Norco City Council
January 15, 2025

City of Norco
City of Norco Code Enforcement Services
• Revised Economic Development Action Plan to include the principles of Riverside “Seizing Our Destiny”, a community-based movement driving the City’s economic future, resulting in an annual increase in local jobs (3,200 private sector, 12,000 constructionrelated) with local/state transportation projects. • Reorganized City operations, merging art and culture functions with the municipal museum, the Development Department (included Redevelopment), and the Community Development Department, and moved all capital projects (excluding park design) to the General Services Department.
• Guided “Business Ready Riverside” initiative, including the implementation of electronic plan review (ProjectDox), creation of “Business First” permit concierge service to new businesses creating jobs, and approval of City Council to move towards “Smart Codes” for the upcoming General Plan cycle: created form-based codes, eliminating individual CEQA review on compliant projects within the zone.

City of Riverside, CA. Community Development Department Director. Department formed during FY 2005-06 by combining Planning/Building/Safety Department with the Code Enforcement Division of the Public Works Department. Annual budget $12-15 million.

Responsibilities and accomplishments include:
• Led the adoption effort for a new General Plan, Zoning Code, Smart Growth guidelines and implementation matrix for the City’s GP 2025, which won a Southern Cal Assoc. of Gov’t “Compass Blueprint” award for excellence. • Enforcement Division reorganization/upgrade, including creation of national best practices with the Neglected Property Abatement Team, as well as winning state and national awards for marketing and outreach programs. Created a new revenue stream through the Neglected Property Abatement Program.
• Assisted the City’s ED efforts through the creation of “fast track” programs, (business attraction through streamlined entitlement and permit processing) and developed the “Concurrent Processing” procedures, reducing an applicant’s time and costs associated with development projects.
• Implemented the first “Incentive Based Green Building Program” in the State of California in collaboration with the Building Industry Association. • Selected and implemented new web-based code enforcement software (GoEnforce).

County of Riverside, CA. Transportation & Land Management Assistant Director.

Administrative functions included: information resources, purchasing, HR, payroll, accounting, customer service, and asset management. Managed annual budget of approx. $170 million ($100 million in programmed capital improvements), with oversight of 900 staff members. Responsibilities and accomplishments include:
• Managed an annual budget of approximately $170 million ($100 million in programmed capital improvements), with agency oversight of 900 staff members. • Created the Environmental Programs Department, including policy, procedure and mission implementation, creation of ordinances and operating guidelines, staffing and budgets.
• Led and/or assisted in the recruitment and hiring of three department directors (building official, transportation director and planning director). • Selected by the County's executive officer to be a founding member of the County's Leadership Initiative Design Team responsible for creating/conducting leadership training programs for senior managers throughout Riverside County.

Mr. Scott Barber

City of Norco
City of Norco Code Enforcement Services
Rodrigo Ochoa
Sr. Code Enforcement Officer
Mr. Rodrigo Ochoa is a code professional with significant code, law enforcement, building inspection, animal control, and military experience. He has been trained in Code Enforcement (CACEO), Building Inspection (ICC), Law Enforcement (Federal Police Academy), and is highly motivated and well-versed in safety and compliance. Mr. Ochoa is available to our southern California clients.

Relevant Project Experience
City of South Gate, California (Willdan). Housing Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer. Mr.

Ochoa is responsible for conducting and enforcing HUD Housing requirements. He previously supervised the vendor enforcement team that was responsible for the education and enforcement of illegal sidewalk vendors and members of the public regarding City Municipal Codes and regulations related to unpermitted sidewalk food vending. Mr. Ochoa was also responsible for taking enforcement action against repeat offenders, which included the issuance of notices/citations and confiscation of perishable food/supplies. Mr. Ochoa worked closely with City Code Enforcement supervision, City Police Department personnel, and members of Public Works as part of the City’s vendor enforcement task force.

SoFi Stadium, Inglewood, CA (Willdan). Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Ochoa is part of a team of Willdan code enforcement officers who work to ensure safety and compliance at Sofi Stadium, a 298-acre mixed-use development that houses retail, commercial, and office space, a hotel, residential units, and parking. Responsibilities of the code enforcement officers include reviewing the Operation Plan, posting up at the proper locations, obtaining appropriate data from vendors such as social security numbers, California driver’s license information, or any other form of identification, and notifying vendors of the locations where they can conduct business. Assist Police, Sheriffs, and the California Highway Patrol when they are conducting corrective action on violators, receive and log complaints, write incident reports, and take video or pictures of items confiscated and document all action taken. Ensure that businesses and people comply with public health, safety, consumer protection, and business activities, and protect the Sofi community by regulating entities breaking laws and ordinances.

City of Laguna Woods. Code Compliance Officer. As a code enforcement officer, Mr. Ochoa was responsible for managing a caseload throughout the City in support of its Code Compliance team. His assignment included the reviewing, processing, and closing of code enforcement cases related to land use, zoning, building, nuisance, and property maintenance violations within the jurisdiction. Rodrigo photographed evidence, interviewed potential witnesses and composed letters to ensure remedial action was taken; received complaints from citizens; issued correction notices and performed abatements when necessary.

San Bernadino County, CA (Willdan). Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Ochoa is an experienced Code Enforcement Officer in San Bernadino County, CA, responsible for investigating after-hours code violations, specifically focusing on the County's short-term rental program. He issues Notice of Violation letters and citations, while also addressing general code violations as needed. With attention to detail and a strong understanding of relevant codes, Rodrigo accurately identifies violations and implements necessary corrective actions. He establishes positive relationships with stakeholders, fostering cooperation and ensuring compliance to create a safe and harmonious environment within the County.

Education
Federal Police Academy,
San Diego, CA
Law, San Diego City
College, San Diego, CA
Certifications
PC 832, Powers of Arrest,
Grossmont College, El
Cajon, CA
NSPIRE Housing Inspection
Code Enforcement Officer,
CACEO

City of Norco
City of Norco Code Enforcement Services
City of Grand Terrace, CA (Willdan). Code Enforcement/Animal Control Officer. Mr. Ochoa received and investigated animal and code violation complaints, researched complaints regarding violations of city codes, ordinances standards, laws, and safety regulations, investigate illegal food vendors and businesses on the preparation, handling, and serving of food products, work with residents, business representatives, and other parties to resolve existing code violations and achieve compliance with zoning, building, health, nuisance, vehicle abatement, business license, and property maintenance codes and ordinances. Mr.

Ochoa addressed loud noise complaints (roosters and barking dogs), dead animal clean-up, loose/wild animal retrieval (i.e. dogs, raccoons, etc), and other various animal concerns within city boundaries. He prepared and maintained casework through the gathering and documentation of evidentiary materials, He prepared and issued notices and citations to parties in an attempt to achieve compliance, Rodrigo also prepared reports and memos for review by supervision; maintained daily inspection logs, records, statistics, and files pertaining to code enforcement activity,
City of Escondido, CA. Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Ochoa received telephone calls, emails, or in-person complaints from citizens, property owners, community representatives, and governmental agencies regarding possible violations of City codes and policies and City ordinancesrelated to zoning, housing, animal nuisance, building, health and safety, fire safety, and property maintenance violations. He researched City Codes and ordinances and referred cases to other agencies to enforce health and welfare regulations and to obtain information regarding enforcement efforts and programs. Mr. Ochoa contacted residents, business representatives, or property owners to explain the nature of violations and encourage compliance with City codes and municipal ordinances. He also prepared original and routine violations. He aided in the enforcement of all City ordinances pertaining to animal control, examined animal licenses for validity and issued warnings or court citations to delinquent owners, and investigated complaints of animal bites, dangerous animals, stray animals, and barking dogs.

Department of Defense (Navy). Federal Police Officer. Mr. Ochoa completed the following training: Police Academy-Module III, Administration of Justice Certification FireArms Qualified (GPA 3.8) Criminal Law Enforcement, Criminal investigations Course Telecommunications System (CLETS) Certified 360 Training hours of Police Academy. Mr. Ochoa was responsible for the preparation of reports, and the coordination and performance of administrative management services in different programs and locations. He also oversaw site budget, personnel, space management, hours and coverage for special events, code enforcement needs, and animal control assistance, and other logistical responsibilities.

City of Norco
City of Norco Code Enforcement Services
Vianey Rivera
Sr. Code Enforcement Officer
Ms. Vianey Rivera is a Willdan Engineering code enforcement officer with 12 years of experience. Ms. Rivera is experienced in all aspects of code conformance including case management of code enforcement cases, processing of permits, and administrative support to various divisions. Ms. Rivera is available to all our southern California clients.

Relevant Project Experience
City of Inglewood, CA (Willdan). Code Enforcement Officer. Ms. Rivera is part of the Willdan team assigned to handle vendor enforcement in the city. She assists city and county staff with the enforcement of city and state codes pertaining to street food vendors within the city. She effectively communicates with and educates illegal food vendors, while taking additional enforcement action as needed.

City of Poway, CA. Senior Code Enforcement Officer. Supervises field staff with the Code Compliance Department. Enforces City regulations and codes to enhance and preserve the quality of neighborhoods. Receives citizen complaints of Municipal Code violations and coordinates the resolution of those concerns. Provides training to employees; establishes and maintains the Division's policy and procedure manual and ensures that the established practices are followed. Performs regular evaluations of employees, and prepares internal and external memorandums, and staff reports.

City of Corona, CA. Code Enforcement Officer. Conducted onsite inspections and reinspections of residential and commercial properties. She responded to complaints regarding public nuisances, zoning, sign, land use ordinance violations, abandoned vehicles, and un-kept properties. Enforced municipal, state, local, and government codes and determined alternative methods to achieve code compliance involving the application of related laws, ordinances, and regulations. When necessary, she prepared cases for legal action, summarizing evidence gathered during inspections, and appeared in administrative hearings and/or court to present testimony.

City of National City, CA. Code Compliance Officer. Provided administrative support to the Neighborhood Services Division (Code Enforcement Unit, Graffiti Abatement Unit, and Neighborhood Councils) by performing various tasks as requested. Provided logistics of all Temporary Use Permits and setup organizational meetings for each event and Facility Use Permits. Responsible for case management for Code Enforcement (compiled Action Request information, system input, case dissemination to corresponding officer, followed up, and ensured close cases were completed). Responsible for the processing of all Temporary Use Permits and setup organizational meetings for each event and Facility Use Permits. Provided Spanish interpretation support to all departments within the City. Recruited a Logistics Coordinator of the Community Emergency Response Team.

County of San Diego, CA. Code Enforcement Officer. Conducted field investigations and site surveillance of residential, commercial and industrial properties. Enforced all applicable code provisions, ordinances and statutes; issued infraction and misdemeanor citations for violations regarding zoning, litter, abandoned vehicles, weeds and debris accumulation.

Photographed evidence, prepared diagrams, interviewed potential witnesses and composed letters to ensure remedial action was taken; received complaints from citizens; issued correction notices and performed abatements when necessary. Prepared memos and investigative reports.

Education
October 2015-Present,
Southwestern College, Chula
Vista, CA, Acquiring three (3)
more Associate Degrees in
Communications, Social and
Behavioral Sciences, and
English
2006, Seeking Bachelors
Degree in International
Relations, Alliant International
University, San Diego, CA
2005, Associates Degree,
Political Science,
Southwestern College, Chula
Vista, California
Certifications
Shelter Operations Certified
(Red Cross)
Certified as Mental Health
Responder with the National
Council of Behavioral Health
(11/2018-11/2021)
Trauma Intervention Program
(East County Division) by the
Coronado Police Department
PC832 Certificate
12 Years’ Experience

City of Norco
City of Norco Code Enforcement Services

ANTHONY ESTRADA
Sr. Code Enforcement Officer
Mr. Anthony Estrada is a Willdan Code Enforcement Manager with over 30 years of experience. He is highly motivated, a self-starter with ability to manage conflict and solve problems. Anthony has excellent written, verbal communication and interpersonal relation skills. He is an excellent team-player and demonstrates the ability to work independently.

Anthony has extensive experience in all facets of code including commercial enforcement and is available to provide code enforcement services to our Southern California clients.

Relevant Project Experience
City of Hawaiian Gardens, California. Code Compliance Officer. Conducted field investigations and site surveillance of residential, commercial and industrial properties.

Enforced all applicable code provisions, ordinances and statutes; issued infraction and misdemeanor citations for violationsregarding zoning, litter, abandoned vehicles, weeds and debris accumulation.

City of Highland, California. Sr.Code Enforcement Officer. Conducted weekend enforcement inspections for the City. His inspections consisted of generalized code enforcement activities with specialization in signage regulations, excessive yard sales and unlicensed vendor inspections.

City of Hesperia, California. Code Compliance Manager. Assigned to oversee all operations and respond to all citizen concerns, City Manager complaints and Council inquiries; Prepare and monitor the Division's budget including all revenues and expenditures. Provide personnel with direction, develop and update the Division's Policy and Procedure manual and verify that staff adheres to all policies established within the Division.

