHA. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were initially identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was 6 Since pass-though trips have no origin or destination in western Riverside County,new development within western Riverside County cannot be considered responsible for mitigating the impacts of pass through trips. The impact of pass- through trips and the associated cost to mitigate the impact of pass through trips(and other infer-regional freeway trips) is addressed in the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) western Riverside County Freeway Strategic Flon Phase II-Detailed Evaluation and Impact Fee Nexus Determination Final Report dated May 31,2009. WRCOG 25 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The RSHA is illustrated in Figure 4.1. As stated previously, the RSHA represents those regional significant highway facilities that primarily serve inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and therefore also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. Consistent with the declining rate of new development forecast for Western Riverside County post the Great Recession, the TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update to ensure facilities generally still met the previously described performance guidelines, and/or that the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network were roughly proportional to the impacts needing to be mitigated. This review process resulted in the removal of various facilities from the TUMF Network, as well as various changes in the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network ore discussed in Section 4.3 of this report. WRCOG 26 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Legend n v J • y a c i i MKO• �` e Regional System of Highways and Arterials - Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program I Figure 4.1 1 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network As indicated previously, the TUMF roadway network was refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance." Facilities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at general plan build-outr, extend across and/or between multiple Area Planning Districtss, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2040. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The backbone network is illustrated in Figure 4.2. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the RSHA for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network, although they are considered significant for circulation within the respective zone. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG APD or zones are illustrated in Figure 4.3. 1 7 Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at general plan buildout, in some cases it was determined that sufficient demand for all additional lanes facilities may not exist on some facilities until beyond the current timefrome of the TUMF Program (2040). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development through the current duration of the TUMF Program. 9 Area Planning Districts (APD) are the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area.Area Planning Districts are interchangeably referred ' to as TUMF Zones, WRCOG 28 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Legend Nk i ! i c I Backbone Network of Highways and Arterials - Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program I Figure 4.2 Legend Pass Zone Cenunl Zone Northwest Zone s ^ 1 _ s s a � �et/ n Jacinto Zone Zone m Southwest Zone , m war oc Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program I Figure 4.3 ' 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs For the purpose of calculating a "fair share" fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development. Estimates of the cost to improve the network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development were originally developed based on unit costs prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)9, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimotes'O (TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998. The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates and were consolidated to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement types eligible under the TUMF Program. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new ' development. Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs for roadway construction were originally varied to account for variations in construction cost (and in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with construction on level (code 1) rolling (code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain, respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs which originally included consideration for land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs, condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation costs were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses - code 1), suburban (developed residential uses - code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses- code 3) land uses, respectively. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were originally varied to account for variations in cost associated with new complex, new standard (or fully reconstructed), or major for partially reconstructed) or minor (individual ramp improvements) interchange improvements. As part of the 2016 TUMF Nexus Update, the original unit cost categories were revised to generate entirely new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction cost, labor cost and land acquisition cost values for comparable projects within 9 Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) ' 10 TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments,2000,SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates WRCOG 31 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update to reflect the effects of the ongoing recovery from the economic recession that has seen the costs of materials, labor and land acquisition in California rebound from relative historical lows. Appendix F provides a detailed outline of the assumptions and methodology leading to the revised TUMF unit cost assumptions developed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update. In addition, supplemental categories were added to the cost assumptions to better delineate the need to mitigate the cumulative multi-species habitat impacts of TUMF arterial highway improvements in accordance with the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and to account for the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) MSHCP adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003 states that "each new transportation project will contribute to Plan implementation. Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% - 5% of their construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts." This provision is reiterated in the MSHCP Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Report (David Taussig and Associates, Inc., July 1, 2003) section 5.3.1.2 which states that 'over the next 25 years, regional infrastructure projects are expected to generate approximately $250 million in funding for the MSHCP" based on mitigation at 5% of construction costs. To clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP, the TUMF Program will incorporate a cost element to account for the required MSHCP contribution to ' mitigate the multi-species habitat impacts of constructing TUMF projects. In accordance with the MSHCP Nexus Report, an amount equal to 5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges and railroad grade separations will be specifically included as part of TUMF Program with revenues to be provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for the acquisition of land identified in the MSHCP. The relevant sections of the MSHCP document and the MSHCP Nexus Report are included in Appendix F. Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate as part of the current Nexus Update. Table 4.1 also includes a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions, and the 2009 Nexus Update unit cost assumptions. Cost estimates are provided in current year values as indicated. To estimate the cost of improving the regional transportation system to provide for future traffic growth from new development, the transportation network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in Section 4.1) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed network improvements. The initial list of improvements needed to provide for the traffic generated by new development was then compared with local General Plan Circulation Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of regional significance. A consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the network to provide for future traffic growth associated with new development. This initial list of proposed improvements has since been revised and updated as part of each subsequent Nexus Update to reflect the changing levels of new development and the associated travel demand and ' transportation system impacts to be mitigated as part of the TUMF program. WRCOG 32 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 As discussed in Section 2.3, the effects of-the economic recession since the 2009 Nexus Update have included a reduction in the rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County. As indicated in Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4, the anticipated rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County has been reduced overall by 32% for population, 29% for households and 30% for employment. This reduced rate of socioeconomic growth is reflected in a reduction in the forecast horizon year population, households and employment depicted in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2, with the 2040 forecasts used as the basis for the 2016 Nexus Update being reduced by 4% for population, 12% for households and 21% for employment compared to the 2035 horizon year forecasts used as the basis for the 2009 Nexus Update, despite the horizon year being extended out by 5 years in the most recent SCAG forecasts. This reduced rate of forecasted socioeconomic growth has a commensurate impact on the forecasted daily traffic in the region as demonstrated by the 2009 Nexus Update VMT compared to the 2016 Nexus Update VMT in Table 4.2. As shown in the table, the forecast daily traffic is reduced by about 7% in the year 2040 as the basis for the 2016 Nexus Update compared to the year 2035 as used for the 2009 Nexus Update. As a result of the reduced traffic growth in the region, it is anticipated that the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the arterial highway and transit systems in the region is also reduced necessitating a reduction in the projects identified on the TUMF Network to mitigate the impacts of new development. 