City of Monterey Park, California. Code Compliance Manager. Managed the Code Compliance Division for the City. Assigned to oversee all operations and respond to all citizen concerns, City Manager complaints and City Council inquiries; Prepare and monitor the Department's budget including all revenues and expenditures. Prepare ordinance development and/or municipal code revisions when necessary. Provide personnel with direction, develop and update the Division's Policy and Procedure manual and verify that staff adheres to all policies established within the Department.

City of El Monte, California. Code Enforcement Officer. Conducted field investigations and site surveillance of residential, commercial and industrial properties. Enforced all applicable code provisions, ordinances and statutes; issued infraction and misdemeanor citations for violations regarding zoning, litter, abandoned vehicles, weeds and debris accumulation.

Photographed evidence, prepared diagrams, interviewed potential witnesses and composed letters to ensure remedial action was taken; received complaints from citizens; issued correction notices and performed abatements when necessary.

City of Fontana, California. Code Compliance Specialist. Served as code compliance with responsibilities that included: proactively patrolled the city to identify problematic parking areas; responded to parking related violation complaints; issued verbal warnings, parking citations, notices of violation, and other documents; assisted with other code enforcement related functions and activities to include municipal code violation complaints, storm water compliance, and construction site inspections.

Education
BA, Business Administration,
University of Phoenix
Registration
Basic Certification, SCACEO -
Southern California
Association of Code Officials
Intermediate Certification,
SCACEO - Southern California
Association of Code Officials
Advanced Certification,
SCACEO - Southern California
Association of Code Officials
Supervisory Certification,
SCACEO - Southern California
Association of Code Officials
PC 832
30+ Years of Experience

City of Norco
City of Norco Code Enforcement Services
William (Bill) Torres
Code Enforcement Officer
Mr. Bill Torres is a professional Willdan Engineering code enforcement officer significantly experienced in municipal code enforcement standards and practices. Mr. Torres has a thorough understanding of investigative and research techniques and procedures. He has a proven track record of resolving a wide range of concerns involving zoning and property maintenance standards. Mr. Torres is available to assist our Southern California clients with code enforcement services.

Relevant Project Experience
City of Inglewood, California (Willdan). Code Compliance Officer. Mr. Torres is part of a team of Willdan code enforcement officers who work to ensure safety and compliance at Sofi Stadium, a 298-acre mixed-use development that houses retail, commercial, and office space, a hotel, residential units, and parking. Responsibilities of the code enforcement officers include reviewing the Operation Plan, posting up at the proper locations, obtaining appropriate data from vendors such as social security numbers, California driver’s license information, or any other form of identification, and notifying vendors of the locations where they can conduct business. Assist Police, Sheriffs, and the California Highway Patrol when they are conducting corrective action on violators, receive and log complaints, write incident reports, and take video or pictures of items confiscated and document all action taken. Ensure that businesses and people are in compliance with public health, safety, consumer protection, and business activities, and protect the Sofi community by regulating entities that are breaking laws and ordinances.

City of Fontana, California (Willdan). Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Torres was responsible for the enforcement and education of illegal sidewalk vendors and members of the public regarding City Municipal Codes and regulations related to unpermitted sidewalk food vending.

Mr. Torres was also responsible for taking enforcement action against repeat offenders, which included the issuance of notices/citations and confiscation of perishable food/supplies. Mr.

Torres worked closely with City Code Enforcement supervision, City Police Department personnel, and members of Public Works as part of the City’s vendor enforcement task force.

City of San Marcos, California. Code Compliance Officer. Mr. Torres enforces municipal codes within the City. He conducts field inspections, and if violations were present, he composes Courtesy Notices, Notices of Violation, Administrative Citations, or Stop Work Notices related to municipal code violation(s). He also prepares reports and tracks case files related to such matters. Mr. Torres maintains detailed record keeping of each case, which includes digital photographs and pertinent information. He interacts with various departments, County, State, and Federal organizations when necessary and maintains a high level of professionalism and customer service.

JAS Pacific, San Bernadino, California. Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Torres received complaints and prepared case files for various municipal code violations, including zoning, signs, inoperative vehicles, and property maintenance. He conducted thorough investigations, collected evidence, and collaborated with other departments. He aimed for compliance through public education, warnings, and removal of illegal signs. He attended meetings, testified in court, and presented on code-related topics. Mr. Torres enforced off-Highway Vehicle ordinances, educated riders, issued warnings and citations, and conducted regular patrols in flood control channels and regional parks. He interacted with the public professionally and efficiently while fulfilling his responsibilities.

Education
B.S., Business
Administration, University
of Phoenix, La Mirada,
California
Registrations/Certifications
FEMA
PC 832 – Powers of Arrest
California Association of
Code Enforcement Officials
(CACEO): Basic,
Intermediate, & Advanced
Certifications and Certified
Code Enforcement Officer
status (CCEO)

City of Norco
City of Norco Code Enforcement Services
City of Stanton, California. Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Torres conducted inspections of residential and commercial properties and issued notices of violation or citations for safety and zoning infractions. Citations were issued for street sweeping parking violations, and a range of vehicle parking restrictions and prohibitions were enforced; citations were issued as necessary. Business License compliance was rigorously enforced. Illegal sign violations were removed as needed. Reports were prepared regularly. Citizen inquiries, complaints, and requests for service were responded to in a fair, tactful, and firm manner. He identified code sections relevant to potential violations. New cases were opened for violations related to inadequate property maintenance, overgrown vegetation, food vendor infractions, Yard Sale permit enforcement, and visible trash container violations.

City of Huntington Beach, CA (Willdan). Code Compliance Officer. Mr. Torres received complaints and prepared case files regarding zoning, signs, inoperative vehicles, property maintenance, and various other municipal code violations. He maintained the integrity of the case files, conducting investigations, collecting evidence, performing research, and conferring with other departments as necessary for the violations. He attempted to achieve compliance through public education, as well as verbal and written warnings. He removed illegal signs from the public right of way, attended meetings, testified in court and administrative hearings, and gave presentations on code-related matters. He assisted in the implementation of the city weed abatement program. He prepared reports, memos, notices of violations, and other materials under strict timelines. He dealt with the public in an effective and professional manner, maintaining prompt and regular attendance. He performed all duties within the context of the City Mission statement and organization.

City of Norco
City of Norco Code Enforcement Services
Darrell Gipson
Code Enforcement Officer
Mr. Darrell Gipson is a Willdan Code Enforcement Officer who understands property legal descriptions, lots, and easements and has excellent communication and organizational skills.

He can establish and maintain effective working relationships with the public and private sectors and is a solution-oriented person that utilizes out-of-the-box and critical thinking to obtain solutions. Mr. Gipson is also a valuable member of the vendor control team Willdan has assigned to assist the City of Inglewood.

Relevant Project Experience
City of Grand Terrace, CA (Willdan). Code Enforcement/Animal Control Officer. Mr. Gipson received and investigated animal and code violation complaints, researched complaints regarding violations of city codes, ordinances standards, laws, and safety regulations, investigate illegal food vendors and businesses on the preparation, handling, and serving of food products, work with residents, business representatives, and other parties to resolve existing code violations and achieve compliance with zoning, building, health, nuisance, vehicle abatement, business license, and property maintenance codes and ordinances. Mr. Gipson addressed loud noise complaints (roosters and barking dogs), dead animal clean-up, loose/wild animal retrieval (i.e. dogs, raccoons, etc), and other various animal concerns within city boundaries. He prepared and maintained casework through the gathering and documentation of evidentiary materials, He prepared and issued notices and citations to parties in an attempt to achieve compliance, Darrell also prepared reports and memos for review by supervision; maintained daily inspection logs, records, statistics, and files pertaining to code enforcement activity. Mr. Gipson also served as the Community Emergency Response Team Coordinator for the City.

City of Fontana, CA (Willdan). Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Gipson is part of the Willdan team assigned to handle vendor control in the city. He assists city and county staff with the enforcement of city and state codes pertaining to street food vendors within the city. He effectively communicates with and educates illegal food vendors, while taking additional enforcement action as needed.

City of Inglewood, CA (Willdan). Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Gipson is part of the Willdan team assigned to handle vendor control in the city. He assists city and county staff with the enforcement of city and state codes pertaining to street food vendors within the city. He effectively communicates with and educates illegal food vendors, while taking additional enforcement action as needed.

Lending3 Inc., Fountain Valley, CA. Branch Manager. Mr. Gipson managed and provided employee mentorship to a team of 11 virtual loan officers. He led the charge in customer service by providing a high-quality customer service in building and maintaining productive relationships with new and existing clients, realtors, appraisers, builders, brokers, and title companies. He prepared financial statements for the branch, oversaw reports for budgets and financial reports, and created plans and forecasts that were built to meet future needs.

Mr. Gipson actively pursued business development relationships within the community.

Education/Training
Code Enforcement,
Santiago Canyon College,
Orange, CA
Community Emergency
Response Team
Coordinator
CPR/First Aid Certification,
American Heart
Association
PC 832 – Powers of Arrest

City Council

STAFF REPORT
Date: January 15, 2025 Agenda Item:

5.A.

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Alma Robles, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Alma Robles, Community Development Director Department: Planning
SUBJECT:

Second Reading: Ordinance No. 1127, Code Amendment 2024-12, An Ordinance of the City of Norco amending Norco Municipal Code Chapter 3.50 to update participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation (TUMF) Program, and Resolution 2024-56, a resolution to adopt the TUMF schedule.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1127, amending and updating the City’s TUMF Ordinance.

SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.), the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) has prepared a new nexus study (“2024 Nexus Study”) to update the TUMF fees. On September 9, 2024, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2024 Nexus Study and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions update their fees by amending their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Norco is a Member Jurisdiction of the WRCOG, a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and eighteen (18) cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, in 2002-2003 the WRCOG Member Jurisdictions developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials due to new development in Western Riverside County could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (“TUMF”) on future residential, commercial and industrial development. As a Member Jurisdiction 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,” (“2002 Nexus Study”) later adopted by the WRCOG Executive

Committee. Based on the 2002 Nexus Study, the City adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing the City’s participation in a TUMF Program.

Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.), WRCOG has prepared a new nexus study (“2024 Nexus Study”) to update the fees. On September 9, 2024, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2024 Nexus Study and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions update their fees by amending their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction.

In accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, the proposed Ordinance and 2024 Nexus Study: (i) identify the purpose of the revised fees; (ii) identify the use to which the revised fees is to be put, including identification of any facilities to be financed; (iii) determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; (iv) determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development project upon which the fees are imposed; and (v) determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and the cost of the public facilities or portion or the public facility attributable to the development on which the fees are imposed.

The resolution will establish the Fee Schedule for TUMF as follows:

1. $12,380 per single family residential unit 1,800 square feet or less

2. $13,927 per single family residential unit between 1,801 and 2,300 square feet

3. $15,476 per single family residential unit between 2,301 and 2,700 square feet

4. $19,344 per single family residential unit greater than 2,700 square feet

5. $7,816 per multi-family residential unit

6. $2.33 per square foot of an industrial project

7. $7.72 per square foot of a retail commercial project

8. $4.89 per square foot of a service commercial project

9. $2.45 per square foot of a service Class A and B Office.

Resolution 2024-56 was approved during the first reading of Ordinance No. 1127 at the regular City Council meeting of December 18, 2024, and will become effective upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 1127.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Not applicable for this item since TUMF fees are paid directly to WRCOG.

RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:

This item is consistent with Strategic Plan Direction No. 4 - Communication and Stakeholder Experience: Enhance the stakeholder experience, engage the community, and build brand awareness through proactive, effective and consistent communication.

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Certified as to Availability of Funds: Daphne Liu, Finance Director

Approved by: Lisette Free, Interim City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLP, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):

CC Ordinance 1127 for Zone Code Amendment 2024-12
2024-56
FINAL Nexus Study (TUMF) Ordiance Exhibit B

ORDINANCE NO. 1127

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORCO,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING NORCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.50
“WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM
MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM” TO UPDATE PARTICIPATION IN THE

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM
MITIGATION (TUMF) PROGRAM. CODE AMENDMENT 2024-12
WHEREAS, The City of Norco (“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. A map depicting the boundaries of Western Riverside County and the Regional System is attached here as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein. As a Member Agency of WRCOG and as a TUMF Participating Jurisdiction, the City participated in the preparation of a certain “Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Fee Nexus Study,” dated October 18, 2002 (the “2002 Nexus Study”) prepared in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.) and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. Based on the 2002 Nexus Study, the City adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing the City’s participation in a TUMF Program; and
WHEREAS, In 2016, the TUMF Nexus Study (“2016 Nexus Study”) was updated 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 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; and WHEREAS, On September 6, 2017, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1025, which adopted the 2016 Nexus Study and updated the TUMF; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, the TUMF Program was altered to adopt a process in which WRCOG calculates and collects TUMF on behalf of member agencies under the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2018; and WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1044 on January 16, 2019 allowing WRCOG to calculate and collect TUMF on behalf of the City; and WHEREAS, WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, has prepared an updated nexus study entitled “Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2024 Update” (“2024 Nexus Study”) pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On September 9, 2024, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2024 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program; and
WHEREAS, consistent with its previous findings made in the adoption of Ordinance No.1025, the City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged and unless development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels of Service. Furthermore, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thus, adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, continuation of a TUMF Program is essential; and
WHEREAS, 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 nonresidential users of the development in which the TUMF will be levied; and WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the new 2024 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; and
WHEREAS, the fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and real acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2024 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; and WHEREAS, by notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the 2024 Nexus Study and the fees proposed thereunder and at least ten (10) days prior to this hearing, the City Council made the 2024 Nexus Study available to the public; and

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

WHEREAS, at the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 2024 Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional system; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby adopts the 2024 Nexus Study and its findings.