1 ' WRCOG 33 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction Original Cost Cost Assumptions as Assumptions Cost Component per 2009 Nexus Assumptions Type published Update per 2016 Description October 18, October 5, Nexus Update 2002 2009 Terrain 1 $550.000 $628,000 $692,000 Corsbuction cost pe,lone mite-level terrain Terrain 2 $850,000 $761,000 $!78,000 Construction cost per lone mile-roving tenairt Terrain $1,150,000 $895,000 $1106410100 Construction cost per lane mile-mountainous twain landuse1 $900,000 $1,682.000 $2,509,000 ROW cost factor per lone mile-abon areas Landuse 2 $420,000 $803,000 $2,263,000 Row cost factor per lane mile-siourbar areas Landuse3 $240.000 $237,000 $287,000 ROW cast factor per lane mle-rural areas Interchange 1 n/a $43,780,000 $50,032,000 Complex new interchange/interchange _ modification cast Interchange $20,000.000 $22,280,000 $25,558,000 New interchange/'irterchangemodilicanon Vol cost Interchange $10,000,000 $10,890.000 $12,3143,000 map,Werchonger improvement total cost Bridge 1 $2,000 $2.880 $3,180 Bridge ford cost per lone per linear foot RRXing 1 $4,500,000 $4,550,000 $6,376,000 New Rod Grade Crossing per lane RRXIng 2 $2,250,000 $2,120,000 $2,733,000 Existing Roil Grade Crossing per lone 1 Planning, ntal and Planning 10% 10% 10% environmental assessment costs based on construction cost only Project study report,design permitting and Engineering 25% 25% 257E construction oversight costs based on construction cost orty Contingency 10% 10% 10% Contingency costs based on total segment cost AdminlslrlsRon 3% 4% TUMF program administrotion based on total TUMF el a network cost MSNCP 5% 5% TUMF corneal of MSHCP based on total ❑,MF rli ,tole contlr1,Cion cost Table 4.2-Forecasted Dally Traff ic in Western Riverside County 2016 Nexus Update 2009 N_exus Update_ Measure of PeAormonce DORY Dally 2012 Baseline 1 2040 No-Build 2007 2035 VMT-Total ALL FACILITIES 36,844,082 56,574,656 39,187,718 60,772,353 VMT-FREEWAYS 21,798.155 30,678,958 24,056,704 32,920,502 VMT• ALL ARTERIALS 15,045,927 25,895,698 15,131,014 27,851,851 TOTAL-TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 10,059,547 16,515,642 Source: Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 artend network completed by WSP.September 2016:RivTAM provided by Heris(2008) ' WRCOG 34 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 A peer review process utilizing real world experience and perspectives from both the private and public sectors was critical in developing a realistic network of proposed improvements to mitigate the additional traffic resulting from future development in Western Riverside County. Representatives of private development firms and the BIA have continued to participate in the process of developing and updating the TUMF Program. This involvement has included active participation of private developer staff at various workshops conducted at critical milestone points in the process of completing the Nexus update, as well as a formal review of the TUMF Network and associated elements of the Nexus Study by the BIA and their hired consultant staff. As part of the 2015 Nexus Update, the list of proposed improvements included in the initial Nexus Study and validated during the subsequent Nexus updates was reviewed for accuracy and, where necessary, amended to remove or modify projects that have changed in need to mitigate impacts based on changes in the patterns of growth and travel demand within the region. Projects completed since the adoption of the 2009 Nexus Update were also removed from the network to reflect the fact that mitigation at these locations is no longer required. The specific network changes were screened by the WRCOG Public Works Committee for consistency with TUMF network guidelines including travel demand and traffic performance, and were subsequently reviewed by representatives of the public and privates sectors at a series of workshop meetings conducted between November 2014 and January 2015. ' In response to the release of the 2015 Nexus Update draft study document, the TUMF Network was further reviewed by a consultant team hired by the BIA, with findings and recommendations provided in a letter dated August 8, 2015. A final review of the TUMF Network and associated improvements was conducted by WRCOG staff in cooperation with the Public Works Committee during the summer and fall of 2016 specifically in conjunction with the 2016 Nexus Update to include consideration of the revised travel forecasts based on the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS demographic forecasts. Based on the findings of the network screening, workshop meetings and other reviews, elements of specific projects were revised to reflect necessary network corrections and modifications to project assumptions. Matrices summarizing the disposition of the requests received as part of both the 2015 and 2016 TUMF Nexus Updates were developed and are included in Appendix G. Eligible arterial highway and street improvement types to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include: 1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes; 2. Construction of new Network roadway segments; 3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures; 4. Construction of new Network bridge structures; 5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways; 6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways; 7. Grade separation of existing Network at-grade railroad crossings; ' WRCOG 35 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 All eligible improvement types provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. Following the comprehensive update of the TUMF Program, the estimated total cost to improve the RSHA for Western Riverside County is $3.45 billion with this cost including all arterial highway and street planning, engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and capital construction costs, but not including transit, MSHCP or program administration costs that will be subsequently described. It should be noted that the full cost to improve the TUMF Network cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for the previous obligation of other funds to complete necessary improvements and unfunded existing needs. Sections 4.5 and 4.6 describe the adjustments to the total TUMF Network improvement need to account for existing needs and obligated funds. In addition to the arterial highway and street improvement costs indicated above, the TUMF Nexus Update included specific consideration for the TUMF Program obligation to the MSHCP program to mitigate the impact of TUMF network improvements on species and habitat within Western Riverside County. The TUMF obligation to MSHCP was calculated at a rate of 5% of the total construction (capital) cost of new lane segments, bridges and railroad grade separations on the TUMF Network. The total obligation to the MSHCP as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $45.4 million, although the total obligation specific to the TUMF program is reduced to account for MSHCP obligations associated with improvements addressing existing needs and therefore excluded from TUMF. ' The TUMF 2016 Nexus Update similarly includes specific consideration of the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. The average cost for WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program was calculated at a rate of 47, of the total eligible cost of new lane segments (including interchanges, bridges and railroad grade separations) on the TUMF Network and new transit services. Administration costs incurred by WRCOG include direct salary, fringe benefit and overhead costs for WRCOG staff assigned to administer the program and support participating jurisdictions, and costs for consultant, legal and auditing services to support the implementation of the TUMF program. The total cost for WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $112.2 million. The detailed TUMF network cost calculations are provided in Section 4.7, including each of the individual segments and cost components considered as part of the TUMF Program, and the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment following adjustments for obligated funding and unfunded existing needs as described in subsequent sections. 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System In addition to the roadway network, public transportation plays a key role in serving future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter-community trips is generally provided in the form of public bus transit services and in particular express bus WRCOG 36 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' or other high frequency services between strategically located community transit centers. In Western Riverside County, these bus transit services are typically provided by RTA. Transit needs to serve future regional travel in Western Riverside County via bus transit include vehicle acquisitions, transit centers, express bus stop upgrades, maintenance facilities and other associated capital improvements to develop express bus or other high frequency inter-community transit bus services within the region. Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF Program as they typically serve longer inter-regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips on the inter-regional highway system. The network of regionally significant bus transit services represents those express bus and other high frequency transit bus services that primarily support inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional highway system and inter- regional commuter rail services. As a result, this portion of the bus transit system also represents the extents of the network of bus services that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The TUMF Bus Transit Network is the system of bus services that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The Bus Transit Network for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transit network and performance guidelines as follows: 1. Bus transit routes (or corridors comprised of multiple overlapping routes( ' proposed to have a frequency of greater than three buses per direction during peak hours at ultimate build out. 2. Routes or corridors that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities, both within and adjoining western Riverside County. 3. Routes or corridors with forecast weekday bus ridership in excess of 1,000 person trips per day by 2040. 4. Routes or corridors that are proposed to provide timed interconnections with at least four other routes or corridors at ultimate build out. 5. Routes or corridors that utilize the majority of travel along the TUMF RSHA. 6. Routes or corridors that provide direct access to areas of forecast population and employment growth, major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Express bus routes and other high-frequency bus transit routes and corridors in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were identified by RTA based on service information developed as part of the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis completed in January 2015. The TUMF Bus Transit Network was subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, and the WRCOG Executive Committee as the basis for the transit component of the 2016 Nexus Update. Updated cost estimates for improving the infrastructure serving public transportation, including construction of transit centers and transfer facilities, express bus stop ' upgrades, and capital improvements needed to develop express bus and other high WRCOG 37 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10. 