The 2024 Nexus Study is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, in response to and in compliance with the United States Supreme Court’s decision of Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) 601 U.S. 267, the City Council hereby finds the TUMF identified in the 2024 Nexus Study to have an “essential nexus” to the government’s land use interest and bear a “rough proportionality” to development’s impact on that land use interest; and
WHEREAS, the levying of TUMF has been reviewed by the City Council and staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines and it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby adopts this Ordinance to amend and supersede the provisions of Ordinance No. 1025.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Norco does hereby ordain, determine, and order as follows:

SECTION 1: Norco Municipal Code Chapter 3.50 “Western Riverside County Transportation Mitigation Fee Program” is amended in its entirety as follows:

Chapter 3.50

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE

PROGRAM
Sections: Sections:

3.50.010 Title.

3.50.015 Findings.

3.50.020 Definitions.

3.50.030 Establishment of the transportation uniform mitigation fee.

3.50.040 Reimbursements.

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

3.50.050 Procedures for the levy, collection and disposition of fees.

3.50.060 Appointment of TUMF Administrator.

3.50.070 Effect.

3.50.080 Severability

3.50.090 No procedural defenses

3.50.010 Judicial Review

3.50.020 Ordinance No. 1127

3.50.010 Title
This Ordinance shall be known as the “Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2024” (“Ordinance”).

3.50.015 Findings.

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. A map depicting the boundaries of Western Riverside County and the Regional System is attached here as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein. As a Member Agency of WRCOG and as a TUMF Participating Jurisdiction, the City participated in the preparation of a certain “Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Fee Nexus Study,” dated October 18, 2002 (the “2002 Nexus Study”) prepared in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.) and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. Based on the 2002 Nexus Study, the City adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing the City’s participation in a TUMF Program.

B. In 2016, the TUMF Nexus Study (“2016 Nexus Study”) was updated 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 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. On September 6, 2024, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1025 which adopted the 2016 Nexus Study and updated the TUMF.

D. In 2018, the TUMF Program was altered to adopt a process in which WRCOG calculates and collects TUMF on behalf of member agencies under the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2018.

E. The City adopted Ordinance No. 1044 on January 16, 2019 allowing WRCOG to calculate and collect TUMF on behalf of the City.

F. WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, has prepared an updated nexus study entitled “Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2024 Update”

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

(“2024 Nexus Study”) pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On September 9, 2024, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2024 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program.

G. Consistent with its previous findings made in the adoption of Ordinance No. 1025, the City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged and unless development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels of Service. Furthermore, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thus, adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, continuation of a TUMF Program is essential.

H. 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.

I. 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.

J. The City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the new 2024 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.

K. The fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and real acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2024 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.

L. By notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the 2024 Nexus Study and the fees proposed thereunder and at least ten (10) days prior to this hearing, the City Council made the 2024 Nexus Study available to the public.

M. At the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing.

N. The City Council finds that the 2024 Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional system.

O. The City Council hereby adopts the 2024 Nexus Study and its findings. The 2024 Nexus Study is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B.” P. The City Council hereby adopts this Ordinance to amend and supersede the provisions of Ordinance No. 1025.

3.50.020 Definitions
For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings:

A. “Class ‘A’ Office” means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, onsite 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, onsite support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class ‘B” Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of two stories; (ii) minimum of 15,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame, concrete or masonry shell construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/exits for commercial uses within the building.

C. “Development Project” or “Project” means any project undertaken for the purposes of development, including the issuance of a permit for construction.

D. “Gross Acreage” means the total property area as shown on a land division of a map of record, or described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area shall be bounded by road rights of way and property lines.

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

E. “Habitable Structure” means any structure or part thereof where persons reside, congregate or work and which is legally occupied in whole or part in accordance with applicable building codes, and state and local laws.

F. “Industrial Project” means any development project that proposes any industrial or manufacturing use allowed in the following zoning classifications: A-E, A-1, C-O, C-G, C-4, M-1, M-2, M-1 (CTO), or PAD or SP with one of the aforementioned zones, or similar zone, used as the base zone.

G. “Low Income Residential Housing” means ”Residential Affordable Units”: (A) for rental housing, the units shall be made available, rented and restricted to “lower income households” (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) at an “affordable rent” (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053), ). Affordable units that are rental housing shall be made available, rented, and restricted to lower income households at an affordable rent for a period of at least fiftyfive (55) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new residential development. and (B) for for-sale housing, the units shall be sold to “persons or families of low or moderate income” (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093) at a purchase price that will not cause the purchaser’s monthly housing cost to exceed “affordable housing cost (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5) Affordable units that are for-sale housing units shall be restricted to ownership by persons and families of low or moderate income for at least forty-five (45) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residential development.

H. “Multi-Family Residential Unit” means a structure with two or more legal independent residential dwelling units intended for human habitation.

I. “Non-Residential Unit” means retail commercial, service commercial and industrial development, which is designed primarily for non-dwelling use, but shall include hotels and motels.

J. “Recognized Financing District” means a Financing District as defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan as may be amended from time to time.

K. “Residential Dwelling Unit” means a building or portion thereof used by one (1) family and containing but one (1) kitchen, which is designed primarily for residential occupancy including single-family and multi-family dwellings. “Residential Dwelling Unit” shall not include hotels or motels.

L. “Retail Commercial Project” means any development project that proposes any retail commercial activity use not defined as a service commercial project allowed in the following zoning classifications: R-1, A-E, A-1, C-O, C-G, C-4, M-1, M-2, M-1 (CTO), PAD, or SP, with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone, which can include any eating/dining facility residing on the retail commercial development premises.

M. “Service Commercial Project” means any development project that is predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal, and medical offices eating/dining facilities, and other uses related to personal or professional services.

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

N. “Single Family Residential Unit” means each residential dwelling unit development which is situated on one lot which shares no common wall, foundation, or other interconnection with another dwelling unit.

O. “TUMF Participating Jurisdiction” means a jurisdiction in Western Riverside County which has adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing participation in the TUMF Program and complies with all regulations established in the TUMF Administrative Plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the WRCOG.

P. “Disabled Veteran” means any veteran who is retired or is in process of medical retirement from military service who is or was severely injured in a theatre of combat operations and has or received a letter of eligibility for the Veterans Administration Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Grant Program.

Q. Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities means any owned and operated facilities by a government entity in accordance with Section G. Exemptions, Subsection 2. of this Ordinance. A new development that is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency for government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities shall apply only if all of the following conditions are met:
(a) The new development being constructed is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency.
(b) The project shall have a deed restriction placed on the property that limits the use to government/public facility for the term of the lease, including all extension options, for a period of not less than 20 years. Any change in the use of the facility from government shall trigger the payment of the TUMF in effect at the time of the change is made.
(c) No less than ninety percent of the total square footage of the building is leased to the government agency during the term of deed restriction the long term and any extensions thereof.
(d) The new development is constructed at prevailing wage rates. (e) A copy of the lease is provided to the applicable jurisdiction and to WRCOG. (f) Based on the facts and circumstances WRCOG determines that the intent of the lease is to provide for a long-term government use, and not to evade payment of TUMF.

R. “Non-profit Organization” means an organization operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial port of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, the non-profit may be a 501(c) (3) charitable organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Service.

S. “Long-Term Lease” as used in the TUMF Program, a “long-term lease” shall mean a lease with a term of no less than twenty years.

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

T. “Mixed-Use Development” as used in the TUMF Program, means Developments with the following criteria: (1) three or more significant revenue-producing uses, and (2) significant physical and functional integration of project components.

U. “Guest Dwellings” and “Detached Second Units” according to the State of California legal definition as following: 1) Complies with the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook and 2) Are ministerially approved by each jurisdiction’s local codes.

V. “TUMF Administrative Plan” means that the TUMF Administration Plan adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee May 5, 2003, as amended, setting forth detailed administration procedures and requirements for the TUMF program.

3.50.030 Establishment of the transportation uniform mitigation fee.

A. Adoption of TUMF Schedule. The City Council shall adopt an applicable TUMF schedule through a separate resolution, which may be amended from time to time.

B. Fee Calculation. The fees shall be calculated by WRCOG 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 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 by the local agency. In case of a conflict between the applicant, WRCOG, and/or the local agency regarding the fee calculation methodology, the dispute resolution process in the TUMF Administrative Plan will apply.

C. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to the Resolution reference is subsection A, above, the fees may be increased or decreased to reflect the changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System including, but not limited to, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Ordinance, as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to construct the Regional System. WRCOG shall review the TUMF Program no less than every four (4) years after the effective date of this Ordinance.

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

D. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional System as depicted in Exhibit “A” and identified in the 2024 Nexus Study, Exhibit “B.” E. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the City, unless otherwise exempt hereunder.

F. Exemptions. The following types of new development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance and in TUMF Administrative Plan:

1. Low income residential housing as described in Section 3 Definitions, Subsection G of this Ordinance and in the TUMF Administrative Plan.

2. Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities as described in Section 3. Definitions, Subsection Q. of this Ordinance and in the TUMF Administrative Plan.

Airports that are public use airports and are appropriately permitted by Caltrans or other state agency.

3. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq, prior to the effective date of Ordinance Nos. 804, 830, 912, 929, 933, 974, 1025, and 1044 wherein the imposition of new fees are expressly prohibited, provided that if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended by amendment or by any other manner after the effective date of Ordinance Nos. 804, 830, 912, 929, 933, 974, 1025, and 1044, the TUMF shall be imposed.

4. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any habitable structure in use on or after January 1, 2000, provided that the same or fewer traffic trips are generated as a result thereof.

5. Guest Dwellings and Detached Second Units as described in this Ordinance in Section 3. Definitions, Subsection U. and in the Administrative Plan

6. Kennels and Catteries established in connection with an existing single family residential unit.

7. Any sanctuary, or other activity under the same roof of a church or other house of worship that is not revenue generating and is eligible for a property tax 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 fulltime 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:

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

Regional Tier
i. 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.
ii. 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.
iii. 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.

Local Tier
i. 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.
ii. 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.

3.50.040 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 approved 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.

3.50.050 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 provide WRCOG with development project specifics for the calculation of TUMF in a manner consistent with the TUMF Administrative Plan.

B. Payment and Collection. Payment of the fees shall be as follows:
i. All fees collected hereunder shall be collected by WRCOG for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, TUMF Administrative Plan, and the Mitigation Fee Act.
ii. 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

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

a partial payment prior to the Payment Date, the amount of the fee due shall be based on the TUMF fee schedule in place on the Payment Date. The fees shall be calculated according to fee schedule set forth in the Ordinance and the calculation methodology set forth in the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. iii. The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment is due under this Ordinance, not the date the Ordinance is initially adopted. The City shall not enter into a development agreement which freezes future adjustments of the TUMF. iv. 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.
v. Fees shall not be waived.

C. Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The City shall not issue a certificate of occupancy for any Development Project until WRCOG has provided written evidence that it has collected the fee.

D. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed with WRCOG in accordance with the provisions of the TUMF Administrative Plan. Appealable issues shall be the application of the fee, application of credits, application of reimbursement, application of the legal action stay and application of exemption.

E. Reports to WRCOG. The Director of Building and Safety, or his/her designee, shall prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, periodic reports as will be established under Section 7 of this Ordinance.

3.50.060 Appointment of TUMF Administrator
WRCOG is hereby appointed as the Administrator of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program. WRCOG is hereby authorized to collect all fees generated from the TUMF within the City, and to invest, account for and expend such fees in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act. The detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this Ordnance shall be contained in the TUMF Administrative Plan . Furthermore, the TUMF Administrator shall use the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time, for the purpose of calculating a developer’s TUMF obligation. In addition to detailing the methodology for calculating all TUMF obligations of different categories of new development, the purpose of the Fee Calculation Handbook is to clarify for the TUMF Administrator, where necessary, the definition and calculation methodology for uses not clearly defined in the respective TUMF ordinances.

WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the TUMF for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed two percent (2%) of the revenue raised by the TUMF Program. The TUMF Administrative Plan further outlines the fiscal responsibilities and limitations of the Administrator.

3.50.070 Effect.

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

No provisions of this Ordinance shall entitle any person who has already paid the TUMF to receive a refund, credit or reimbursement of such payment. This Ordinance does not create any new TUMF.

3.50.080 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.

3.50.090 No procedural defenses
Prohibition of Jurisdictions from raising procedural defenses, including without limitation a statute of limitations, laches, the California Government Tort Claims Act, and necessary parties in a dispute with WRCOG regarding the matters set forth herein.

3.50.010 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 30 days of the date of adoption of this Ordinance.

3.50.020 Ordinance No. 1127
This Ordinance supersedes the provisions of Ordinance No. 1025 provided this Ordinance is not declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction. If, for whatever reason, this Ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, Ordinance No. 1025 all other related ordinances and polices shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall become effective 60 days after final passage thereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Norco, California at a regular meeting held January 15, 2025.
__________________________
Greg Newton, Mayor
City of Norco, California
ATTEST:
________________________
Dana Roa, CMC, City Clerk
City of Norco, California

Ordinance No.1127 for Code Amendment 2024-12
January 15, 2025

I, DANA ROA, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Norco, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Norco, California, duly held on December 18, 2024 and thereafter at a regular meeting of said City Council duly held January 15, 2025, it was duly passed and adopted by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Norco, California, on January 15, 2025.
________________________
Dana Roa, CMC, City Clerk
City of Norco, California

m
I
I
I
II .. '
I
I
l
31 I
z
_I
I
-
II
II
I
I
Resolution No. 2024-56

December 18, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-56

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORCO

AMENDING THE APPLICABLE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION

FEE (TUMF) APPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF NORCO
WHEREAS, the City of Norco ("City") is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG"), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and seventeen cities located in Western Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the member agencies of WRCOG recognized that there was insufficient funding to address the impacts of new development on the regional system of highways and arterials in Western Riverside County (the "Regional System"); and WHEREAS, in order to address this shortfall, the member agencies formulated a plan whereby a transportation mitigation fee would be assessed on new development and would be used to fund the necessary improvements for the Regional System; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this plan, the WRCOG Executive Committee adopted the "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Fee Nexus Study", dated October 18, 2002 (the "2002 Nexus Study"); and
WHEREAS, based on the 2002 Nexus Study, the City adopted Ordinance 804 on February 5, 2003 (the "TUMF Ordinance") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. authorizing the City to impose the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") upon new development; and
WHEREAS, 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 Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to re?ect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program; and
. WHEREAS, conSistent with its previous findings made in the adoption of OrdinanceNo. 1025, the City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby ?nds, that ifthe 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 traf?c 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 willsubstantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and ?re) to respond and, thus, adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, continuation of a TUMF Program is essential; and

u
Resolution No. 2024-56

December 18, 2024
WHEREAS, the City Council ?nds 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 forthe safety, health and welfare of the residential and nonresidential users of the development in which the TUMF will be levied; and WHEREAS, 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 willbenefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such developments willbe mitigated in part by payment of the TUMF; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the new 2016 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements and the facilities that compromise the Regional System, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development; and
WHEREAS, the fees collected pursuant to TUMF Ordinance shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and real acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2016 Nexus Study. The -need for the improvements and facilities is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic and creates the demand for the improvements; and WHEREAS, by notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the 2016 Nexus Study and the fees proposed thereunder and at least ten (10) days prior to this hearing, the City Council made the 2016 Nexus Study available to the public; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council ?nds 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.

WHEREAS, Section 3.50.030(C) of the TUMF Ordinance authorizes periodic review and adjustment to the applicable TUMF in accordance with any adjustments made by the WRCOG Executive Committee; and
WHEREAS, the fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the public facilities described or identified in the Nexus Study; and

Resolution No. 2024-56

December 18, 2024
WHEREAS, the levying of TUMF has been reviewed by the City Council and staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines and it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEOA Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of City of Norco does resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Findin s. The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as findings in support of this Resolution. In addition, the City Council re-adopts the findings contained in Ordinance 1127 in support of the adjusted TUMF contained herein
SECTION 2. TUMF Schedule. In accordance with Norco Municipal Code Section 3.50.030(C) as amended by Ordinance 1127, there is hereby adopted the following fee schedule for the TUMF which replaces the fee schedule set forth in Sections 2 and 3 of Resolution No. 2017-53 in its entirety as of 60 days after the final passage thereof of Ordinance 1127, provided that the fee for retail commercial projects shall go into effect upon the Effective Date set forth in Section 5, below:

A. There is hereby adopted the following TUMF schedule:
(1) $12,380 per single family residential unit 1,800 square feet or less (2) $13,927 per single family residential unit between 1,801 and 2,300 square feet (3) $15,476 per single family residential unit between 2,301 and 2,700 square feet (4) $19,344 per single family residential unit greater than 2,700 square feet (2) $7,816 per multi—familyresidential unit
(3) $2.33 per square foot of an industrial project
(4) $7.72 per square foot of a retail commercial project (5) $4.89 per square foot of a service commercial project (6) $2.45 per square foot of a service Class A and B Office SECTION 3. Adoption of 2024 Nexus Study. The City Council hereby adopts the 2024 Nexus Study and its findings. The 2024 Nexus Study is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B."
SECTION 4. CEQA Findin.s. The City Council hereby ?nds that in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3).

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective upon the effective date of Ordinance 1127

Resolution No. 2024-56

December 18, 2024
Roa. CMC, City Clerk
ity of Norco, California
PASSED ANDADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Norco at a regular meeting held on December 18, 2024.

Greg Newton , Mayor
City of Norco, California

l Dana Roa, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Norco, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Norco, California at a regular meeting held December 18, 2024, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES: NEWTON, GRUNDMEYER, BASH, BOWEN AND SULLIVAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
N WITNE THEREOF, l have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of e City of Norco, C lifornia, on December 18, 2024
a 0 MC, City
y of Norco,
California

TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE

NEXUS STUDY
2024 UPDATE

FINAL REPORT
Prepared for the Western Riverside Council of Governments In Cooperation with
The City of Banning
The City of Beaumont
The City of Calimesa
The City of Canyon Lake
The City of Corona
The City of Eastvale
The City of Hemet
The City of Jurupa Valley
The City of Lake Elsinore
The City of Menifee
The City of Moreno Valley
The City of Murrieta
The City of Norco
The City of Perris
The City of Riverside
The City of San Jacinto
The City of Temecula
The City of Wildomar
The County of Riverside
Eastern Municipal Water District
March Joint Powers Authority
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Riverside Transit Agency
Western Water
Prepared by GHD
As adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee, September 9, 2024

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................i LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. ii ES.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................iii 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 ................................................................................................................ xi

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY ................................................ 1

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History ......................................................................................... 3

1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process ....................................................................................... 5

2.3.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List ............................................................... 7

2.3.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs ....................................................... 8

2.3.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component ............................................................ 9

2.3.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments ..........................................10

2.3.5. Computing the Fee for Non-Residential Developments ..................................10

2.0 FUTURE GROWTH .........................................................................................................13

2.1 Recent Historical Trend ...........................................................................................13

2.2 Available Demographic Data ...............................................................................13

2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis ...........................14

3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF ....................................................................................................21

3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels ........................................................................21

3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels ................................................................................24

3.3 The TUMF Concept ..................................................................................................25

4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK .....................................................................................................27

4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network ......................................................27

4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network .......................................................30

4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs .................................................................33

4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System .......................................37

4.5 Existing Obligated Funding .....................................................................................40

4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs ................................................................40

4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost ..................................................................................42

4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation .......................................................................................53

5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................55

5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements .......................................55

5.2 Application of Fee to System Components ..........................................................56

5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non-Residential Developments .............59

6.0 FAIR-SHARE FEE CALCULATION ...................................................................................60

6.1 Residential Fees .......................................................................................................60

6.2 Non-Residential Fees ...............................................................................................62

7.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................64

8.0 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................65

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County ............ xii Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ................14 Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045) .............................................................................................................................17 Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) .......................................................................19 Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing to 2045 No-Build) ...........................................................................................................................22 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction ...................................35 Table 4.2 – Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County .......................................36 Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures ..........................................................39 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates ..............................................................................45 Table 4.5 – TUMF Transit Cost Estimates .................................................................................53 Table 4.6 – Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build Scenarios to 2045 TUMF Build Scenario) ..........................................................54 Table 5.1 - 2045 No-Build Peak Period Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone ...............................57 Table 5.2 – 2045 No-Build Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone ................57 Table 5.3 - Backbone-Secondary Network Share Calculation ...........................................58 Table 5.4 - Daily VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2018 - 2045) ..........................................................................................................................................59 Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share .................................................................61 Table 6.2 – Single-Family Residential Fee Adjustments by Unit Size ....................................62 Table 6.3 - Fee Calculation for Non-Residential Share ........................................................63 Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County ..............64

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 (2018 to 2045) ......................................................................................................................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 ................................. 6 Figure 2.1 – Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ..............15 Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ............16 Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ...........16 Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045) .............................................................................................................................18 Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) .......................................................................20 Figure 4.1 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County .....29 Figure 4.2 - The Backbone Network of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County ..............................................................................................................................31 Figure 4.3 - Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) .....................32 Figure 4.4 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials–TUMF Network Improvements ...44

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 iii
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, slowed this rate of growth, the regional economy has recovered and the projected rate of development in Western Riverside County remains high. Similarly, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on travel demand in the region has also passed, with travel demands, especially for the highway network, surpassing pre-pandemic levels. Continued high growth in households and jobs in Western Riverside County could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements.

In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for southwest Riverside County. In August 2000, the concept was expanded to include the entire WRCOG subregion.

Continued high growth in households and jobs in Western Riverside County 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. 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.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 iv
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 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 adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted following the adoption of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016.

The WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update Report was adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017.

On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal; The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments (2020 RTP/SCS). The adoption of the 2020 RTP/SCS confirmed new growth forecasts for the region that provide a foundational element for updating the TUMF program and the associated nexus determination prompting WRCOG to initiate the current program update. These forecasts are also integrated into the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivCoM) used to forecast the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development on the arterial highway network in Western Riverside County.

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 RivCoM, 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 results of the fourth comprehensive review of the TUMF Program. This version of the document also incorporates revisions in response to comments received during the formal review of the earlier Draft TUMF Nexus Study 2024 Update. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on September 9, 2024.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 v
Figure ES.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 vi
ES.2 Future Growth
In preparation for the 2020 RTP/SCS, SCAG undertook robust stakeholder engagement, including participation by WRCOG, Riverside County and the various cities in Western Riverside County, to develop regional demographic forecasts. Using input from regional stakeholders regarding anticipated patterns and rates of development, SCAG compiled and disseminated the forecasts that were ultimately adopted in 2020. The SCAG forecasts adopted for the 2020 RTP/SCS were subsequently used as the basis for RivCoM and are used as the basis for this TUMF Nexus Study Update.

A major distinction between data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update and the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data used for this 2024 Update is the change in the base year from 2012 to 2018, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2040 to 2045. 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 33% in the period between 2018 and 2045. During the same period, employment in Western Riverside County is anticipated to grow by 48%. 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 RivCoM 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 38% between 2018 and 2045. By 2045, 37% 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 5.0% 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 by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 vii
Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045)
As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows because 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 16,575 riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2023. By 2045, bus transit services are forecast to serve approximately 57,282 riders per weekday. This represents an average increase of 1,850 weekday riders each year. Based on this rate of ridership growth, weekday ridership is estimated to increase by 40,707 riders per weekday between 2018 and 2045.

The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer-distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation.

The fee should be assessed proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each use on the transportation system.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 viii
ES.4 The TUMF Network
The Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the TUMF Network) is the system of roadways that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied these guidelines were initially identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where several guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee.

The TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the 2024 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.

Figure ES.3 illustrates the TUMF improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials.

The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $5.28 billion. Accounting for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $4.24 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $3.87 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $154.8 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $53.9 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 $161.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 x
ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis
There is a reasonable relationship between the future growth and the need for improvements to the TUMF system. These factors include:
 Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development.
 Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways.  The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County.  Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development.
 Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program.
 Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel.

The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of peak period trips between zones. The overall result is that 51.1% of the regional travel is attributable to the backbone network and 48.9% 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 2018 and 2045 was derived from RivCoM and aggregated by trip purpose. It was concluded that home-based person trips represent

77.7% of the total future person trips, and the non-home-based person trips represent

22.3% of the total future person trips.

ES.6 Fair-Share Fee Calculation
The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $4.24 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 by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 xi
costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system.

Of the $4.24 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 77.7% ($3.30 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 22.3% ($946.5 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 by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 xii
Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development
Change
Fee Per Unit Total Revenue
($ million)
Single-Family Residential DU 167,491 $15,476 $2,592.0
Multi-Family Residential DU 90,335 $7,816 $706.1
Industrial SF GFA 61,489,565 $2.33 $143.1
Retail SF GFA 6,557,500 $11.21 $73.5
Service SF GFA 66,735,957 $9.76 $651.1
Government/Public SF GFA 3,420,665 $23.07 $78.9
MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $2,961.0

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY

1.1 Background
Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000’s, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure.