2017 1 frequency bus transit service within the region were provided by RTA. The updated transit unit cost data provided by RTA are shown in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures Cost Cost Assumptions Assumptions God Component Type' as published per 2009 Assumplions Description October 18. Nexus Update per 2015 2002 October 5, Nexus Update 2009 Relocation/expansion of existing Transit Center 1 66,000,000 Regional Transit Center with up to 14 bus boys and park and ride New Regional Transit Center with Transit Center 2 $6.000.ODO $5.655,000 61,000,000 up to 14 bus bays and park and ride Transfer FocNtty $1,000,000 Multiple route transfer hub O L M Facility 000000 Regional Operations and Maintenance Facility BUS Stop $10,000 $27,000 $40,000 Bus Stop Amenities Upgrade on TUMF NeMrork 6RT Service Capital $540,000 $550,000 $60,000 BRT/Lira ed Stop Service Capital ersto ' Vehicle Fleet 1 6155 Medium Sized Bus Contract operated ' Vehtele Beet 2 $325,125 W.000 66 5,000 Large Sized Bus Directly O eraletl Comprehensive Operational COA Study stso ow Analysis Study component of Nexus Study Update Transit Cost Component Types were restructured as part of me 2015 Nexus Update in occordance with the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis(January 2015) " BRT Service Capital Cost Assumption was based on a per mile unit in 2009 Nexus Update. 2016 Nexus Update uses a per stop unit cost for BRT Service Copilot The estimated total cost for future RTA bus transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $153.1 million with this cost including all planning, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Section 4.7. ' WRCOG 35 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements, including most recently California Senate Bill (SB) 1 Transportation Funding approved by Governor Brown on April 28, 2017. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the funded cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF Program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds. To determine the availability of obligated funds, each jurisdiction in Western Riverside County (including the County of Riverside, the participating cities, and RCTC) was asked to review their current multi-year capital improvement programs to identify transportation projects on the TUMF system. A detailed table identifying the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix H. A total of $303.5 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated TUMF network cost was subsequently reduced by this amount. 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (as presented in Table 3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service. In addition, demand for inter-community transit service already exists and future utilization of proposed inter-community transit services will partially reflect this existing demand. The need to improve these portions of the system is generated by existing demand, rather than the cumulative regional impacts of future new development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost share of improvements providing for this existing need. In the initial TUMF Nexus Study, the cost of existing improvement needs was estimated by identifying the roadway segments on the TUMF network that operate at LOS E or F according to the modeled 2000 base year volumes. The application of the LOS E threshold is consistent with national traffic analysis guidance that stipulates LOS D as the minimum acceptable LOS for arterial roadway facilities. The cost to improve these roadway segments with existing unacceptable LOS was calculated using the 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. ' WRCOG 39 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' By the application of this methodology, the initial TUMF Nexus Study did not account for the incremental cumulative impact of new development on those segments with an identified existing need. For this reason, the methodology to account for existing need was reviewed as part of the TUMF 2005 update to provide for the inclusion of incremental traffic growth on those segments with existing need. As part of the 2016 Nexus Update, the methodology to account for existing need on arterial segments was further refined to utilize peak period traffic conditions as the basis for the calculation, rather than daily traffic conditions. Peak period performance measures typically reflect the highest level of demand for transportation facilities and therefore are typically utilized as the basis for project design making peak period a more appropriate basis for determining existing need (and future mitigation needs) as part of the TUMF program. The existing need methodology for the 2016 Nexus Update was also expanded to include spot improvements on the TUMF Network (including interchanges, bridges and railroad crossings). Due to limitations in previously available traffic forecast data, prior versions of the TUMF Nexus Study only determined existing need for arterial segments and did not explicitly include existing need for spot improvements. To account for existing need in the TUMF Network as part of the 2016 Nexus Update, the cost for facilities identified as currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted. This was done by identifying the portion of any TUMF facility in the RivTAM 2012 Baseline scenario with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of greater than 0.9 (the threshold for LOS E), and extracting the share of the overall facility cost to improve that portion. This cost adjustment provides for the mitigation of incremental traffic growth on those TUMF segments with an existing high level of congestion.The following approach was applied to account for incremental traffic growth associated with new development as part of the existing need methodology: 1. Facilities with an existing need were identified by reviewing the RivTAM 2012 Baseline scenario assigned traffic on the 2015 existing network and delineating those facilities included on the TUMF Cost Fee Summary Table that have on average directional v/c exceeding 0.90. a. Weighted directional v/c values were used to determine existing need for network segments, which was calculated by: i. Determining the length for the portion of each segment (model link), and calculating the ratio of link length to the overall segment length ii. Generating the average directional v/c for each link, for both directions in AM and PM periods, and multiplying by link/segment length ratio iii. Determining the maximum peak-period peak-direction v/c for each link, representing the highest directional v/c in either AM or PM iv. Calculating weighted average v/c for each TUMF segment, based on the sum of all weighted max v/c values of each link within a segment ' WRCOG 40 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 b. A similar method was used to determine existing need for spot improvements including interchanges, railroad crossings and bridges. However, no weighting was used in the calculation of existing need for spot improvements. For these facilities, the peak-period peak-direction v/c values (highest directional v/c in either AM or PM) were utilized in the existing need calculation. This was based on the individual link within a network segment where a bridge or railroad crossing is located, or on- and off-ramps in the case of interchanges. 2. Initial costs of addressing the existing need were calculated by estimating the share of a particular roadway segments "new lane" cost, or individual spot improvement cost (including all associated ROW and soft costs). 3. Incremental growth in v/c was determined by comparing the average directional base year v/c for the TUMF facilities (delineated under step one) with the horizon year v/c for the corresponding segments and spot improvements calculated based on the RivTAM 2040 No-Build scenario assigned traffic on the 2012 existing network using the some methodology as the base year v/c. 4. The proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development was determined by dividing the result of step three with the total 2040 No-Build scenario v/c in excess of LOS E. 5. For those segments experiencing a net increase in v/c over the base year, TUMF will 'discount' the cost of existing need improvements by the proportion of the incremental v/c growth through 2040 No-Build compared to the 2012 Baseline v/c (up to a maximum of 100%). The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs (including the related MSHCP obligation) totals $431.7 million. Appendix H includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment and spot improvement experiencing unacceptable LOS. For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement needs is $60.5 million representing 39.5% of the TUMF transit component. Appendix H includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost. 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost A total of $303.5 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. Since these improvements are already funded with other available revenue sources, the funded portion of these projects cannot also be funded with TUMF revenues. Furthermore, the total cost of the unfunded existing improvement need is WRCOG 41 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update Juty 10, 2017 $492.2 million. These improvements are needed to mitigate existing transportation deficiencies and therefore their costs cannot be assigned to new development through the TUMF. Based on the estimated costs described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, the total value to complete the identified TUMF network and transit improvements, and administer the program is $3.76 billion. Having accounted for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, respectively, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $2.96 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $2.71 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $92.6 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $43.3 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $112.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. Figure 4.4 illustrates the various improvements to the RSHA included as part of the TUMF network cost calculation. Table 4.4 summarizes the TUMF network cost calculations for each of the individual segments. This table also identifies the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment having accounted for obligated funding and unfunded existing need. A detailed breakdown of the individual cost components and values for the various TUMF Network segments is included in Appendix H. Table 4.5 outlines the detailed transit component cost estimates. It should be noted that the detailed cost tables (and fee levels) are subject to regular review and updating by WRCOG and therefore WRCOG should be contacted directly to obtain the most recently adopted version of these tables (and to confirm the corresponding fee level). ' WRCOG 42 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Le nd i Pass Zone ^/ I, _ .....•..mow N ..u.... Central Zone NorthwestZone H rneVSan Jacinto • • �'.. �` Zone Southwest Zone • e w*tof Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program I Figure 4.4 Table 4.4 • TUMF Network Cost Estimates Mel,PL,,,,DISICIfy SmEkINU.IE SEGmEnWROM SEGr .. rvLES 10TN COST P,as unwf YlME Card Issas. Ethnic 1-1, minlelo p p Cenod Manners Erna pa Namelo 1215 0i0 p p Cenaal ~lee Ern0 C 1-215 I"aar-a Re 0W y11X V7 00) WISP Cano-al snewlen 2.1-01 S.-Is .1111 r o61 $161),0.00 $1,6n.NJ Canlml Manilas Emrsae BNSF San lopnlp&encn mNOVa crossing OW llm'm.0.0 3]30180X1 Cenlrnl rMnilee mewl,r S"(1-calal Simpson 219 p p Carlos M1Cnilee Medlee San,Clans andge 000 p p ,,Trot Man Na manna, Mlae Simpson Me,'.a 064 p p Cenlrnl .fns aP.lee saapolo .-.a, 098 p p Cenlrnl Mni18P Nervlee Newpoa XOIland 1,0) p p Cemral sernFee s.Mlifee Hallos Gmaanr 1.03 p p Centrpl am lop Nervree Gap.11 Sc0ll IW $2.6d5 OLO $2.N5.000 Cemrd Wanaaa werile,/wnnewone xon ssia-10 CS Is Umn 053 p p CeMlal .11. anpan Goers r.VIrmm 1.61 w p Cenlra 6pef- .-a.,, N rnem 1215 zos 35.105000 $S,45"Car mi Menilee Inim"t 1215 hMl.1- 095 p p em1:a Imnilee Ncwporl r.•enitee LiMenoA9er a27 p p Conical bKnI Newpon Lippenperge, SR n Pe'incrIal.] 31% p p Canlml .as So 11 1-215 el", 2oa p p Cenlrnl Marilee Zaml 1215 merman's, OCO 53"WIci00 $37.0A0.11 cenlmc =ee $con SL. Wrriela 10, 32,SSCQD $265!0[0 Cennol MmIas xan ni.t. 1215 191 $10.251103 51025a1a Cenlrnl AWnj.. SR-71 ran'll-s e:rgys 1.89 µ9910X $x991000 Cenllol no Volley noinm e. 1215 Penn 152 36,391000 36.J942X Cenlrnl Abreno Valley NaiarKKO Peals Nason 203 M632dp 322.632001 ,acrd "aaa Vole, Niamir Noson INrreno Iasi 0se 0922 PA $6 Mao') Cennd Moreno 1011q NCS1Crgro ra Bmcn Gilman So i"s Lq $10.In001 PO W20c nerd rnomno 1.Xay Glman Sam's SR-W Nessando 1.62 H.<II.W] $3.72400(s Cenntl Ibrem VOAey GkTm"amps SRM rmemaa,,e 003 $17,69)000 31I.B92pp Cenlrnl as VaXay Penis Recne Visro aoa 2 W p p Ca lld .-I oIIa Pans P.-.ad Sumanead 052 p p Central ,Wrenp Volley Penif SR inlercnon0e 010 jl)09I,W0 p Central .-cs Volley PaMS Warnmead COCUS 2. p p Cenlyd Wleno vatic, Pans C-os Nmoy Rnoa 3So p p Central raner,ra Vdky eir ILI. Mlnano Vaby Cily Limit Baca., 04 W3100D) S1.10503) Canlyd Pans Ills/Case Pali, Gaeti 0W 32,IOl OJ) $2.IW Eno Cenlyd Pans Core Go.,, 1215 236 $16.186,000 $1.5300X1 Cara Pans Case San lacinla Rlv> Oridge 00) 31,1 26.MO WE 001 Cemrd Paris Elnamc 6aplons Wdr 2.21 pA27,0)O $I.32)OT ' Cemrtl Pan, E'r.a Son JOCinI.River Olio', 0.) $7]18,01 3)3I8,ON Cmnd Penis Ellgwc 4212 Snamal OJ5 $2.135000 $100,0(0 CenrM Purrs 1 Core Elnonar, 200 $5.267,CN 42.50e OXl Cenntl Pens Goal San icamro River wltlge oW P6,88000 $1.9250]] Cemrd Penn .rd-COOmv %acemiol 1215 Pars 0. $13,12"" $12.62)000 Cenntl pans .a .only is-emiol -N,, aaa"a OW p7.Oepipr0 31235/000 Cenntl Pan, N0. amry Penn 1,57 V2902.000 532 NS= Cemrd Pant rad-cane" Pam Vdlo/Slam CMnnel onaga 003 36200.00] 0.299.003 Cennd Pan Pan NoOey Knw Ramona I p p Cann. armf leas Rom.as CI"s 2. y.5l8.m 36.51.M Cennd Perm Cin.s 050 p p Cenlyd Pans Pans Ill,o 1.75 $12.206'" $9 We pq Carnd Penn I-So o•aas.arm' dia'. 000, 17762003 $1,1560011 Conant Peas Romano 1215 Paris nI $2,769N) $2769000 Conical lans Ramanc 1215 inlallsonge OWE $17,897.0a 35955000 Concal Par, Ramona Pans Eva I'M p p Cemral Parts Ramow Nam Kd CO-I,l2."L E O,Oials) 262 Sa p Con". Per SR-II III11 air 4215 2N p SO Cmlroi Unnrornarola$ ETOnac W-74 Remlone 147 $$.64.20 $5.64.. Ceara Wnmrpnralas Glman Sias,, Neswndro lod'. 19B A2.$15.20 111.105,00) Can"c W Mennen a..- SRd<IPmcdle) 107 $10.157000 110.73)0)) Ceram" UniZmomla5 "a -n:1 Erons I...no 1280)11 E.1 eper) 017 58.50)00] 38.587." Cenlrnl Uni-marolea ""COUnly(ROmpna R..a.(2100 11 E CI RIne1 a.gvaNe aM $1,161 Db St.I61.. CsI Unnco'..'eo Mdcin,p"lRamonal Pico AVeve MIL'o 595 WA120 $25207,0.00 Cenaal UllineorporareC swa{ounty Ramona[ San JOCinlo Riva aria'. OW, $23 9100.00 $ISBSS.ON Ca0ra1 Dnncorporared Repro COnwn San Baranol.County Recne Vnla 3So $12,4/003 $9.M. Central UnMarporcllea R.sr.to R..0--n ., n.Vdlia0ly amil 1,22 $9.10.0.'1 SON." Cenaal Wncorpwaled Sass big', SR-79 w1nanemer, Jw SlPN2= p Carlin' L.namp-lal SR 7I Emanac E!n 269 SO p .,,-a, Corona Col.. „5 Immsas Conan 066 $2.306,1)CO $2.;X60X0 .1.1-1 Corona Cgarmo I'S inlercnpng. 00) jR 516.211 V4 251 NMnwen Corona Poamll Pawn GOrae Gncoln 253 Wo"C'O]0 $7.282OO Noll-ml Colons, Paolal wardow warn ML'. OW, $5,53 WU SS mvast Coon. Fno,re [Iraq, California 261 p p Non Maest Carona Eoo1N1 Cailamb 115 089 36.217.Ob 3!00.000 Norl,weil Comma Green 0- SR 91 Dan II R.aa 052 13G2lO $LCW swan Capp. Gaon Riva Dcmmgoc)Ronan F.L., 0.55 $121l0X Nar:,va,l Car Gram Rira Pdianm Pa.Grana. 20, p p Ibl:nwen anrd. Saremrsn Son Bernardino Calms, 600.1.Cucamonga Gee, 065 32.271.0.1 $2.271.00) Nonnwen E.,.. SCLram. C,comoago Crttk bin" OW, $923LM 3923'003 Norm-t EoUVae SUleimon Yq•JO CUCamonOa Crack lbnlsan 0.81 p p .unwed E.",nP. SWa'a. Xvnwn summa Op p p NarTwes' P-1-1e xnnsmon Sumnd Sala., 050 0.193.20 V 03.M isamwal Eas,vale Saina-al Scant. n51ree1 031 p p N011nwe„ Earlyde "amrar ASneer Mamma 027 p p al-al am.VaAq Von XUa- SR LO ssr,pp no 1,13 $99)60.1 53'sucr)0 No"Iell 1 00 Volley Van Wren 9eer,l-a Sonia Ma C- 360 125,1I1.0q 37.,11 20 ' WRCOG 44 Adopted WRCOG Executive Commlftee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 1 Table 4.4 • TUMF Network Cost Estimates(continued) AREA PUN OW.CIV TUDiEt UVIE 5(GBlith"e M MCn hM MLES TOT.CMT A4%Ri nWiSN/.RE Nonnwel R;nal .-1. Mhglon tr vi 221 111 ]0 VOnnweft Rivnvnp M;nytOn J.", Ftlgnol. 592 S)0]I Too {]00101'00 Rivaine Mington ulu' is ......bo 202 $13957 000 110.SO, VOnnwefl NretiD. on BwM WIT.MO Rivn SK 91 3. f1,U " 00.156.[[0 annwml , itle Von Sol SR-91 Non"o, nChi .l to FOB4000 00olW Nonmven Rivyl Vol 0urev Vicoul RoVlwwn SO W W N.nhwnl R;v¢n;tl¢ Vol Burnt lraulwein Cralge lemce 1,27 00.1700]0 00..10.Too Nannwnl LSo;ncwawOleo Nmm- Lol 111.GVnap 1.22 M W Norfnwnl tJnincoy.. Ne33.nwo uzla Cuhae c215 12e W W Nonnwesl lymcwowolea COIC¢o aShorante Haevlann 0.76 N.BIb RU i]..65LLtl NOnM1V oil V,iMOr(mrV le. Cc1dc0 hall,l.no hi 5.)i Wiceo0 566,30.5.000 .."onnl I,NinCwpwvlel Cajdco Hwvtl 1215 026 $719Di 17 9000 Nonnwesl LLuncorpavlM cojd.. Iemncal Chilly- LO Sen. 321 $738 Sol $21BM 0.tl NMnwel LLinCpOwalaE Coto'. Ternescal Worn brNye OW 00.229000 V1 MOM Nonnwesl LnincwwaleE Caldco Lo Steno 8Sooruhle it us.QI 0000 H51214C0 Nonnwesl IRUncwoorolM on Men rbCk;ngNe Conpn Vy..h .sl MAS.WJ $29.1019.000 No,tl,wesl IninCwcaralM oninnn Grange lenace 121, 1,89 $9611000 $),63).000 Pvss lelo l Bm'vmvnl Coe VOYp 00nl 110 1.37 W W ll Sel l Polmo cot Volley(Sw.(moleo Col-S,e, 072 $161502 $Tis's ll BeOumwll POne. Se-eO ine,roh ge 003 W O 0'00 121700.000 uhho B¢aVmonl P01rao u` r..D TooNrp 000 {1.92)00 $7.827000 Poll BMumonl Pother. hi Gewt hi 0M {2.]VOOD $2.D Cool Pan eeaumari Pon.. Se do On 0 5 {2X.000 12376.000 Pon 8eoumanl SR-)91 BeounOnll 'to Melbw 0 D W W Pats Biloxi SR79 Bednconll 010 inlercPorge OM Will OWOSSO Paul Unhoorporoloo SR-191Bwloo ll VeO.- Cont is 0.38 W W Pms 1}vncwnwOlM V191Lw^,O CmWnI CoelOma Gron Sryegl 0.01 W W noon'.n'. Xemal Dvmnigon Wrenn So.., I,)) $!6)O Dll 00.61!000 Son 1.i Hem., LVrn"i Soll $1.19 2.16 W W Son Jrlonl0 Hemel SR 74 WinMrMn Winn, 2.59 f16005.M1 SI6.Q " Son Jul Son oonlo IRoh.lyl vyienly, Santla»n 1.73 f12woccl 112005.022 Sun loonlo Son bonlo .YoIC.unh,(Roth.) SW.sorVSR.I91Nenel Bp herionarge OW W),ou"i W11]C0.0'A Son Mama Sore Jaonla Rvmvm Schoo In vol, 2.39 W W Snn Monll Son .hl. Ram Stale vo;n 216 W W San lapnl0 Son..hl. Romano Win Cehw 209 511.621[00 $11.139 DID S.S.J.D. San So.nlo R.mnoo C. SR 11 1.10 W W Mn Mnnro LMmpwv'M D.,oure ry SR-)91W;nCM31gl When 1.10 W.113 033 WJ73.000 Sal Manlo UtincwporatM OOmengory Son Zoui Vooloucl Di 000 $2761003 12767" Son loam. IMnion,ho vleh Clmsl$nnps el SOnMSon 2.95 {1782002 SI.M," Son Mono unuolc TorolM Mo- ..nh,IRahr l 31.96 Wmm 215 $12396003 $1 N5,00) Sore Toni u.n000woloo SR-)6 iirws SR-791Wmcnestpl 3.53 {9.301003 $9,10110]0 Nn To to UoincorpwalM P N 1Hnnet tyro nsl SR J.18wronl Domerrgom 122 $16993,000 116990.002 San laamo Unln.wpemleh SR-79(..met Ol Son D;ego L.rxWd bull OW $5,53!000 $5531000 Son laonlo Urvncwv.wtea SR-791Nm,d Blpassl Pomurryoni Winene3ld 150 $791!000 11914. Son T.l UnincMrMmtM SR-11 Son kohl.B,,, Mr}C...,10-con, Se,fhorih.l 6b W!Ae MO 531016003 Son'.tort. Unincoryo!nel SR-11(SanoRelil TSl Sol Rwnono 1.92 $5,060}00 52.376000 Son loan. Unincwocond 5&791bnclei Mn'.tire'.Rivn oMge 0 W $12,910" 361 W.0.0 San lac;oo LNinwrvarvtM IR 79 Wincnes191 Domeniyonl Fell, n.ttl W W Soutnwee, Choi The. Co." Rol Corl New00rl OW W W ShutnweA Canon L.- Ruhoao Canyon Canyon H;tf Coeb 1,95 W W Solt-ell -.1.ElfinOre Rplroao Canon 105 Carryon Nall[ 2.P 00.021000 3;t021,UW SOU'nwest LOee Sell Rvlmaa C., 1-15 pcnnngp OM 500,515,000 128.616," Soulmvesl Lade Sell SRd1 115 oln".o'. 000 01 Will $17M 000 SoWnwnl mumeta Gunton loll, Capoe Con Tuition 000 $0 W S..'nwast Clinton loll, Toulon 1215 001 {21010001 $1 187 Sn,n M Mum Clin nfcln 1215 Wnilaw rnn 075 W $0 SoulnwM Vulnela Fll V011.V DOlel rvMxne'a HOl Spin, WlnCnxter Creel 014' 00,15]10] 00152,0.00 Saulnwesl Murnely Fool Valo,?O.W ly.roh Per Leek Alo"arila 061 W W Snulli Mrrn¢l. Wnilewvva MKKrilUe Cily limit loll. 05S, W W 5au1nwell WMIew... Vol Cllnlon Tleln '200 }211 1[00 $2,111 qp T.ye Soull"i Synn-T. French Volley l0atil Ino, ty 1.11 091 W W Soul-ly, Temecula hyiniV ll.,10.1P Ynet 11lerchn 073 $72.5elOSO 110,199000 Soutnweo Temecula Fencn Valley Oael HS Inl9retwn0a 0l $2.5.6002 SSS 7T].00] SDulhv.,, Temecula frehl Valley CTel l lellnwn Danz 0.56 55.111100 ITS 7T SOUlnwesl TemaCNO French Volley CM1.ryl Mortal.Ct.pM. entlgn OM 51,1860.1 MM2.W3 Sawnwesl Temecula em BWass(Vn Ron Rancho Callornb Z.14 S,9.030 {5192.000 SOulnwefl Ierhio 1. W61nn Ell TVi-1.1.11, Ca410mq of"llo"l 000 $31,9000[00 in682,003 5oV1 .1ul. Wean,Ell rvincent bbl,Fls 'Do...Inge Dm 0010'41000 {m 531,00] Saulhwesl Iemeculo, emnK,e vineml Wn..eo Getl Vnage OW US30.lYp 15.53!W Saulnwan Temecula SR-791Wincne6lM 0000091.Ha'$pin01 ltlencon 2.10 W W SoulhweN Tnne.Uw 5er,l.,ncnevlM 115 Sol9rClgeo 000 $11891(00 18.082000 Sovinwe[I Unmcoraor.lea Bemon SR-19 IR-79 Byaoss 2 W W So.11-eil Urync.rparalM Clinton Keith WolSoey SA 251 120,101(Fq 270&000 coo,Sly.lnwes' Unncorporaroa Groton Keith Wwm Spings Cnet Ell.. "a, W]0ei g7p$2.OA bulhwefl Unncvroarvlva W-1< FIS Elnanac 199 113.001.003 111060000 SaWnwnil Linnc.rp.1.1. SR 71 Vor,cneslerl T.A., Ro Soo 18, {07,200.002 111200,003 SOulnwen ev.K.paratM SP.191 W;nch-ly 1 11 lilloo A Nha 191 $12 52 51265200] $VUInwe31 LtinCOrOwaleo 00-791 WncTegtnl L.Abo .1Ki 050 00,51!103 $U13W Soulil l Urvm:hrol n SR-791W;nfne3tgl I's Morel o ll.SVnrys $7930000 $513.0.00 So.lnwen WYaomor 3unaYC.m.n Vol. v;no 032' v93000 p9a000 loulhwefl Vidd. l 3uMyCanyoa 115 vislO Sunset 3.10 199'7.000 $7 ft59,00 UWnwetl WAaom.t CUMYCarryon HS lrzrtge 055 SV.BV).DSO 41.159.00] SOW,,yesl wil.Oma CfinlM K41M1 PalornOr cool 055 W W Souln«esl WJOOma Ciinlon Feilll 915 C.pOe'CrMI 2.00 b,6Y.000 H.mcca Spobld 255]B 50.00].525 QC SI.10!].955003 ' WRCOG 45 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Cnn n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n nnnnnnnn Inn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n o nnnnnlnnnnnnnnn n o n n n n n o n o n n$ A __33 ' 333,x3_3_3_33333333_ ; 333333333333333333333333333_3_333333333333333333 ; 3 35' O T (� _s2ann ___ eeengcd _a_a_dnd _ 'snonnnc ?.00 sannnnnndnnn:na3cnincdnaidsno S Z o i fD ,aoo�eOaQO;o� a��a5aisav C dadio _ _ _ = 'odgoo ° 44$?