Although the economic recession of the late 2000’s, and the associated crises in the mortgage and housing industries, slowed this rate of growth, the regional economy has recovered and the projected rate of development in Western Riverside County remains high. Similarly, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on travel demand in the region has also passed, with travel demands, especially for the highway network, surpassing pre-pandemic levels.

Continued high growth in households and jobs in Western Riverside County 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 2045. While some localized fee programs exist to mitigate the local impacts of new development on the transportation system in specific areas, and while these programs are effective locally, they are insufficient in their ability to meet the regional demand for transportation infrastructure. Former Riverside County Supervisor Buster recognized the need to establish a comprehensive funding source to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional arterial highways. The need to establish a comprehensive funding source for arterial highway improvements has evolved into the development of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for Western Riverside County.

In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 2 concept of a TUMF. The intent of this effort was to have the southwest area of Western Riverside County act as a demonstration for the development of policies and a process for a regional TUMF Program before applying the concept countywide. From February 1999 to September 2000, the Southwest Area Transportation Infrastructure System Funding Year 2020 (SATISFY 2020) Program progressed with policy development, the identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates, fee scenarios and a draft Implementation Agreement.

In May 2000, Riverside County Supervisor Tavaglione initiated discussions in the northwest area of Western Riverside County to determine the level of interest in developing a TUMF for that area of the county. Interest in the development of a northwest area fee program was high. In August 2000, the WRCOG Executive Committee took action to build upon the work completed in the southwest area for the SATISFY 2020 program and to develop a single consolidated mitigation fee program for all of Western Riverside County. This action was predicated on the desire to establish a single uniform mitigation fee program to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system, rather than multiple discrete and disparate fee programs with varying policies, fees and improvement projects. A TUMF Policy Committee comprising regional elected officials was formed to recommend and set policies for staff to develop the TUMF Program and provide overall guidance to all other staff committees.

While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future new development will contribute toward addressing its indirect cumulative traffic impacts on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements such as new arterial highway lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their “fair share” toward sustaining the regional transportation system.

This TUMF Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act), which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow two basic rules when instituting impact fees. These rules are as follows:
1) Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development impact fee’s use and the type of project for which the fee is required. 2) The fee must not exceed the project’s proportional “fair share” of the proposed improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems or to make improvements for existing development.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 3 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 representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern Municipal Water District, Western Water, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority and the Riverside Transit Agency to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. WRCOG strives to "respect local control, provide regional perspective, and make a difference" to elevate the quality of life throughout the subregion. A current list of the standing WRCOG committees and committee membership that oversee the TUMF program 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. The WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update Report was ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 4 On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal; The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments (2020 RTP/SCS). As stated in the plan document “Connect SoCal embodies a collective vision for the region’s future, through the horizon year of 2045. It is developed with input from a wide range of constituents and stakeholders within the Counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura, including public agencies, community organizations, elected officials, tribal governments, the business community and the public. Connect SoCal is an important planning document for the region, allowing public agencies who implement transportation projects to do so in a coordinated manner, while qualifying for federal and state funding.”
The adoption of the 2020 RTP/SCS confirmed new growth forecasts for the region that were used as the basis to develop the Connect SoCal plan. These forecasts also provide a foundational element for updating the TUMF program and the associated nexus determination prompting WRCOG to initiate the current program update. The 2020 RTP/SCS growth forecasts are used directly in the fee calculation as the basis for determining the anticipated growth in households and employment in the region through the program horizon year of 2045. These forecasts are also integrated into the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivCoM) used to forecast the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development on the arterial highway network in Western Riverside County.

Completed in 2021 to succeed the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM), RivCoM provides a valuable tool for supporting a variety of transportation planning activities in Riverside County, including the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. RivCoM was developed under the leadership of WRCOG in conjunction with regional partners with the intent to provide jurisdictions in Riverside County with a traffic forecasting tool that, while consistent with the SCAG regional travel demand model, provides a more appropriate level of detail to support transportation planning at the County or City level.

RivCoM is a critical tool for quantifying the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development as part of the TUMF Nexus Study Update. Utilizing the 2020 RTP/SCS growth forecasts, RivCoM is used to quantify changes in travel demand and traffic conditions on the regional highway network, with a specific focus on the TUMF Network.

RivCoM outputs are used to analyze project eligibility and quantify the fair share of traffic growth that is attributable to new development as inputs to determining the fee.

The adoption of the Connect SoCal plan and the availability of RivCoM to serve as a critical tool for quantifying network impacts for the TUMF Nexus Study Update were key factors driving the schedule for this update of the fee.

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 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 typically be recalculated in February of each year based

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 5 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. The most recent annual cost adjustment to the TUMF Schedule of Fees was adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 12, 2021.

1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process
In coordination with WRCOG, city and county representatives and other interested parties have reviewed 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 2020 RTP/SCS were incorporated. This use of the most recent SCAG forecasts resulted in a shift of the program base year from 2012 to 2018, as well as a shift in the program horizon year from 2040 to 2045.

Furthermore, the TUMF Network was re-examined in detail based on travel demand forecasts derived from the most recent version of the Riverside County Model (RivCoM) 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 2021.

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 RivCoM, steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in this Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 6 Figure 1.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 7 2.3.1. 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 RivCoM 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 2020 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2018 as its base year. This adopted dataset was integrated into RivCoM providing a critical analytic tool to support the Nexus Study Update. 2) The RivCoM model1 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 RivCoM 2018 base network that was developed following the adoption of the SCAG 2020 RTP was selected as the one most closely resembling current conditions. This network was subsequently reviewed and updated, including a detailed review by WRCOG staff and participating jurisdictions, to identify projects that were completed on the arterial network in the period between 2016 and December 2021. The arterial network was then recoded to reflect the changes to the TUMF Network to create a 2021 Existing Network as the base network for analysis. A second version of the base network was also developed adding only those facilities that had been identified on the 2016 TUMF network that did not currently exist and therefore were not represented by a link(s) in RivCoM. The Supplemental 2021 Existing Network was utilized as the basis for assessing only those projects that did not currently exist on the TUMF Network.
3) RivCoM was run using the 2018 socio-economic data (SED) and the 2021 Existing Networks 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. 1 The macro-level traffic forecasting was conducted using the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivCoM).

RivCoM is consistent 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 the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM) integrating an updated modeling platform to improve run time and reliability, as well as a more focused model area, more detailed network and zone structure, and prost processors to satisfy more recent legislative requirements. RivCoM 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 RivCoM model for use in regional traffic studies.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 8 5) The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2045 as its forecast horizon year. This adopted dataset was also used as the future base year for the TUMF update calculation.
6) RivCoM was run using the 2021 Existing Networks with the land use assumptions for 2045. These “Future No-Build” scenarios was used to determine where 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 growth in households and employment. 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 growth. 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 2024 Nexus Study Update.

2.3.2. 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.
11) Current cost values for labor and materials such as cement, asphalt, reinforcing steel, etc., as derived from Caltrans cost database, RCTC and other sources, were tabulated and updated to December 2023. 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.
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 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 9 12) The cost values for the contributing labor, materials and land components were applied to estimated quantities of these components for the various roadway project types that are eligible under TUMF to generate aggregate unit cost values for each project type (road costs per lane-mile, typical costs per arterialfreeway interchange, bridge costs per linear foot, etc.). 13) 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. 14) 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.

2.3.3. 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. 15) Actual average weekday daily ridership for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) transit bus services was tabulated for 2023.
16) Forecast average weekday daily ridership for RTA bus transit services was retrieved from the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model for horizon year 2045. 17) The growth in ridership between 2023 and 2045 was compared to determine the portion of 2045 average weekday daily ridership that is attributable to existing passengers and the portion attributable to new growth.
18) A proposed transit project list was provided by RTA staff and was reviewed to confirm the validity of the project list to establish a final recommended transit project list to be included as part of the program. The result was the TUMF Transit Project List.
19) RTA provided information on current costs for the listed transit infrastructure. 20) The cost information was then used to determine the cost of the items on the TUMF Transit Project List.
21) The percent attribution from Step 17 was applied to the project cost estimates from the previous step to determine the cost of transit improvements that are attributable to new development.
22) 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.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 10 2.3.4. 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 developments roughly in proportion to their expected traffic impacts. The following steps describes the process for determining the proportion attributable to new residential development. The 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. 23) California legislation encourages the use of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the primary indicator of traffic impacts because it combines 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 utilizes a VMT based approach. The RivCoM 2021 Existing Network and 2045 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.
24) The SCAG 2020 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 2018 to 2045 period.
25) 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 2018 to 2045. 26) The cost to be covered by residential development was divided into the portion attributable to new single-family dwellings and portion attributable to new multifamily development to calculate the cost share for each use. 27) 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.

2.3.5. 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.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 11 28) Like many impact fee programs, TUMF groups similar development projects together into general use categories to simplify the administration of the program. TUMF groups the various land use categories found in ITE’s Trip 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 RivCoM 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 tripgeneration rates for all uses within each category was used in the nexus study to represent the trip-generation characteristics for the category. 29) The trip-generation rates of retail and service uses were adjusted to take into account the share of pass-by trips these uses generate. Pass by trip rates for various retail and service uses were derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual to determine the median value of all uses as the basis for the adjustment. The ITE pass by trip rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy and updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates.
30) The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS socio economic forecasts included non-residential employment for 2018 and 2045. These forecasts were used to estimate the growth in employment in each of the four non-residential uses. 31) 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.
32) 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.
33) 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. 34) The amount of project costs to be covered by non-residential development was split between the four non-residential uses to determine the TUMF cost share for each.
35) 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.
36) 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 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 12 adjustments are intended to calculate a fairer proportional fee based on the unique trip generation characteristics of these 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 to ensure the cumulative regional impacts of new development are being mitigated fully in accordance with the program.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 13 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, and more recently with the shifting of population during and following the COVID-19 pandemic, Western Riverside County has 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.

In preparation for the 2020 RTP/SCS, SCAG undertook robust stakeholder engagement, including participation by WRCOG, Riverside County and the various cities in Western Riverside County, to develop regional demographic forecasts. Using input from regional stakeholders regarding anticipated patterns and rates of development, SCAG compiled and disseminated the forecasts that were ultimately adopted in 2020, including those specific to Western Riverside County. The SCAG forecasts adopted for the 2020 RTP/SCS were subsequently used as the basis for RivCoM and are used as the basis for this TUMF Nexus Study Update.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 14 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis A major distinction between data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update and the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data used for this 2024 Update is the change in the base year from 2012 to 2018, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2040 to 2045. 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 2020 RTP/SCS data were compared to the 2016 RTP/SCS data used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update. As can be seen in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, the 2018 data reflects an increase in population and single-family households, and a very slight decline in multi-family households. Employment grew substantially overall, with significant growth in industrial employment, largely attributable to the rapid expansion of warehousing and logistics facilities in Western Riverside County. In contrast, there was a notable decline in government and public sector employment in the region from 2012 to 2018
Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County SED Type 2016 Update
(2012)
2024 Update
(2018) Change Percent
Total Population 1,773,935 1,905,440 131,505 7%
Total Households 525,149 554,573 29,424 6%
Single-Family 366,588 397,407 30,819 8%
Multi-Family 158,561 157,166 -1,395 -1%
Total Employment 460,787 570,420 109,633 24%
Industrial 120,736 169,334 48,598 40%
Retail 65,888 73,814 7,926 12%
Service 253,372 308,703 55,331 22%
Government/Public Sector 20,791 18,569 -2,222 -11%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 15 Figure 2.1 – Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2 compare the socioeconomic forecasts for the program horizon year of 2045 used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update and 2045 for this study. The most recent forecasts reflect an increase in the horizon year population and households, and a decrease in overall employment in Western Riverside County. The change in employment was not, however, consistent across sectors. The retail employment forecast has decreased approximately 15% from 2040 to 2045, while the industrial employment forecast has increased over 20%. This shift is consistent with the emergence of e-commerce as an alternative to traditional “brick and mortar” retail.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 16 Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County

SED Type 2016 Update
(2040)
2024 Update
(2045) Change Percent
Total Population 2,429,633 2,533,876 104,243 4%
Total Households 775,231 812,399 37,168 5%
Single-Family 539,631 564,898 25,267 5%
Multi-Family 235,600 247,501 11,901 5%
Total Employment 861,455 846,442 -15,013 -2%
TUMF Industrial 201,328 245,915 44,587 22%
TUMF Retail 101,729 86,929 -14,800 -15%
TUMF Service 528,092 482,958 -45,134 -9%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 30,306 30,640 334 1%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 17 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 2018 and 2045 was provided for thirteen employment sectors consistent with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) Major Groups including:

Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service; and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Study, the EDD Major Groups were aggregated to Industrial (Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities), Retail (Retail Trade), Service (Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service) and Government/Public Sector (Government). These four aggregated sector types were used as the basis for calculating the fee as described in Section 6.2. Appendix B provides a table detailing the EDD Major Groups and corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each nonresidential sector type.

Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045)
SED Type 2018 2045 Change Percent
Total Population 1,905,440 2,533,876 628,436 33%
Total Households 554,573 812,399 257,826 46%
Single-Family 397,407 564,898 167,491 42%
Multi-Family 157,166 247,501 90,335 57%
Total Employment 570,420 846,442 276,022 48%
TUMF Industrial 169,334 245,915 76,581 45%
TUMF Retail 73,814 86,929 13,115 18%
TUMF Service 308,703 482,958 174,255 56%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 18,569 30,640 12,071 65%
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 18 Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045)
The combined effects of the changes in the base year and horizon year socioeconomic data are modest reductions in the total growth in population and single-family households, but a notable increase in multi-family households. The change in total employment is reduced by 31%, with the most significant reduction in employment growth in the retail sector (-63%), while the industrial sector saw only a slight reduction in total employment growth compared to the 2016 Nexus Update (5%).

The Government/public sector employment growth has increased by 27% from the 2016 Nexus Study to the 2024 Nexus Study, although the total number of jobs increased is relatively small as a share of the total employment. 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 2024 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 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 19 Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison)
SED Type 2016 Update
(2012-2040)
2024 Update
(2018-2045) Difference Percent
Total Population 655,698 628,436 -27,262 -4%
Total Households 250,082 257,826 7,744 3%
Single-Family 173,043 167,491 -5,552 -3%
Multi-Family 77,039 90,335 13,296 17%
Total Employment 400,668 276,022 -124,646 -31%
TUMF Industrial 80,592 76,581 -4,011 -5%
TUMF Retail 35,841 13,115 -22,726 -63%
TUMF Service 274,720 174,255 -100,465 -37%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 9,515 12,071 2,556 27%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 20 Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison)

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 21 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF
All new developments have 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. 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 (33% growth in population and 48% growth in employment in 27 years) and the related growth in VMT can be expected to 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 those being 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 2045 No-Build travel demand forecasts for Western Riverside County developed using RivCoM. The Year 2045 No-Build scenario evaluates the effects of 2045 population, employment and resultant traffic generation on the 2021 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 (2018) and future (2045) SED were modeled on the existing (2021) arterial highway network using RivCoM. 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 3 The Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition – A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 2016, Volume 1 – Concepts, pp 5-3) describes LOS as a “quantitative stratification of performance measure or measures representing quality of service….HCM defines six levels of service, ranging from A to F, for each service measure or combination of measures. LOS A represents the best operating conditions from the traveler’s perspective and LOS F the worst.”

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 22 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 (2018 Existing to 2045 No-Build)
Measure of Performance*
Peak Periods (Total)
2018 Existing 2045 No-Build % Change % Annual
VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 23,284,724 29,897,254 28% 0.9% VMT - FREEWAYS 13,514,522 15,490,284 15% 0.5%
VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 9,770,202 14,406,970 47% 1.4%
TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 6,216,985 8,597,200 38% 1.2%
VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 541,350 915,439 69% 2.0%
VHT - FREEWAYS 263,792 399,128 51% 1.5%
VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 277,558 516,311 86% 2.3%
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 174,455 320,869 84% 2.3%
VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 108,900 338,056 210% 4.3%
VHD - FREEWAYS 66,156 170,649 158% 3.6%
VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 42,745 167,407 292% 5.2%
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 33,249 124,863 276% 5.0%
VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 5,605,070 13,369,483 139% 3.3% VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS 4,725,471 9,316,891 97% 2.5%
VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 879,599 4,052,592 361% 5.8% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 765,782 3,184,133 316% 5.4% % of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 12% 37%
* Based on RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network as existing in December 2021
NOTES:

Volume is adjusted by PCE factor
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios).

LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 23 The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values:

The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build scenarios, and the average annual change between 2018 Existing and 2044 No-Build. As can be seen from the RivCoM outputs summarized in Table 3.1, the additional traffic generated by new development will cause peak period VMT on the arterial highway network to increase by approximately 47% by the year 2045 (approximately 1.4% 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 because of new development and the associated growth in traffic. According to the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition – A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 2016), “LOS E describes operation at or near capacity. Operations…at this level are highly volatile because there are virtually no usable gaps within the traffic stream, leaving little room to maneuver within the traffic stream. Any disruption to the traffic stream, such as vehicles entering…or a vehicle changing lanes, can establish a disruption wave that propagates throughout the upstream traffic stream….the physical and psychological comfort afforded drivers is poor.”
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 4 Congestion Management Program for Riverside County – Executive Summary (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2011) Page ES-3, ES-1
VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume
VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume VHD = VHT – (Free-flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume) VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90) Note: Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio thresholds for LOS E are based on the Transportation Research Board 2010 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 14-5, Chapter 14, Page 14-5). .

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 24 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 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 particularly 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 peak period 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 38% or 1.2% compounded annually.

As shown in Table 3.1, the peak period VMT on arterial facilities within the TUMF Network experiencing LOS E or worse will increase by approximately 316% or 5.4% compounded annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2018 and 2045. By 2045, 37% 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 during the peak periods will increase by approximately 5.0% per year. The combined influences of increased travel demand and worsened LOS that manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay highlighting the continuing need to complete substantial capacity expansion on the TUMF arterial highway system to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of increased travel demand resulting from new development.

The RivCoM 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 because of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 25 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.

In 2023, RTA reported average weekday daily ridership of 16,575 on their network of buses5. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS forecasts for RTA average weekday daily ridership in 2045 is 57,282. These values were used to represent the existing and future transit trips consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section 3.1. The existing and future transit ridership were compared to assess the impact of new development on transit demand. Average weekday daily ridership would be expected to grow by 40,707 between 2023 and 2045, or an average increase of 1,850 weekday daily riders each year. Average weekday daily system ridership is summarized in Appendix D.

The 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 attract 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 dispersal of trips of all purposes by new residents and the new business that serve them generates additional travel demand and 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 trips between communities. Thus, the fee is intended to be used primarily to improve 5 RTA, like most public transportation agencies, have seen significant short-term declines in transit ridership resulting from changes in travel demands, mode choice and trip distribution following the COVID-19 pandemic. RTA’s 2016 actual average weekday daily ridership was 30,700. Post COVID-19, the RTA actual average weekday daily ridership in 2023 was 16,575, a decline of almost 50% of pre-pandemic ridership levels. These levels would be expected to continue to recover toward pre-pandemic levels as potential riders resume more regular work schedules, and apprehension toward the use of transit services for public health reasons wane.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 26 transportation 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 – to some extent, a return-to-source of that portion of the funds). Reflecting the importance of public transit to provide an alternative to highway travel as part of a balanced regional transportation strategy, 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 each 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.).

Apart from commute trips by residents coming to and from work, and the trips of residents coming to and from new businesses to get goods and services, the travel demands of new businesses are not considered to be 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 trips between the communities within the region.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 27 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 exceeding 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 these guidelines were initially identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where several guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was subsequently endorsed by 6 Since pass-through 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 passthrough trips and the associated cost to mitigate the impact of pass-through trips (and other inter-regional freeway trips) is addressed in the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Western Riverside County Freeway Strategic Plan, Phase II – Detailed Evaluation and Impact Fee Nexus Determination, Final Report dated May 31, 2008.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 28 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.

The TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the 2024 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. The resulting TUMF Network used as the basis for this Nexus Update is discussed in Section 4.3 of this report.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 30 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network
As indicated previously, the TUMF roadway network was refined to distinguish between facilities of “Regional Significance” and facilities of “Zonal Significance.” Facilities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at general plan build-out7, extend across and/or between multiple Area Planning Districts8, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2045. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the “backbone” highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The backbone network is illustrated in Figure 4.2.

Facilities of Zonal Significance (the “secondary” network) represent the balance of the RSHA for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network, although they are considered significant for circulation within the respective zone. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG APD or zones are illustrated in Figure 4.3.
7 Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at general plan buildout, in some cases it was determined that there was not sufficient demand for all additional lanes on some facilities until beyond the current timeframe of the TUMF Program (2045). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development through the current duration of the TUMF Program.
8 Area Planning Districts (APD) are the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area. Area Planning Districts are interchangeably referred to as TUMF Zones.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 33 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs
To calculate a “fair share” fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development.

Estimates of the cost to improve the network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development were originally developed based on unit costs prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)9, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates10 (TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998.

The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates and were consolidated to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement types eligible under the TUMF Program. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development.

Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs for roadway construction were originally varied to account for variations in construction cost (in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with construction on level (code 1) rolling (code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain, respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs which originally included consideration for land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs, condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation costs were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses – code 1), suburban (developed residential uses – code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses – code 3) land uses, respectively. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were originally varied to account for variations in cost associated with new complex, new standard (or fully reconstructed), or major (or partially reconstructed) or minor (individual ramp improvements) interchange improvements.

As part of the 2024 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 Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed 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 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 34 as part of the 2024 Nexus Update to reflect the effects of significant changes in materials, labor and land acquisition costs including the influences of supply chain disruptions during and following the COVID-19 pandemic, and the elevated rates of inflation prevailing in the past few years. Appendix F provides a detailed outline of the assumptions and methodology leading to the revised TUMF unit cost assumptions developed as part of the 2024 Nexus Update. A new category was also added to the cost assumptions to facilitate the use of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) to enhance traffic flows in arterial corridors that require mitigation but cannot accommodate construction of addition lane capacity.

Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (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 expectation is reiterated in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020) Section 6 which indicates that “about 44% of the revenue for the program” is expected to be derived from non-fee sources, including ” the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through 2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).” Consistent 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 most recent 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 2016 Nexus Study unit cost assumptions that demonstrates the significant increases in unit costs observed during recent years. In most cases the unit cost assumptions have more than doubled from those used for the 2016 Nexus Study. Cost estimates are provided in current year values as indicated.

To estimate the cost of improving the regional network to provide for traffic growth from new development, the network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in Section 4.1) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed improvements.

The initial list of improvements 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 mitigate 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 completion of projects, changing levels of development and associated changes in travel demand and transportation system impacts to be mitigated as part of the TUMF program.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 35 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction Component
Type
Original Cost
Assumptions as
published
October 18, 2002
Cost Assumptions
per 2016 Nexus
Study
July 10, 2017
Cost Assumptions
per 2024 Nexus
Update
Description
Terrain 1 $550,000 $692,000 $1,132,000 Construction cost per lane mile - level terrain
Terrain 2 $850,000 $878,000 $1,740,000 Construction cost per lane mile - rolling terrain
Terrain 3 $1,150,000 $1,064,000 $2,350,000 Construction cost per lane mile - mountainous terrain
Landuse 1 $900,000 $2,509,000 $7,830,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - urban areas
Landuse 2 $420,000 $2,263,000 $5,440,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - suburban areas
Landuse 3 $240,000 $287,000 $490,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - rural areas
Interchange 1 n/a $50,032,000 $84,190,000
Complex new
interchange/interchange
modification cost
Interchange 2 $20,000,000 $25,558,000 $43,490,000 New interchange/interchange modification total cost
Interchange 3 $10,000,000 $12,343,000 $22,550,000 Major interchange improvement total cost
Bridge 1 $2,000 $3,180 $4,800 Bridge total cost per lane per linear foot
RRXing 1 $4,500,000 $6,376,000 $18,200,000 New Rail Grade Crossing per lane RRXing 2 $2,250,000 $2,733,000 $6,900,000 Existing Rail Grade Crossing per lane ITS 1 $686,400 Infrastructure for ITS of roadway
segments per route mile
Planning 10% 10% 10%
Planning, preliminary engineering
and environmental assessment costs
based on construction cost only
Engineering 25% 25% 25%
Project study report, design,
permitting and construction
oversight costs based on
construction cost only
Contingency 10% 10% 10% Contingency costs based on total segment cost
Administration 4% 4% TUMF program administration based
on total TUMF eligible network cost
MSHCP 5% 5%
TUMF component of MSHCP based
on total TUMF eligible construction
cost
As indicated in Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4, the anticipated rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County has been reduced by 4% for population, 3% for single-family residential and 31% for employment. This reduced rate of forecasted socioeconomic growth has a commensurate impact on the forecasted daily traffic in the region as demonstrated by the 2016 Nexus Study VMT compared to the 2024 Nexus Update VMT in Table 4.2. As shown in the table, the forecast peak period VMT on the TUMF arterial network in the year 2045 as the basis for the 2024 Nexus Update is more than 5% less than the comparable peak period VMT for 2040 used for the 2016 Nexus Study.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 36 Table 4.2 – Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County Measure of Performance
2024 Nexus Update 2016 Nexus Study
Peak Period Peak Period
2018 Existing 2045 No-Build 2012 Existing 2040 No-Build VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 23,284,724 29,897,254 19,532,437 29,277,587 VMT - FREEWAYS 13,514,522 15,490,284 11,019,155 14,487,570 VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 9,770,202 14,406,970 8,513,282 14,790,016 TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 6,216,985 8,597,200 5,585,202 9,089,495 Source: RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network as existing in December 2021; RivTAM 2012 network and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016
As a result of the reduced forecast 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. As part of the 2024 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 2016 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.