°- n44444ggn44° qqSS° $gqflflflflflfl C ,a 3a as a a a aa3ag 74444 <44444473434444444444444 3 T � p ?zz�xannsasnpzczz_xx=nTPPTT'""'99°°^ z z x^ onn t �+ N 3R°afi ,`. � 33�aa ::fifififi43n_4m ° o `o gg �$ �a's ��°= °c i ° n�frao.fi O�4RR3 �n�h��Ygm� (ZD 3' �_�° 3333 n ° g°nay pg-^o8RR ,°S Td�b385 Ss ;o ?Sfl°R°g� _ _ � g a '��o' „uv nay--��.���.4""4gfi8 ¢�33aSS2ozi48m3s< g�RRS�S° �` �$siuc7n $�-UO$��� 3 = w d n 7 a ° _ �g9A$ s<o3sR¢a d $ 3° = UO , pg � 6'st '"4SS °4 ;s jn ° , .", q a8 s"o no � �$' _ C c = v 3 m' a f A Z n s °: °°ssaN°sas°an888NS88 �us ns>s°`sm°smseM °sE°aso.a a k � C up�px�« T, n" ^ - Goa« C..Cm $G wFS c < o 3 c 3 �sxN ttm t ZE m sss $ #ssss$ Rss�s � sss$� ssss$ ssss�s�sssssssasss� s�s� Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates(confinued) AREA PLM DSICItt SIREBNA SEGW.al`O SEG.f O .1.15 iOIX Cost M4LNAn aM VW NOnhvnn Ca.no 6tn SR-91 1 nol!o 1.50 SO $0 Nortnwml Caam A.I.CMla Ratraoa 5141 038 $0 W Nonnwnl Colo- C.,.. Wclnd Cahn 415 015 11.19.000 j1,619:OW Norm-ll Co,.na Moots Vaft, NorCO nth .MC[INey 051 W 0 Nonnwnl Ui Pc.6nagn O.ano 0 W $0 W Nonnwnl Caano M naYo 31n Shown lkW a 031 W.WOW 30.180.000 No1lm'a1 COMA .'rob. Ieme3ca C,. doge 000 32.161,000 $2.161.000 Names-, IA7gnallo Sna1JDm BnnOe Rmpou 052 30 W Nonnwesl Comma .'Wo Rrmoou Oman. 1.17 W W Nonnwnl Conan. IMn Gam On'. am U.M000 W5,000 .an. l COIOna MSin On'. fMlNll am W W Nonnwn; Corona $MOM Vaeey Pa.O[ 0.15 $2,921 000 $1412.000 Nonnwnl Corona Nbn F.I,n ga W11 a& W 19 Nonnwn! Conan. 51w1 3,GOM 0% SO W Nonmr[v Corona Kl,aay .0-VMM P'amc+oae 0.30 W W Nonnwnl Carona MC[AGY Noire.. 5.91 0M W W Nonnwe3l C.- I .a- SR-PI WgndlO 0.51 $2.333.0) 32N6IX0 Norm-lol Carona rcCiney Mnglon Cnonno wage OW $901.1) $IM.CN Nonn+'nl Carina Ixx'vtler 6-V ra6om wnn0 O.W 155.372.000 W Nonnwn! Caono OnIW 1-15 PCIll, 082 $6211000 "1 00a Nannwn$ Carona on'. OnCan Buam Vela 002 12.232000 11,893.000 Non.oV Onla- Buena Vnlo bn 0.M W 30 Nartnwn3l a Oa. wan eMgg o 0n W W Nonnnnl C.nno Oamo (dogg N an OX 12310.000 P.M. Nonlm'nl Conan. Onlob Wla on R noau 0.32 W W NMlvtll Coem. Oavu elmaou LIS 060 f0 $0 Norlmvnl Co,.no R.'. It.Clue !r no Voo 2.35 30 30 Nonnwnl Connor Rana. WS$ ra .oa v g am $13831.00] SISA51 000 Nanm.esl Corona R... Bunn YUa .wn lol Gam) 050 11.052.000 $3,203,000 natty-nn Cwono River CaVoon r n 2.27 $0 30 Nanfrwnl Corona bhS COo 5R 11 C.River 096 W 30 Narinwnl EOHraB Arc W,d San lanua'vw Cwnly R,a 36 $I,ns.000 {1.425:000 NOnlwaa So'Vae MoTnP Vaonn "con-i, 1.03 12158,000 $2.158,000 Northwnl E-No. Hamner WaooVB wnpalY 0.20 MM000 $528.0.11 Nw1MVn1 Eanroie Ibmre' Vn.I. Limodle 011 ".=00 3.M.003 Na11rnVCfl Easlydc lldnntl IYnOnle $Cn{ryynnn W b0 SD nnn31 FaslvOr[ Ibmna 1-15 m 3MIO Ana tivc W Sf.3?9.0.W 12.6]8,0.00 NMnw61 Ea3!vae Lia.ale 1-15 EmI CrMla am $0 W .on-ca m.V.Ie ann.nlla Eo InlvfJrOrge OW SI7,9'J] W W Nwlnrrnl Eanvolc limonilc Eon nor &Vn 027 10 30 wllnnl Evanaie LimoMa nomna wmna 1W i1.3I9 000 $1.311,00) Norllvnl Eanvale L-le wmna Hanaon 050 M 10 NorinrCll EVnvae ..a'. 1kv d N na.n 031 $1.2902010 31.215.000 Norllr..I Eanvale Innonfe Ctt. o Hylman lRN1a 58D Co., L@ {54100X1 354100) Nonnwnl Jo oo IimOaf[ Son on,.C,. OW 000 i0.689.CN Nonnwnl JW.Varav Nmslrorg Sang aion CWn1Y Vol,Vary In fHW$,W0 11,701,000 .all-on, 11Vaa Vaoy 8dleglava Caelilk, nano RaKn an&vin IK $159,000 .7 ." NonnwBil 1 oo Vol, EI-ono alleaq Rancn Son 11 a W-o) ave I W f2.6.b 000 $2.300. W Norm..' 1 1.Va- EIiwMM San Brrvnrrw CMmy Se�W I W W W Nal.,na Jwpa Val., EriwMO SRW Mnm le 300 SO W Nodl esl Avuoa vmmy Linoulle LIS wNerne 030 W W 50 Nanf oa J aa.VonBV jrnodlB El.-e Enwanaa 0S1 0) jp Narinwnl A Vo Volley u,nonile Von maa Von PUrm z.n 513.372 WO 112.314.000 NMM1wn1 D.vuaa Vdley limmile Van BUrM Clay OM 00672000 p.6>2.0$0 NalhW951 N00 Vol[y limOol Cl., RivWicw 174 00 39 Nonnwe3l JW.Va1N rM3n Soniaoav Snnia Ana lire 173 13305003 N311CW Nnnn-a JWOa Val, Npkel $anla yq FVV SR 011 f0]22.0]1 V.&4.N1 NOnnwgl lwpo Val, .tits SRW Soll 1,3 $9 {0 Nonnwesl J000 Vdley rNi n jnn. $anlo Ma alver ].J9 yl i0 NOnnwpl Janu;oc Vaeey Riverview Llmonae 045 M {0 rvonnwe3l JWpa Val" RVa60UA San Bgnnano coamY Meson 2e5 $0 30 NOnMVe31 JWM Vdle VoI.Y : SRW Inlacnongo 0 am'"a 417.0{],000 39.910.00 NonM1we31 Iwpa Vdlry Va11eY Vnnog 0 MSUOn 0.26 $0 00 Narnwnl Ia Pgknag[ Hcmne,n 0.26 1671,000 {677.CW NOnnwnt Norco In Ri,or n 0.2e $0 10 Nonnwnl I+MCO 2m Riva 415 n 171 jJ.7eR.W0 1].7av Wa Nonnwe3l Norco dIn 1 5 n1-1.in 1.71 30 30 Nonnwe3l warn M, Na cnorga 09, 5$1.897.000 $5.540.000 Na(nwesl Na'. C-fton Norin N$nglnn Ole $6 U8 000 12.90 WJ NOrtnwB31 NO!CO C.i .nor MirglOn MI 098 16.890 W] 1681B.W0 NOrtnwa3l N.- Hann- R 11 51n 1 36 O W Nortnwnl Norco Namnv Soma An0 Rlv H,b. 0 W 522.102000 $0 Nonnwnl Norco Homna 1.15 Ma RlvIX Ninety Valley 005 121.025000 $21.0251M10 NMnwml l4n,- Hronan VdloV 415 1.11 Hiis 1.13 YI EO Nonl`V., NMCa Hianen Vatllery C.ryc LI5 013 W W Nonnwnl Norco Norco Caloan Ar.,al 1,20 $0 $0 Narinwnl Nato Naln Cdllania MrnglOn 084 ¢rl NanPwesl Norco RR- NcniUD10 CarMOn 1.13 {0116000 W3 NO ' WRCOG 47 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) MF PIMI OMCITT 51RE9.N SECNENIiROM SEC- 137,0 MIES Toni CO. ~1I Ti SHME NOr-r-In arreryaa lan MTkaI W}en tw4P Lllg o99 Norm'I RwMOa I[I .t d M n am {0 jp arlixml Rneriea ad SR 91 -v5 I 10 10 Rnptice ad fNv rdirood ootor, OW 106390,WJ "I'M,oL Nadi= RwmOe Mdmf .,"ad SR.91 1,56 W {0 Nw'Im'esf Ilivertide Mamv 54.91 Lincoln 0.5t W {n Nd.I`Wal Rwdade Mamv 54-9: IbcMnge am $17."I.OW $1IBMW0 Nortler, Rrvdfde 9uend VrslO S de eM Rrvd iedwoOd 0 {0 M M,e11 arveaice any Cled :Warn Wine,Cirg enlyd 0.95 {ll f9 Nornwttl RIve14Ce Can,Cleo Cenlrol - unlri 059 W W mod-Iol RirdPde Canpn Clml co,id"CbE V.Viilc 094 5].990. f1.055.Q0 Nod-On. RirRyOB Canton Crrrl is Wla 4e[idno,. 069 IT W NWlnwe[I RlvWap Cenhd Cni. o %71515RQ 2.15 W W North-es, Rwdsao CBnhd SR41 IMgno4a 076 W W Nwlnwml Pe Cemmi Nesmtlm 51-91 2.OS W.1-to, ::Zed. Central Van&Nen hb9nollo 353 W W Nonnwe9 R:vWdi . Cnkv{l0 4CS5aWro 5puce ]4 W W eMOnnwel Rim9nC Cnkage $mc Calumdo O75 W W Na=e11 Rrvevde Co-Lio Mina bwa I.M W W nenMVM Rivo-ude COWmga 1215 ''nlactaoge 0W $11,897,000 $1789IW3 Nod-en, RNdtlde I.. Comer ad 2,25 V3.815C00 $13815 W] Nnnrvwarl Rivd60e Yn univcvlV 0.51 W W 00 n`:[I RIVemi dvrV Mnin tulnd Kin' 0.51 {J.530.WJ ULMS,0.0 Nonnwe[I Rivdydp 1Ma lIWMNn Wood 0.48 W W NOnrwesl Rivervde 1a 4dr0 Mlnylon SR 91 3.56 W W NOrinwnl RwovdR LO aorm SRAI Ind.M 019 W W NonM1wnl Rirdude LO Siena Indiana V'rclOna 0.78 W W TJ.ndwe[I Rirdtia0 lemon(NB Cne-m') Ii.n inn un,enilY 0W W W Norlmvesl Rivxvde lircoln Vm Boren lelle0.n 2M W W Norinwee Riv erPOB ddrcmd J<HeMn W0onwdn IM 11 MLOJ3 3>_A LM No: m: Rir wvtle li,coln WaNrvglan Vicfana 1.13 W.193WJ W In= NOlimanl RrvbYde .,,on 5R11 V.C. 0% W W NodM.'eil RI a .Wdnon 6 ro NY ralaO VOtvey a.in 515 Mi000 $10051000 ti N Rrvevde M9rgM BN;Ruin.. 2Nd 2.70 W W NOrtMVe, RNeede M]9ndlq ONSf memod amoD ' OM $158510.00 $15851= Nodr-ml R'rveutle Mpraki INd Homan a," W W .d-vsl Rrvevde M'dm' Fpinor. Ialn 598 W W ted-ed Rtdmdde Wold o San BanaOro Cau111 2.19 W W WidmI it 4ivdUN =ie 11tH bnfa MC RNd 2.O1 W W "Id-ed owes' a Mylin tulnd[uq Wea Lemon R{C 2.11 $6.Jg1.$0 $l 3C." Nonnwnl Rrve,I* M on In RMwnI t<mOn OA W $0 NOrtlrxeil litiI a T,-Iw dl500ne way WeWndam 'ad&- IC8 W W Rlydddo Irw SR 91 'dote },ID W W Nortnwnl Rrvevde Md w SR 91 M9nalia am W W NOnllweil Rim. W. 5491 tIoa rg< 000' fJI.C6i DSO }I.C99.N0 Nonmrnl 4ivdWe lyd da'^dq -0 0.22 W W NOdr-en, '..,mid. 5100 Hd< wa43 106 W W NoNM'efl Rirdtiye 2Nd itdli 5191 I.35 ".W ono f9t1].Wi Nonmvetl RlreNaC UtirYyly V.?1 d 5291 0.86 W W ..dm l aivpvda Unwed Llm L9575RW 101 W W NomIddi P,-a. Vidom IiMMn MY.alen all W W onnwed Rl.Wi Mdiwn 'It-mle1 a't 2111 W W NOdnwpl Rveede Woodngron Vi:.lona Hdrnasa 705 311InL30000 $1$In.= Nandwen Rirevle Wood Jd Van rmod 0,11 {92J,WJ $D2]gv ."it-I Frdtiae Wood eewm.n Bn9amonl 0,11 W W Nannwml il.- Wood Bd�omom 4rammd O1D W W IFkrcomo,.I. ConLmWIktpxt RanU Wm 1-15 a 0.96 W W No^nweil Vvncapddled 0Cme lwaric[I raeascn Conpn Ont 0.21 W W Nodnwnl IMincaadrdlea HSon 1-S Onto. 0.56 00 W Nadnwep LNrcopomled "die, - W.drtmai.d Canpn C 110 IM 2 W,]3l 0]0 WT]60.W Nannwesl unnKnpaoled No14/bM Woirod'aa, $Callsdd< 0.12 W W N011IIwe" Lnn'opaoled NONy ben $COIISad! CgdCO 1.19 W.I]I,SO W.IJICN Nonni LFinconornlM la$MO vadrm 25oerOnla 2 W W NonMYe[1 Leine sled to Sena NSOOranle Co)WCO 23e W W Nodnweil LnnCnporWed McMin9Wrtl C.mn Win Wtin F50aranla 3.29 S10454.W3 $9,(M.000 Nodlrwesl unalcayora-M iemdlal Conpn 0.1.60 ony 065 51.6m.0.V $700CCo Nonnweil ncaporaed Iemescol Conpn Ooim'o, 091 W $0 Norinwesl Lnmcamoraled TInt.1 Conpn Do,LO'as Leroy 1.10 13.SO).CM W.A7.W3 NOrrlrwnl "'I'amodlea remeical Con-n Leroy naw,dn Conpn I.89 $5.990 $S9DI W3 Nadn-1 unlncdpdaled audl Canpn oaw:an<vn, 1-15 026 W W Nodnwdil udmoorpormed lemecol Canpn 1-15 Inlamdnge OW' ay.O97p.0 S178W ] NOrIM1w M1 uninCarNnrd lefl t<rne-tnl Canpn -15 Pork Conpn 3.41 $1266Lao V2,661,M Notlbwnl unimc=aral<a Temewal Co.,, Park Canyon Indian Tluck Vail 255 W,094,ad 50.094,an Narinwp[I uni,C.mo-led W-nd.md Ii.-td. HoA<Y bM 3.96 $7040 a3I1 $7 WCC11 Nadi' it Omncdpardletl Woad kamend Cajdca 2D9 RI'FOAJJ $"W' O ' WRCOG 49 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates(continued) 4REl PI 0151 Cm( SIREIFIn E SEGp£NIFROI+ SEGMENIIO ht LES IOI.LLCOSI MI.IImUM NFV SNME Ba^mina FF W mn I n) 0 51 $3 $p 9arnirq WpNOMSnz save I81n1 Sun Lakes 076 USE $2.661," Pan emmH9 it" ad knMS LIO acncrge 00.' i11.091.0.tl {RB91.(W Pm6 .1, Manama Spimps Om vale Oalp wiI-n(5im an 126 000 1512 OW 3one" Nl'Nana SOnnps Cnemyvano Oak va.l l airs) 153 $0 SO 3amnp IGove is Se ;H LIC Assisi 71. (Pporne TeAl 3V 1.352.0.0 522.952,.'] Pqs Bomvng LI0 A=Sall L O iHnectanae 0m $1I.N7JOW $17.Ssa OW Pass MMdoa LIO Bypass SOUln San Gaganq .,,a9B 00'r S2.10Was S2.1',Op Pms 2annrg 110 BAms SOUln Le I.".ad wsvnp am $I BINf] V.SPo.C(L Wmrg Licwn Avenel SR-2U 201 t'1 $0 Bonnna� RDHs 1.10 91n 1.'a $0 SO nran :0'aZ 01p KQN.ad S.vs 3M SO SO iviss mnnrq SR26] 110 weyet 062 SO W vas BaYVtYa Sun Joky Hers.Home Suer I {13,171.0(0 $1391,WC P.. Ba-s,, Sun also insists Co. coiaae am $1'W LOO SO.OW 1. D iag Sun Lakes HsA.Sent, hn,aso M Home I'M SO W Pass Bornsg Same, Romney Incem 028 SO S0 Pass Bomem" Suin. 110 'dance a am $17997 $1)897,011 Pms BamiM9 wibon H87ryona Home Bln 251 SO 59 Pan Bone" WJmn Heinen.Sove, Hglume Ham. 101 W W Peaumonl Ia 10. Perc."v. I SO $0 Beaumonl Irt PrnnsNvonia HJ9hana 5pnn, 1.I0 {0 SO Xet mOnl 61n 110 Heiman.SRmps 221 W $0 &dum0nl DCtM levers Coomplon5 0.'h Vase,(SICI 099 $Itzmo $912,0.00 Fisson Bceni Oak Voley 1111n1 HipN.M Seen, PeHrvera 1.13 {0 W see Beaumanl Oak VOkcry l l 9lnl Psasn's cok Vervn 1.10 SO W Less Nascent p 'Va,Iel-I OnR I.- I-10 065 $2,270 tt'O $227000 Pa54 Assee'sn" Oak vo69y(Illn 110 inseastage DED $37,DLO.000 SI1,W'DO(t Pav Peoemonl O.k Va.,SICI Assisi CiV Limits Ce,Va.,(J Sit/Coaml Over 3L6 0 W Pass Bcgsmst" Cok V..'(SIC) Cnmry Vdlss'V Sl 7 Canal CHO 1.67 $0 W Pass Beei Permaymne 6th III aM $3018.OW "0i&ODO Pass Bessi Isomer ania bla Intencnanpe 0 0 39.1.WO W Pon C."on. Bpean Con-Ii ne 58 ne L 0 W W Pass C.Iimeso Comese County line IAIO 0 S W $0 Pass Calimem Colons'. 1.10 mea&sma. 0DO SS1.D6OODO 51YJOeaOm I- Canes,- iukwel Conyers Room's 1Pama am W SO toss Colimew Counl9Ono Access, P ivel 186 56.691.0000 b.s97.00) Pass Calmma CoumYLine L10 inlaaMnge DOJ $7,89 IXq ERB9).RO calmem Cost Lawn Pa0mM CWmo10m 0DO $C $0 P. Calimaa S.ralebn AvmucL Conan I SII8110 $1183'OOD Pass Collmoa Snali C...' Roods 085 SO $0 Pats Cameo. 9aplelon I-10 Inlorclence 0m {7.0100] Q7JOsO.LW "pis armcomsso= Cnenv VWev Hode Dsi lwn 3At W t'1 P05s Wncome".1W Cossely n, I-PO opeaco npe 00] Masi { ,01.00 Pas Ik"Hide oleo Cndry Vakey Son Tva.l.wave .mane ON W $0 Poss Ulnconanneeo Live OOk Comes Cee VUIIey(SIC) Son Bnnvena COUmy 281 W W Ism, lhtinarpwulea Wk v0lev(SIC) Son BannUYw CO'." Beeumont Cilytioits 5.65 W W Pau Ukrcemons" Oak valet'(SIC) OP ...ad comma 0 D $IB.IS0.000 $,A.%,OMI Pon Ufmcdocamed CndtYVdey Beats- node 1.11 $7,757" $7,151,0100 Prnt Umm,toea Cnssev os ay .'i Winan felfloi 0u W W $en leant. Hemel Sanessi I.e. M ao 098 W W San loanlo Hema. Sa.n Dermna- Sni 1. W W Sen lecinlo Hemel SarWnson RR Grassing Kcc.a 062 W W San Jaamo Home• baWnwn Slelmn RR C,., 058 W W San lodnl. Hrm.1 Sasses- M]na Edanoae 1.00 W W Son lma. Hemel SR-71 Rama l Cawslon 1.02 W W Son bomb Hemea Y1.111HOMSO) Co umaa Rcmoaq 2.50 W W San Menlo Hemea W 714R-79[Fetal] Caw40n C.-am 4.N W W In laanlo Hi t SHse Domeagon Clambers 1.51 W W xn mace Hem., SI.I. CHOmoar 1 Sn.n. 051 W W Son loanlo 51.1. He,.. EspaaMe 1.71 W W Scn laanlo Hem.l 51.11 St.,. mane. 1.25 51m.000 $9,377.LOD San Jai Hemel SI.".H Cawslon Stele 252 W W Son Jacinto vessel SI.HOn voomm Cawslon I W $2.615.0.0 $2,615000 Sets lmmo Hemel vioness Bossaee Oomeneeni 699 $131slW 513,1a." San Jai Hemel Women Lyn Co. area. Ocm, $2,761.gp $2..Om Sam Menlo Sce Jacinto las senaee In-sans bbamluin 020 $2.191000 $2,796M San IOanto San Jaamo baonoae voui 51.11 255 W W San Joento San Jacinto Efelanade Stale Warvn 352 $9.621.000 $9.3M OOD Win J.,Htc Son l.aco Sandmen Rvnunu Rates.. 355 W W San Jaonlo San Jade. SR-791HOnn R.man.) Sm Wn MCmlo 102 W W Son JaaSnl. Son lacinb SRJ91Wn Jacinto] a.H1 Rnmole.,a 71n 025 $I'nom $,722000 IDn Jacinto Son Jaamo SR491San larJnlol to 2-74 225 W W San Jacinto Son laanlo Stole Ramona Balance. 1 w W W Son Inceo San Islam. Stale GJmon SginW Om-11 Ra JI 076 $2,O'Jaw $1.1)0_WO Son lecinlo Wn Jpeinla Slane San md".ilea b,lc,. OW, $161 I'M $3,112 OW Ian lecinlo In Joann. Slate Ou0nU1 t.,cH Rai 070 W W Snn Jeanie San Jaclnlo Rann-H EspiarMee 317 S"i56.000 $9156.0[0 San lcame IMiecomOmnee Olmon sesi, s Wagpson Stole 231 5e,111 fW W es,M San Joato tiolcotpowtee G41en Sov11s sconce Canyon worn nags OW {923.OD0 1900010 Sae lance OnincaaPUaatee SP 79(Wmmaln) Si PUaiau) Oameni9on 3.23, W W ' WRCOG 49 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates(continued) AREAPIANOISICIh STIM.AA4 $fGSN164CM SEG6(NM MM IOiK CST mu4µnlLy.I SNMf So=.: Loke Elyare C. MS[ion fiat 153 51.019.0.0 32,0190YI Sa. u,.l to.,-. Divmana vi.l LIS 02a SO ip SOUIbwe51 Iota HYn MO frank!,lrnitgwl to Ra ir0001-I$ pCawlOe OCO 3]1,1..0.0]1 41!029.000 Souli-,ei Lake fltirore G.ae Lil Toll IN 30 W SuOii-ea Lare Rl GOnc al' 00.76 fRlvervOel 026 $1,157= $1,357,000 SoOtswetl I.A.H9nw0 Late is Ui." 3,13 311ID"MO 513.592.000 SaulnwN tcl Hl Late 46 e:Mng¢ 000 5!;02003 2.291.000 5e.Zl, :pp Ell [ate I.-. mwait, mope 0 O Slpp Op 3!22,030 bulnwnl Late Ftircre union RaLOatl Cmwn BVnarCmron 2.35 y0 yl SOUIIIwMI at a- NiC145 415 1[ya I an.DDO 33.3240)0 5aVIMC51 ',pkl flWw•B Nic S 415 IbcnOnge 000 WI,MODD W3 W,Ob SnV1,wn1 IpL.HWre SR 76 ICOIYCJRt-cel 1-i5 at-ea, 2.ID 529,35)00 M,315000 Soul,wnl Lot.Nwlwe SR 7.(i l il'ill SR4a(plegal 000 Ill OOS 2695,000 Sau1,w051 Late Elawlc SR-)e lRn9Y0el LOal Gana 116 $21,MOOS $21LMOOD Soumwet, Loke O.-le Teme[ml COnwa Iis Lake LP 31&6,X1 33.&6.m Sauen etl Iuka Elurwr¢ LemB[cal C.a" tame vl wcfn Orbga 0W 5 ZOOD1 122)0.0011 Soul^werl C."l 0o 1 .Naito, 41s 032 $555.OU j55S 000 5e."Aeil a la Calllamia Oak, 1-I5 uc.wn 0 00 SO {fl Somnw." eel Cauomia Ca, 10ei.0 Clinlon Sam 1.75 W 30 SautFwml e,l I.eee. Wltfewoatl Yntu 053 W 30 Saull-.0 Mrrn.'a lellawn PdOmp. ..law 102 32.6910?] S2d91.000 bulnwe,l .,,.,a k11NtOn Nutmeg I.IUaiel0 wo15pnnp, 237 S21sWODO 32152000) Snulnwe[I .0 eu. bller-n hV-1.11.1 Sail,' Chary 226 }fl W Saulnwavl FLrnela Sell .215 Wal-au. 0Is $1.571003 51.571000 Se.11-1 Keller 1215 InlaUargO 0.00 311,0970.0 317.99).(00 %utnwnl Mu-a L., cur.a !allow, 4215 177 33 W Southwe,l rmeta N lee Nol S ings Jet.. 1215 1 11 SO 30 Ss.lhwml .1.1. .IOI se,"s 1-215 Mrgo,'. 118 50 W Soul", .i.I. eVngla Hal Spring, M]rgorila SR 191..nCMMlerl 101 5'600,X3 3$.600,000 SOUlhwnl 6u'e", NVImwB .Meson ClinlOn K.11h 107 W f0 bulmvel MuN'c Whlew .. Oil Las Ail 2.01 SO i0 Saul,..! M.,,a WNlewaoc ,u,Al- Iwuri el a H.,Si-,' 1,93 SO 30 buJhwgl wlM1lBwooa �Nni.to Nal SMas Sack[., 007 38.M6.LUJ {9C ODO So.'r-es, 'ai }neI k,at.n W 19 PNin(Ye,lel 1.n SD W bull-el TemecUa .11.a C'- Sarclg Colllwna 229 5J 30 bUlhwel "eab vo la M a'.Vol SA" SR-79 l'luaSa la Pkwy 770 33' W Se.li-aa, Tam vla ae Iawh FMI RaICfC CDtIOrM 11575.79 lte"ea"a Pkwo 1.65 30 Soumwel Tel PeeM,,.Pkwy iR-F 11¢mecuic it Vto Gt.M. 1.32 1 SoUlhvel 1emeCWO PeCa]ngO Pkwy Nv UOata P.Cha,Oa PtwY I.0 SO FI Sau:ZZ '03=110 :=.'C.I.a jell MTgaila 189 36,82!))0 56.22600 Soutwnl Teme- Roan.C.Faria 415 meal.... 0X WA17,WD $1201'030 Seul-el Ie-uta Ru to CWtareo . gwlla BullertM Us,. 1.96 W W bull..! IemeCWa Roncis CONloata 3uTe,'NdSlag. Gen out, t26' $3')66.X) U2.M6000 Saullwel TemecWa W-791fm,e,u.Pk.N Its PxMnpa Pkwy 0.A 51.692.0D] 51,57609! bull-ell TemecWC Wd9 llemeculo Pkwo "l,sinl,a Pkwy lk,"eda Slog. SAS W W Ss.1h-1 OPbCaa0a,es tell Xvtt SR_J9 WireYnlnl 339 W"W'DOOD VIM" SOul..[l I.klinapr[pralen BVNUr11aa S..,a ALn'elo HOl Sprlrg, Call.Ch.11 082 K W Soulhwn; Imincorpwvtetl luuaLela Slope Call.Caap., La Saeno 070 30 W Saulhwel Uninmrpealetl dtllaflela Stage La Serena Rancho Cattle-. OW3 $7 W.M $2,tlW.X1 S lhvel U...co,w,alea But eln6a Stage ROnCno COlilarnia .saa 0.85 W W Soulhweil UMncwpOralea 0)"e halo St.,. Peuba SR 71 IO a la i l 169 5269,X3 $269.000 Saulhwel Nvncwporaletl 0u"eIil SlaO. SR 79 Wincnnlml Auld 220 $7.265.0)3 57.265.000 Soljlh-a unMmuwalaa ynertad Stage AUa "e'.HOI Sanng, 223 SI112'X3 SIUn010 SOUthwe,l Unlnfarporvlea ."AA.a Stage Tuade'.Creek brioOa OX' 33.6%.X3 S3.6M,Xo 50umwet Ur e.lp.raea ,.lief C.,n tones..Can" 415 0.17 W W $oulMVet DmmrVOruled Inalaa ruck naJ "eca.ZO,, n 415 0..6 W y1 bulhwpl Unnaorporvlea A umela HOl Swing, SR 11 tw-,elel Pounay 175 SD p Saul-." Ltvncwporaletl P. Peal.n,. Son Diego County 1.38 W W 5eulnwel InincwpO.mea T..I Canpn 591...1 caa,gn ,.N bhag. aX i?2.UA i?21!D0 Soulhnnl Unincwporalpl I..el C.ry 1, Inalan Wu,oaa 115 0W 59,165,X0 39.166DX SOU1nwn1 UvKwpMa1W Temelcal c.rryon wm11 ar.agn OX $961.000 $961.X5 Saul.., wgomu 9o[Ity 1150, Pvoma 031 5974000 5921.005 Soullwe„ wbwnv goal, -15 nlycMlge 0.X' 51)09).000 2.139.000 SaVlnwal ..-ow c,in". rho, 1.15 0.96 0).537,X3 36.537,X3 bulawa; ..-ow Cenna Gt.. Paomw 0.56 35.,63.003 }410,X0 .1l Cen.a Garwf Paomar 0.51 P370.003 2.011000 ioulRV.1 Wel Gma C.,a C-11. 6,96 2!668. 325011.X1 Soumwel .loom. Gana fIxas Cana ?02' W W Se..nwe, w. -or O,nlo,Kayo, Paomar 096 2 30 50uthwe51 Wibomor P ome G.nlan Keln C.I.an 0.76 51.96100 51.35fim Soulnwesl w6aomu Paomnr Cknen Keln 1ge U.MOOD 2.350.X0 Su0leltl MV 1.0000X 17103 1600)4nge fpah Neer dt 1202 S 3.M6,O0. ® $ ?I92631,O00 4aetl1 $ I12-M CC'S 926390.1] PJmIMln.nm i ,12.C1:00 $ 1,2.220.600 TeM. $ 94001X0 5 q,XO,XJ IoRI 3 1716.J11.600 S 1ti1,W9,100 ' WRCOG 50 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update Juty 10, 2017 1 Table 4.5-TUMF Transit Cost Estimates nREA FLW 0151 LEAD ",01MI 1A IOCAIHJN uNl M(numbw) uNlrcast TOW .1.WM .FNfY lerplll in rnllesl SHPRE Nonnvnl RA man l.+oboilvrwb al vme sueel Pl.avnn }y.mg ' M.CmM S.�RZC!R Cenlld RTA NO,ero Vdley MOdllry XVb 1Mrena vaney 1 19= se.O CQ 1445 Nvrlbwerl PIA 1VrVpv Vdley NOWIIIy XUb ANpD VdIxV 1 19CN. $1= 55.115,FCC nnlnp LbWl'XUb $1 S9,x 5A,15 bVllm'pl R1A LORV bY,IOre/COnvOn LOke Ww.,yXb LOYe El.nIXe 1 $9,0.y, $9,=. i,445,f bVtnwnil RTA Iemf.NNM.mern lXlbdtlV llub lemxdc I 39 Qll. S!"= 55.115.W Son klClnlo RTA Xemel AbDiL1V HUD Hemel 1 39.py. $9.= 35.115. .pn bclnl0 RTA $,n Mcnly M1VJd11VI4A San b4nlo I 19000. S",M= SS115. Son bnnlo TA MI.SOn lv<In10 Co.,.NOb.w"y Ub SOn Konlo 1 31 0S. $1"' S LL. Re,,..l TA Rpianal0paaliom anO Mlnlenmce GOali Rivatibe I M"= SW,0.'V M251. RegiOro� RIA Ml` r,..l EM.n,en l3 1,W. VanwsbCa HVm rcggn witl 2 y1p, $I I.em C04 3"016. COnlyd R1A Cenllvl COTOO,ROpObnk 4nlNeTen101gn IICR,Riv�iac lO Vdln Syl 32.530. $1,525, RegOro RU L:de Peel l bEium!uses oul bmlamrepa wi 1 USS 3LC I- Rey ,r l RTA VMitln Reel Lt e&nes VvMUS laruliom regbn_'0 A y565, $16965. $10.261. Re,v 1 RIA Camvrenenvre Op!.vliond And ,SlWy VoMUf lofnliDni region witl 1 $V5 395p 5575, T.I. - SInM mot. 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation To assess the effectiveness of the proposed TUMF Network improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development in Western Riverside County, the proposed network improvements were added to the 2015 existing network in RivTAM and the model was run with 2040 socioeconomic data to determine the relative impacts on horizon year traffic conditions. To quantify the impacts of the TUMF Network improvements, the various traffic measures of effectiveness described in Section 3.1 for ' the 2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build scenarios were again calculated for the 2040 TUMF Build scenario. The results for VMT, VHT, VHD, and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E) were then compared to the results presented in Table 3.1 for the no-build conditions. The 2040 TUMF Build comparison results are provided in Table 4.6. Plots of the Network Extents ore attached in Appendix H. As shown in Table 4.6, the 2040 VMT on arterial facilities experiencing LOS of E or worse will decrease with the addition of the TUMF Network improvements while the share of VMT on the regional arterial highway system experiencing daily LOS E or worse will be reduced to 38% (which is still above the level experienced in 2012). It should be noted that the total VMT on the arterial system Increases as a result of freeway trips being diverted to the arterial system to benefit from the proposed TUMF improvements. Despite a greater share of the total VMT in 2040, the arterial system is able to more efficiently accommodate the increased demand with the proposed TUMF improvements. Although VMT on the TUMF improved arterial system increases by approximately 9% in 2040 compared to the No Build condition, VHT on the arterial system decreases by approximately 11% indicating traffic is able to move more efficiently. Additionally, a notable benefit is observed on the freeway system with VMT and VHT being