Based on the findings of the network screening, elements of specific projects were revised to reflect necessary network corrections and modifications to project assumptions. A matrix summarizing the disposition of the requests received as part of the 2024 TUMF Nexus Update was developed and is included in Appendix G.

Eligible arterial highway and street improvement types to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include:

1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes

2. Construction of new Network roadway segments

3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures

4. Construction of new Network bridge structures

5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways

6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways

7. Grade separation of existing Network at-grade railroad crossings

8. Installation of ITS along Network roadway segments
All eligible improvement types, except for ITS, provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. ITS provides the ability to improve traffic flows along corridors

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 37 where capacity expansion is not possible. Following the comprehensive update of the TUMF Program, the estimated total cost to improve the RSHA for Western Riverside County is $4.84 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 $64.6 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 2024 Nexus Update similarly includes specific consideration of the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. The average cost for WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program was calculated at a rate of 4% of the total eligible cost of new lane segments (including interchanges, bridges and railroad grade separations) on the TUMF Network and new transit services. Administration costs incurred by WRCOG include direct salary, fringe benefit and overhead costs for WRCOG staff assigned to administer the program and support participating jurisdictions, and costs for consultant, legal and auditing services to support the implementation of the TUMF program. The total cost for WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $161.2 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 or other high frequency services between strategically located community transit centers. In Western Riverside County, these bus transit services are typically provided by

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 38 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 interregional 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. 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 frequency bus transit service within the region were also provided by RTA.

The updated transit unit cost data provided by RTA are shown in Table 4.3.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 39 Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures Component Type*
Original Cost
Assumptions as
published
October 18, 2002
Cost Assumptions
per 2016 Nexus
Study
July 10, 2017
Cost
Assumptions per
2024 Nexus
Update
Description
Transit Center 1 $6,000,000 $7,465,000
Relocation/expansion of
existing Regional Transit
Center with up to 14 bus
bays and park and ride
Transit Center 2 $6,000,000 $9,000,000 $11,195,000
New Regional Transit Center
with up to 14 bus bays and
park and ride
Transfer Facility $1,000,000 $1,245,000 Multiple route transfer hub O & M Facility $50,000,000 $62,186,000 Regional Operations and Maintenance Facility
Green Technology $100,000 ZEB technology
enhancements
Bus Stop $10,000 $40,000 $50,000 Bus Stop Amenities Upgrade on TUMF Network
BRT Service Capital $540,000 $60,000 $75,000 BRT/Limited Stop Service Capital (per stop**)
Vehicle Fleet 1*** $160,000 Small Sized Bus/Van
Contract Operated
Vehicle Fleet 2 $155,000 $300,000 Medium Sized Bus Contract Operated
Vehicle Fleet 3 $325,125 $585,000 $1,271,000 Large Sized Bus Directly Operated
COA Study $950,000 $1,150,000
Comprehensive
Operational Analysis Study
component of Nexus Study
Update
* Transit Cost Component Types were restructured as part of the 2016 Nexus Update in accordance with the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis (January 2015) ** BRT Service Capital Cost Assumption was based on a per mile unit prior to the 2016 Nexus Update. 2016 Nexus Update uses a per stop unit cost for BRT Service Capital *** Vehicle Fleet component was restructured as part of the 2024 Nexus Update with the inclusion of Small Sized Bus/Van Contract Operated as Vehicle Fleet 1 and subsequent renumbering of Vehicle Fleet 2 and 3, respectively The estimated total cost for future RTA bus transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $217.9 million with this cost including all planning, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Section 4.7. The full cost to improve RTA bus transit services cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for existing needs. Section 4.6 describes the adjustments to the total transit cost to account for existing needs.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 40 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding
For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the 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, WRCOG staff, in conjunction with RCTC staff, completed a review of the current Federal Transportation improvement Program (FTIP) to identify TUMF eligible projects that were also programmed to receive funding from alternate sources. A table summarizing the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix H. A total of $382.9 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated total TUMF network project 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 satisfy this existing demand. The need to improve these portions of the system is generated, at least in part, by existing demand, rather than solely 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.

To account for existing need in the TUMF Network, the cost for facilities identified as currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted. This was done by identifying the portion of any segment of the TUMF Network with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of greater than 0.9 (the threshold for LOS E) in the RivCoM 2018 Existing scenario 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 RivCoM 2018 Existing scenario assigned traffic on the 2021 existing network and delineating

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 41 those facilities included on the TUMF Cost Fee Summary Table that have an average directional v/c exceeding 0.9011.
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
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 onand 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 exisitng 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 RivCoM 2045 No-Build scenario assigned traffic on the 2021 existing network using the same methodology as the existing year v/c.
11 The RivCoM 2021 Existing Network used for the TUMF Nexus Study analyses reflects the RivCoM 2018 base year network augmented to include highways facilities on the TUMF Network as they existed in December 2021. A second version of the base network was also developed adding only those facilities that had been identified on the 2016 TUMF Nexus study 2040 Build scenario that did not currently exist in December 2021 and therefore were not represented by a link(s) in the RivCoM base network. The Supplemental 2021 Existing Network was utilized as the basis for determining existing and future v/c for only those projects that did not currently exist on the 2021 TUMF Network.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 42 4. The proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development was determined by dividing the result of step three with the total 2045 No-Build scenario v/c exceeding 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 2045 No-Build compared to the 2018 Baseline v/c (up to a maximum of 100%).

The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs (including the related MSHCP obligation) totals $582.6 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 $63.0 million representing 28.9% 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 $382.9 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 $646.9 million. These improvements are needed to mitigate existing transportation deficiencies and therefore their costs cannot be assigned to new development through 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 $5.28 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 $4.24 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $3.87 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $154.8 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $53.9 million is 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 $161.2 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

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 43 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 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 45 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central Menifee Ethanac Goetz Murrieta $0 $0
Central Menifee Ethanac Murrieta I-215 $0 $0
Central Menifee Ethanac I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Central Menifee Ethanac Sherman Matthews $2,674,000 $2,674,000 Central Menifee Ethanac BNSF San Jacinto Branch railroad crossing $105,560,000 $105,560,000 Central Menifee Menifee SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson $1,307,000 $1,307,000 Central Menifee Menifee Salt Creek bridge $4,384,000 $4,384,000 Central Menifee Menifee Simpson Aldergate $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Aldergate Newport $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Newport Holland $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Holland Garbani $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Garbani Scott $4,353,000 $4,353,000 Central Menifee Menifee/Whitewood Scott Murrieta City Limit $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Goetz Murrieta $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Murrieta I-215 $1,130,000 $1,130,000 Central Menifee Newport I-215 Menifee $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Menifee Lindenberger $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Lindenberger SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0 Central Menifee Scott I-215 Briggs $8,635,000 $8,635,000 Central Menifee Scott I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta $4,388,000 $4,388,000 Central Menifee Scott Murrieta I-215 $16,949,000 $12,949,000 Central Menifee SR-74 Matthews Briggs $8,254,000 $8,254,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro I-215 Perris $13,420,000 $13,420,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Perris Nason $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Nason Moreno Beach $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Moreno Beach Gilman Springs $18,019,000 $18,019,000 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 Alessandro $7,291,000 $7,291,000 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 interchange $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Reche Vista Ironwood $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Ironwood Sunnymead $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $11,192,000 Central Moreno Valley Perris Sunnymead Cactus $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris Cactus Harley Knox $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Reche Vista Country Heacock $7,486,000 $3,799,000 Central Perris 11th/Case Perris Goetz $4,582,000 $4,582,000 Central Perris Case Goetz I-215 $20,876,000 $20,876,000 Central Perris Case San Jacinto River bridge $1,740,000 $1,235,000 Central Perris Ethanac Keystone Goetz $6,056,000 $6,056,000 Central Perris Ethanac San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 Central Perris Ethanac I-215 Sherman $5,316,000 $5,316,000 Central Perris Goetz Case Ethanac $1,507,000 $999,000
Central Perris Goetz San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $3,398,000 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) I-215 Perris $15,655,000 $15,655,000 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) I-215 interchange $0 $0 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) Perris Evans $22,985,000 $22,985,000 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Central Perris Perris Harley Knox Ramona $0 $0
Central Perris Perris Ramona Citrus $7,063,000 $7,063,000 Central Perris Perris Citrus Nuevo $0 $0
Central Perris Perris Nuevo 11th $6,927,000 $6,927,000
Central Perris Perris I-215 overcrossing bridge $0 $0
Central Perris Ramona I-215 Perris $5,039,000 $5,039,000 Central Perris Ramona I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $7,725,000 Central Perris Ramona Perris Evans $0 $0
Central Perris Ramona Evans Mid-County (2,800 ft E of Rider) $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74 (4th) Ellis I-215 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Ethanac SR-74 Keystone $4,666,000 $4,666,000 Central Unincorporated Gilman Springs Alessandro Bridge Road $30,601,000 $30,601,000 Central Unincorporated Menifee Nuevo SR-74 (Pinacate) $16,684,000 $16,684,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County Evans Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) $12,156,000 $12,156,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) Pico Avenue $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Pico Avenue Bridge Road $47,769,000 $47,769,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) San Jacinto River bridge $36,192,000 $36,192,000 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon San Bernardino County Reche Vista $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Reche Vista Reche Canyon Country $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Scott Briggs SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0 Central Unincorporated SR-74 Ethanac Ellis $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 Temescal Canyon $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 interchange $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Paseo Grande Lincoln $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Wardlow Wash bridge $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Lincoln California $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill California I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Green River SR-91 Dominguez Ranch $0 $0 Northwest Corona Green River Dominguez Ranch Palisades $0 $0 Northwest Corona Green River Palisades Paseo Grande $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman San Bernardino County 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek $648,000 $648,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Cucamonga Creek bridge $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek Harrison $866,000 $866,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Harrison Sumner $488,000 $488,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Sumner Scholar $7,625,000 $7,625,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Scholar A Street $119,000 $119,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman A Street Hamner $209,000 $209,000

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 46 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren SR-60 Bellegrave $23,928,000 $10,461,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren Bellegrave Santa Ana River $60,900,000 $0 Northwest Riverside Alessandro Arlington Trautwein $2,410,000 $2,410,000 Northwest Riverside Arlington La Sierra Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Arlington Magnolia Alessandro $46,465,000 $46,465,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Santa Ana River SR-91 $5,230,000 $4,392,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren SR-91 Mockingbird Canyon $39,493,000 $21,292,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Wood Trautwein $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Van Buren Trautwein Orange Terrace $7,574,000 $7,574,000 Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Trautwein Vista Grande $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Vista Grande I-215 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco El Sobrante Harley John $10,580,000 $9,817,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harley John Harvil $166,492,000 $166,492,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harvil I-215 $1,238,000 $1,238,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Canyon La Sierra $49,596,000 $35,953,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Wash bridge $4,872,000 $1,907,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco La Sierra El Sobrante $96,453,000 $96,453,000 Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Mockingbird Canyon Wood $67,429,000 $67,429,000 Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Orange Terrace I-215 $0 $0 Pass Banning Highland Springs Wilson (8th) Sun Lakes $0 $0 Pass Banning Highland Springs I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $32,516,000 Pass Banning Highland Springs Oak Valley (14th) Wilson (8th) $0 $0 Pass Banning Highland Springs Cherry Valley Oak Valley (14th) $0 $0 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 Morongo Trail (Apache Trail) $50,110,000 $50,110,000 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South San Gorgonio bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South UP/Hargrave railroad crossing $52,780,000 $52,780,000 Pass Beaumont Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) I-10 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero Oak Valley (San Timoteo Canyon) SR-60 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 interchange $63,061,000 $29,561,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero UP railroad crossing $40,020,000 $40,020,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero Noble Creek bridge $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 4th $0 $0
Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont) I-10 California $0 $0
Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont) I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $7,408,000 Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $59,773,000 Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley Roberts St Roberts Rd $3,053,000 $3,053,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Bellflower Noble $6,411,000 $6,411,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Highland Springs Bellflower $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Noble Roberts St $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley San Timoteo Wash bridge $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated SR-79 (Lamb Canyon) California Gilman Springs $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Warren Sanderson $7,726,000 $7,726,000 San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Sanderson State $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 Winchester Warren $35,208,000 $35,208,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona) Warren Sanderson $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona) Sanderson/SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) interchange $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Sanderson State $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona State Main $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Main Cedar $31,518,000 $26,928,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Cedar SR-74 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni SR-79 (Winchester) Warren $13,508,000 $13,508,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni San Diego Aqueduct bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Bridge Sanderson $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Bridge Warren $9,221,000 $9,221,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-74 Briggs SR-79 (Winchester) $15,417,000 $15,417,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) SR-74 (Florida) Domenigoni $13,901,000 $13,901,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) San Diego Aqueduct bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) Domenigoni Winchester $6,542,000 $6,542,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (San Jacinto Bypass) Mid-County (Ramona) SR-74 (Florida) $56,690,000 $56,690,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson) Gilman Springs Ramona $6,899,000 $2,555,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson) San Jacinto River bridge $19,488,000 $7,651,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Domenigoni Keller $65,022,000 $65,022,000