substantially reduced following TUMF Network improvements. By completing TUMF improvements, the total VHD experienced by all area motorists would be reduced by over one third from the levels that would be experienced under the 2040 No-Build scenario. These results highlight the overall effectiveness of the TUMF Program to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new ' development commensurate with the level of impact being created. WRCOG 51 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 1 Table 4.6- Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build Scenarios to 2040 TUMF Build Scenario) Peak Periods Total Measure of Performance' 2012 Baseline 2040 No-Build 2040 Build VMT-Total ALL FACILITIES 19,532,437 29,277,587 31,022.272 VMT-FREEWAYS 11.019,155 14,487,570 13,41 1,377 VMT-ALL ARTERIALS 8,513,282 14,790,016 17,610,895 TOTAL-TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 5,585,202 9,089,495 9,902,433 VHT-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 575,154 1,361,907 1,180,647 VHT-FREEWAYS 296,542 736,433 530,849 VHT-ALL ARTERIALS 278,611 625,474 649,797 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 181,151 396,981 354,639 VHD-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 175,765 739,075 489,238 VHD-FREEWAYS 117,430 502,549 312,669 VHD-ALL ARTERIALS 58,334 236,527 176,569 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 45,080 172,944 114,833 VMT LOS E-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 6,188,644 16,966,992 14.299,498 VMT LOS E- FREEWAYS 4,532,703 10,156,363 81982,566 VMT LOS E& F-ALL ARTERIALS 1,655,941 6,810,629 5,316,932 ' TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/LOS E or worse 1,462,061 5,160,911 3,735,762 %of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 26% 57% 3807 'Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP,September 2016, NOTES: Volume is adjusted by PCE factor VMT=vehicle mites of travel(the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT=vehicle hours of travel(the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD=vehicle hours of delay(the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-Flow(ideal)travel time) LOS=level of service(based on forecast volume to capacity ratios). LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan. ' WRCOG 52 Adopted WRCOG Executive CommiHee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the correlation between future development and the need for transportation system improvements on the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of this new development, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components of the TUMF concept. 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements Previous sections of this report documented the projected residential and employment growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic congestion and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system improvements that will serve these future inter-community travel demands. The following points coalesce this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates to the need for improvements to the TUMF system. Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing. Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate of growth into the foreseeable future. Current projections estimate the population is ' projected to grow from a level of approximately 1.77 million in 2012 to a future level of about 2.43 million in 2040, while employment is projected to grow from a level of about 461,000 in 2012 to approximately 861,000 in 2040 (as shown in Table 2.31. Continuing growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.1). Without improvements to the transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy delays. The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development in Western Riverside County. Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since longer-distance trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western Riverside County. Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to alleviate the future congestion caused by new development. To maintain transportation service at or near its current levels of efficiency, capacity enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing ' WRCOG 53 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, or grade separation of at-grade rail crossings. The completion of improvements to the arterial roadway system would enhance regional mobility, and reduce the total peak period vehicles hours of travel (VHT) by approximately 13%, reduce peak period vehicle hours of delay (VHD) by approximately 34%, and reduce the share of traffic experiencing congestion in the peak periods by 16% (as shown in Table 4.6). The specific needs and timing of implementation will depend on the location and rate of future development, so the specific improvements to be funded by the TUMF and their priority of implementation will be determined during future project programming activities as improvement needs unfold and as TUMF funds become available. • Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. The criteria used to identify roads for the TUMF network (future number of lanes, future traffic volume, future congestion level, and roadway function linking communities and activity centers and serving public transportation) were selected to ensure that these are the roadways that will serve inter-community travel and will require future improvement to alleviate congestion. • Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. Since a portion of the population does not own an automobile and depends on public transportation for mobility, the public transportation infrastructure and service will need to be enhanced and expanded to ensure continued mobility for this segment of the population. In addition, improvements to the public transportation system will be required to ensure that transit service can function as a viable option for future new western Riverside County residents and employees who choose to avoid congestion by using public transportation. For the reasons cited above, it can be readily concluded that there is a rational nexus between the future need for transportation improvements on the TUMF system and the future development upon which the proposed TUMF would be levied. The following sections evaluate the rational nexus in relation to the system components and the types of uses upon which the fee is assessed. 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components As noted in Section 3.2, the TUMF concept includes splitting the fee revenues between the backbone system of arterials, the secondary system of arterials, and the public transportation system. This section evaluates the travel demands to determine the rational nexus between the future travel demands and the use of the fee to fund improvements to the future system components. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle trips that are relatively local (between ' WRCOG 54 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 1 adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future combined AM and PM peak period travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones to show the percentage of trips that remain within each zone in relation to the volume that travels to the other zones. This analysis was completed using the Year 2040 No-Build scenario trip tables from RivTAM. The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the TAZs in the model and the five WRCOG TUMF zones (i.e. Northwest, Southwest, Central, Hemet/San Jacinto and Pass). The TAZs were then compressed into six districts (the five WRCOG zones and one for the rest of the SCAG region). Table 5.1 shows the estimated peak period vehicle trips within and between each of the zones. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of peak period vehicle trips within and between the respective zones. Appendix I includes the detailed RivTAM outputs used to develop the regional trip distribution profile shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2. Table 5.1 -2040 Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone To Central Hemet/San Northwest Pass Southwest Outside From Jacinto WRCOG TOTAL ' Central 285.556 15,102 60,146 6,274 34,821 41,799 443,699 Hemet/San Jacinto 14,876 190.792 7,396 5,256 17,138 13,851 249,310 Northwest 64,066 8,082 742,299 6,569 25,648 211,686 1,058,350 Pass 6,721 5,563 6,536 103,901 1,791 32,830 157,341 Southwest 34,785 17,514 24,135 1,785 452,345 28,424 558,988 Outside WRCOG 43,352 14,690 212,699 33,337 29,242 TOTAL 449,357 251,743 1,053,210 157,123 560,984 Based on RlvTAM Year 2040 No-Build scenario Table 5.2 - 2040 Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone To Central Hemet/San Northwest Pass Southwest Outside From Jacinto WRCOG TOTAL Central 64.4% 3.4% 13.6% 1.4% 7.8% 1 9.4% 100% Hemet/San Jacinto 6.0% 76.5% 3.0% 2.1% 6.9% 5.6X, 100% Northwest 6.1% 0.8% 70.1% 0.6% 2.4% 20.0% 100% Pass 4.3% 3.5% 4.2% 66.0% 1.1% 20.9% 100% Sou hwest 6.2% 3.1% 4.3% 0.3% 80.9% 5.1% 100% Based on RWAM Year 2040 No-Build scenario ' WRCOG 55 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' Table 5.3 summarizes the calculation of the split between the backbone and secondary highway networks as derived from the peak period trip values provided in Table 5.1. Peak period vehicle trips to and from areas outside Western Riverside County were subtracted from the calculation, on the presumption that most of their inter- regional travel would occur on the freeway system. Peak period trips between zones (regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Peak period trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the secondary network in proportion to their lone-miles, since roadways on both networks serve intra-zonal trips. The backbone network includes approximately 40.5% of the lane-miles on the future TUMF system, and the secondary network includes approximately 59.5%of the lane-miles. The backbone network is therefore assigned all of the inter-zonal peak period trips plus 40.5% of the infra-zonal peak period trips. The secondary network is assigned 59.5% of the infra-zonal peak period trips and none of the inter-zonal peak period trips. The overall result is that 50.7% of the regional travel is assigned to the backbone network and 49.3%is assigned to the secondary network. Table 5.3 - backbone-Secondary Network Share Calculation Calculation Value Description Input values Backbone Backbone Secondary Secondary ' Value I Share Value Share Total Western Riverside County Peak Period Vehicle Trips Less Internal/External Peak Period Vehicle Trips Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips Internal to Western Riverside 2,139,098 County Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between 364,205 TUMF Zones Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within 1,774,893 TUMF Zones TUMF Future Network Lane-Miles 3,151.1 1,277.7 40.5% 1,873.4 Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between TUMF Zones 364,205 364,205 100.0% 0 0.0% Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within TUMF Zones (as share of intro- 1,774,893 719,679 40.5% 1,055,214 zonal trips) Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips 2,139,096 1 1,083,804 50.79, 1,055,214 49.3% Assigned Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No-Build scenario;TUMF Nexus Study Exhibit H-2 ' WRCOG 56 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 1 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non-Residential Developments In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, the growth in peak period VMT between the 2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build Scenarios from RivTAM were aggregated by trip purpose. RivTAM produces person trips (irrespective of mode choice) on the basis of five trip purposes: home-based-work (HBW), home-based-other (HBO), home-based-school (HBSC), work-based-other (WBO), and other-based-other (OBO). NCHRP Report #187 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978) details operational travel estimation techniques that are universally used for the travel demand modeling. Chapter 2 of this report, which details trip generation estimation, states that "HBW (Home Based Work) and HBNW (Home Based Non Work) trips are generated at the households,whereas the NHB (Non-Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere:" In accordance with NCHRP Report It 187, growth in peak period VMT was aggregated into home-based growth in peak period VMT (combining the first three purposes: HBW, HBO, HBS) and non-home-based growth in peak period VMT (combining the last two purposes: WBO, OBO). The home-based growth in peak period VMT represent 71.0% of the total future growth in VMT in the peak periods, and the non-home-based growth in peak period VMT represent 29.0% of the total future growth in VMT in the peak period as shown in Table 5.4, Appendix J includes the RivTAM outputs used to develop the trip purpose summary in Table 5.4. Table 5.4- Peak Period VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County(2012 - 2040) 2012 BASELINE 2040 NO-BUILD PEAK PERIOD PEAK PERIOD VEHICLE TRIP PURPOSE PEAK PERIOD PEAK PERIOD VMT GROWTH VMT VMT VMT GROWTH SHARE Home-Based-Work 5,849.895 8,331,921 2,482,026 52.9% Home-Based-Other 2,214.102 2,932.929 718,827 15.3% Home-Based-School K-12 413,303 542.911 129,608 2.8% Work-Based-Other 945 1.583. 637,496 1 Other-Based-Other "'' °` 721,647 15.4% TOTAL 11.194,859 15,884,463 4.689,605 100.00% Home-Based Trips 3,330,462 71.0% Residential Uses Non-Home-based Trips 1,359,143 29.0%, Non-Residential Uses Based on RivTAM Year 2012 Baseline Scenario,September 2016 and RNTAM Year 7040 No Build Scenario.September 2016 ' WRCOG 57 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' 6.0 FAIR-SHARE FEE CALCULATION The fee amounts, by type of development, that are justified to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on transportation facilities in Western Riverside County are quantified in this section. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.76 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals $303.5 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development represent $492.2 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $2.96 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their "fair share" of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.96 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 71.0% ($2.10 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 29.0% ($858.7 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. 6.1 Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new residential development through the TUMF is $2.10 billion. Since this future transportation system improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through the Year 2040, the fee will be spread between the residential developments projected to be constructed between 2012 and 2040. The projected residential growth from year 2012 to 2040 is 250,082 households (or dwelling units) as is indicated in Table 2.3. Different household types generate different numbers of trips. To reflect the difference in trip generation between lower density "single-family" dwelling units and higher density "multi-family" dwelling units, the TUMF was weighted based on the respective trip generation rates of these different dwelling unit types. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, single family dwelling units are those housing units with a density of less than 8 units per acre while multi-family units are those with a density of 8 or more units per acre. According to the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS forecasts included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to constitute 69.2% of the growth in residential dwelling units in the region between 2012 and 2040. Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trio Generation Manual, Ninth Edition (2012) show that, on average, single-family dwelling units generate 9.52 vehicle trips per dwelling unit per day, whereas apartments, condominiums and townhouses (considered to be representative of higher density multi-family dwelling units) generate a median of 6.20 vehicle trips per unit per day. The growth in dwelling units for single-family and multi-family, respectively, were multiplied by the corresponding trip generation rates to determine the weighted proportion of the ' WRCOG 58 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 change in trips attributable to each use type as the basis for determining the per unit fee required to levy the necessary $2.10 billion to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new residential development. Table 6.1 summarizes the calculation of the fee for single-family and multi-family dwelling units. Appendix K includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the residential (and non-residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County. Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share 2012 2040 Dwelling Trip Percentage Residential Sect Dwelling Dwelling Unit Trip Changs d Trip fee/DU Units Units Chan • Rate Chance Single-rorNy 366.588 539,631 173.043 9.52 L647.369 77.5% SfAI! uill-Parnly 158,561 235.600 /7.039 6.20 477.642 22.5% $6,134 total 525,149 775.231 250,082 2125.01 1 100.0% Household data based on SLAG 2016 RTP/SC5 and WSP.April 20 6: Trip Generation based on ITE Trio Generation 120121. 6.2 Non-Residenflal Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new non-residential development through the TUMF is $858.7 million. Estimates of employment by sector were obtained from the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socioeconomic data included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B. From the 2040 employment forecast, the amount of employee growth in each sector was calculated. The employment figures were then translated into square footage of new development using typical ratios of square feet per employee derived from four sources including: Cordoba Corporation/Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas (PBQD), Land Use Density Conversion Factors For Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20. 1990; Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange County Subarea Model Guidelines Manual, June 2001; SCAG, Employment Density Study, October 31, 2001: and the County of Riverside, General Plan, As Amended December 15, 2015. Worksheets showing the development of the TUMF employee conversion factors and the application of the conversion factors to calculate the square footage of future new non-residential development in Western Riverside County are included in Appendix L. To account for the differences in trip generation between various types of non- residential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation rate for each sector. Typical trip generation rates per employee were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trio Generation - Ninth Edition (2012), and were weighted based on a calculated value of trips per employee as derived from the employee conversion factors and ITE typical trip generation rates per square foot of development, before being assigned to the non-residential categories as follows: Industrial-3.8 trips per employee, Retail - 16.2 trips per employee, Service-4.6 trips per ' WRCOG 59 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ' employee, and Govemment/Public - 12.0 trips per employee''. These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new trip-making, and the $858.7 million was then allocated among the non-residential categories on the basis of the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate non-residential fee share by sector was then divided by the estimated square footage of future new development to obtain the rate per square foot for each type of use. The calculation of the non-residential fee by sector is shown in Table 6.2. Table 6.2- Fee Calculation for Non-Residential Share Trip Change In Non-Residential Sector Employment t Generation Percentage Square MP change, of Trip Feel of Fee/SF Change Rate per Change Grou Floor Employee Area Industrial 80.592 3.8 302.220 13.4% 64,710.138 $1.77 Retail 35,841 16.2 580.624 25.7% 17,9217.500 $1231 Service 274120 4.6 1,263.712 55.9% 105.211.915 j4i4 ovemment/Pubilc 9,515 12.0 114,180 5.1% 2,696.349 SI&M otal 400.668 2.260,736 100.0% 1 190,538.901 Employment Change data bused on SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS,Trip Generation based on ITE(2012):Change in Square Feet conversion factor based an Cordoba(1990).OCTA (2001),SCAG(20011 and County of River ide(2015). I' The median trio generation rate for Retail' and 'Service'was reduced to reflect the influence of poss-by trips using the weekday PM peak median pass-by Trip rate for select uses as derived from the ITE Trip Qcreronar Handbook (lure 2004) _ WRCOG 60 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10. 2017 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be seen that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the ongoing TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: • Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. • Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. • The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. • Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. • Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. Furthermore. the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in Western Riverside County in rough proportionality to the cumulative impacts of future residential and non-residential development in the region. The respective fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table 7.1. Table 7.1 -Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development Fee Per Unit Total Revenue Change ($million) Single Family Residential DU 173,043 $9,41✓! $1,629.8 MuM Family Residential DU 77,039 $6,134 $472.5 Industrial SF GFA 64,710,138 $1.77 $114.8 Retail SF GFA 17,920,500 $12.31 $220.5 Service SF GFA 105,211,915 $4.56 $480.0 Government/Public SF GFA 2,696.349 $16.06 $43.4 ' MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $2,961.0 INRCOG 61 Adopted INRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study-2016 Program Update July 10, 2017