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 47 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Southwest Canyon Lake Goetz Railroad Canyon Newport $0 $0 Southwest Canyon Lake Railroad Canyon Canyon Hills Goetz $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 Canyon Hills $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 interchange $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 I-15 interchange $63,061,000 $24,162,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Copper Craft Toulon $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Toulon I-215 $2,076,000 $2,076,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith I-215 Whitewood $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Murrieta Hot Springs Winchester Creek $7,321,000 $7,321,000 Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Winchester Creek Margarita $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Menifee City Limit Keller $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Keller Clinton Keith $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Jefferson Diaz $3,929,000 $3,929,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Murrieta Creek bridge $5,846,000 $5,846,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Margarita Ynez $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Ynez Jefferson $5,010,000 $5,010,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) I-15 interchange $122,076,000 $122,076,000 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester) Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson $2,697,000 $2,697,000 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester) I-15 interchange $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Diaz) Cherry Rancho California $2,285,000 $2,285,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga) Rancho California SR-79 (Front) $23,629,000 $23,629,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga) I-15 interchange $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga) Murrieta Creek bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR-79 Eastern Bypass $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Whitewood SR-79 $5,539,000 $5,539,000 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Warm Springs Creek bridge $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated SR-74 I-15 Ethanac $27,699,000 $26,347,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Keller Thompson $34,213,000 $34,213,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Thompson La Alba $27,699,000 $27,699,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) La Alba Hunter $7,854,000 $3,042,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Hunter Murrieta Hot Springs $595,000 $442,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 Monte Vista $1,362,000 $1,362,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Monte Vista Sunset $24,818,000 $24,818,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $24,613,000 Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith Palomar I-15 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith I-15 Copper Craft $5,030,000 $0 Subtotal $2,331,921,000 $1,961,707,000

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 48 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central Menifee Briggs Newport Scott $0 $0
Central Menifee Briggs SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson $2,991,000 $2,991,000 Central Menifee Briggs Simpson Old Newport $5,430,000 $5,430,000 Central Menifee Briggs Salt Creek bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Central Menifee Garbani I-215 interchange $63,061,000 $42,483,000 Central Menifee Goetz Juanita Lesser Lane $11,378,000 $11,378,000 Central Menifee Goetz Newport Juanita $0 $0
Central Menifee Holland Murrieta Bradley $15,708,000 $15,708,000 Central Menifee Holland Bradley Haun $11,439,000 $11,439,000 Central Menifee Holland Haun Antelope $9,456,000 $9,456,000 Central Menifee Holland I-215 overcrossing bridge $9,744,000 $9,744,000 Central Menifee Holland Antelope Menifee $3,844,000 $3,844,000 Central Menifee McCall I-215 Aspel $5,354,000 $5,354,000 Central Menifee McCall I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee $2,288,000 $2,288,000 Central Menifee Murrieta Ethanac McCall $0 $0
Central Menifee Murrieta McCall Newport $7,967,000 $7,967,000 Central Menifee Murrieta Newport Bundy Canyon $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 Heacock $5,617,000 $5,617,000 Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day Ironwood SR-60 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 interchange $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 Eucalyptus $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus I-215 Towngate $8,843,000 $8,843,000 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Towngate Frederick $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Frederick Heacock $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Heacock Kitching $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Kitching Moreno Beach $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Moreno Beach Theodore $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Frederick SR-60 Alessandro $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock Cactus San Michele $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock Reche Vista Cactus $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock San Michele Harley Knox $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Ironwood SR-60 Day $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Ironwood Day Heacock $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Lasselle Alessandro John F Kennedy $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle John F Kennedy Oleander $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach Reche Canyon SR-60 $18,797,000 $18,797,000 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach SR-60 overcrossing bridge $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Nason SR-60 Alessandro $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass Ironwood SR-60 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Ironwood $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Locust $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Redlands Locust Alessandro $39,789,000 $39,789,000 Central Moreno Valley Redlands SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 Eucalyptus $3,966,000 $3,966,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Central Perris Ellis Goetz Evans $9,526,000 $9,526,000
Central Perris Evans Oleander Ramona $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Ramona Morgan $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Morgan Rider $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Rider Placentia $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Placentia Nuevo $6,492,000 $6,492,000 Central Perris Evans Nuevo Ellis $17,705,000 $17,705,000 Central Perris Evans San Jacinto River bridge $11,136,000 $11,136,000 Central Perris Evans I-215 bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Central Perris Goetz Lesser Ethanac $7,845,000 $7,845,000 Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 Indian $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Perris $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Perris Redlands $0 $0
Central Perris Nuevo I-215 Murrieta $16,971,000 $16,971,000 Central Perris Nuevo I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $19,736,000 Central Perris Nuevo Murrieta Dunlap $4,367,000 $4,367,000 Central Perris Nuevo Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 Ethanac $0 $0
Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $21,835,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 Mt Vernon $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $11,912,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) BNSF railroad crossing $20,010,000 $20,010,000 Central Unincorporated Ellis Post SR-74 $11,550,000 $11,550,000 Central Unincorporated Mount Vernon/CETAP Corridor Center Pigeon Pass $2,582,000 $2,582,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo Dunlap Menifee $8,737,000 $2,505,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 Central Unincorporated Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Mount Vernon $8,106,000 $8,106,000 Central Unincorporated Post Santa Rosa Mine Ellis $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Redlands San Timoteo Canyon Locust $0 $0

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 49 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest Corona 6th SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Corona Auto Center Railroad SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco Bedford Canyon I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Hidden Valley Norco Hills McKinley $0 $0 Northwest Corona Lincoln Parkridge Ontario $0 $0
Northwest Corona Magnolia 6th Sherborn $7,054,000 $6,419,000 Northwest Corona Magnolia Temescal Creek bridge $4,176,000 $3,580,000 Northwest Corona Magnolia Sherborn Rimpau $0 $0
Northwest Corona Magnolia Rimpau Ontario $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Grand Ontario $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Ontario Foothill $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Hidden Valley Parkridge $5,314,000 $4,389,000 Northwest Corona Main Parkridge SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main SR-91 S. Grand $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Hidden Valley Promenade $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley Promenade SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Arlington Channel bridge $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley BNSF railroad crossing $105,560,000 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario I-15 El Cerrito $13,451,000 $13,451,000 Northwest Corona Ontario Lincoln Buena Vista $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Buena Vista Main $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Main Kellogg $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Kellogg Fullerton $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Fullerton Rimpau $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Rimpau I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Railroad Auto Club Buena Vista $0 $0
Northwest Corona Railroad BNSF railroad crossing $40,020,000 $40,020,000 Northwest Corona Railroad Buena Vista Main (at Grand) $0 $0 Northwest Corona River Corydon Main $0 $0
Northwest Corona Serfas Club SR-91 Green River $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Archibald Remington River $3,382,000 $3,382,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Mission Bellegrave $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Bellegrave Amberhill $199,000 $199,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Amberhill Limonite $2,787,000 $2,787,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Limonite Schleisman $991,000 $991,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Schleisman Santa Ana River $5,533,000 $3,675,000 Northwest Eastvale Hellman Schleisman Walters $419,000 $419,000 Northwest Eastvale Hellman Walters River $21,503,000 $21,503,000 Northwest Eastvale Hellman Cucamonga Creek bridge $3,828,000 $3,828,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 Eastvale Gateway $289,000 $289,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 interchange $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Eastvale Gateway Hamner $255,000 $255,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Hamner Sumner $1,094,000 $1,094,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Sumner Harrison $497,000 $497,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Harrison Archibald $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Archibald Hellman (Keller SBD Co.) $2,208,000 $2,208,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge $13,920,000 $0 Northwest Eastvale River Hellman Archibald $5,948,000 $5,948,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Armstrong San Bernardino County Valley $6,192,000 $6,192,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Bellegrave Cantu-Galleano Ranch Van Buren $464,000 $464,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Cantu-Galleano Ranch Wineville Bellegrave $793,000 $793,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda Philadelphia SR-60 $1,515,000 $989,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda SR-60 Limonite $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite I-15 Wineville $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Wineville Etiwanda $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Etiwanda Van Buren $2,981,000 $2,981,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Van Buren Clay $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Clay Riverview $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Rubidoux Santa Ana River $5,181,000 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Santa Ana River bridge $13,920,000 $6,204,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission Milliken SR-60 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission SR-60 Santa Ana River $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Riverview Limonite Mission $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux Pine Mission $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $9,051,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Valley Armstrong Mission $0 $0
Northwest Norco 1st Parkridge Mountain $0 $0
Northwest Norco 1st Mountain Hamner $0 $0
Northwest Norco 2nd River I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 6th Hamner California $0 $0
Northwest Norco 6th I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $3,489,000 Northwest Norco Arlington Crestview Fairhaven $4,342,000 $4,342,000 Northwest Norco California Arlington 6th $15,237,000 $12,525,000 Northwest Norco Corydon River 5th $0 $0
Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River bridge $33,408,000 $11,455,000 Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River Hidden Valley $49,591,000 $49,591,000 Northwest Norco Hidden Valley I-15 Norco Hills $0 $0
Northwest Norco Hidden Valley Hamner I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Norco Norco Corydon Hamner $0 $0
Northwest Norco North California Crestview $0 $0
Northwest Norco River Archibald Corydon $1,743,000 $1,109,000

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 50 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest Riverside 14th Market Martin Luther King $0 $0 Northwest Riverside 1st Market Main $0 $0
Northwest Riverside 3rd SR-91 I-215 $1,941,000 $1,941,000 Northwest Riverside 3rd BNSF railroad crossing $105,560,000 $30,560,000 Northwest Riverside Adams Arlington SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 Lincoln $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 interchange $32,698,000 $3,262,000 Northwest Riverside Arlington Fairhaven La Sierra $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Buena Vista Santa Ana River Redwood $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Martin Luther King Central $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Central Country Club $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Country Club Via Vista $4,996,000 $1,593,000 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Via Vista Alessandro $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Chicago I-215/SR-60 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Alessandro SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Van Buren Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Chicago Alessandro Spruce $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Chicago Spruce Columbia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Columbia Main Iowa $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Columbia I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $9,050,000 Northwest Riverside Iowa Center 3rd $30,272,000 $30,272,000 Northwest Riverside Iowa 3rd University $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Iowa University Martin Luther King $0 $0 Northwest Riverside JFK Trautwein Wood $1,880,000 $1,880,000 Northwest Riverside La Sierra Arlington SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside La Sierra SR-91 Indiana $192,000 $192,000 Northwest Riverside La Sierra Indiana Victoria $778,000 $778,000 Northwest Riverside Lemon (NB One way) Mission Inn University $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Van Buren Jefferson $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Jefferson Washington $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Washington Victoria $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Madison SR-91 Victoria $853,000 $853,000 Northwest Riverside Madison BNSF railroad crossing $20,010,000 $20,010,000 Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF Railroad Tyler $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF railroad crossing $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia Tyler Harrison $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia Harrison 14th $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Main 1st San Bernardino County $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Market 14th Santa Ana River $9,491,000 $9,491,000 Northwest Riverside Martin Luther King 14th I-215/SR-60 $24,031,000 $24,031,000 Northwest Riverside Mission Inn Redwood Lemon $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Redwood (SB One way) Mission Inn University $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Trautwein Alessandro Van Buren $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 interchange $63,061,000 $21,814,000 Northwest Riverside Tyler Magnolia Hole $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler Hole Wells $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler Wells Arlington $0 $0
Northwest Riverside University Redwood SR-91 $859,000 $859,000 Northwest Riverside University SR-91 I-215/SR-60 $2,067,000 $2,067,000 Northwest Riverside Victoria Lincoln Arlington $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Victoria Madison Washington $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Washington Victoria Hermosa $27,018,000 $27,018,000 Northwest Riverside Wood JFK Van Buren $3,053,000 $3,053,000 Northwest Riverside Wood Van Buren Bergamont $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Wood Bergamont Krameria $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Cantu-Galleano Ranch Hamner Wineville $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Dos Lagos (Weirick) Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated El Cerrito I-15 Ontario $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated El Sobrante Mockingbird Canyon Cajalco $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Washington Scottsdale $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Scottsdale Cajalco $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra Victoria El Sobrante $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra El Sobrante Cajalco $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Mockingbird Canyon Van Buren El Sobrante $20,871,000 $20,871,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon El Cerrito Tuscany $3,168,000 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Tuscany Dos Lagos $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dos Lagos Leroy $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Leroy Dawson Canyon $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dawson Canyon I-15 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 Park Canyon $14,329,000 $14,329,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Washington Hermosa Harley John $12,787,000 $12,787,000 Northwest Unincorporated Wood Krameria Cajalco $12,537,000 $12,537,000

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 51 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Pass Banning 8th Wilson I-10 $0 $0
Pass Banning Lincoln Sunset SR-243 $0 $0
Pass Banning Ramsey I-10 8th $0 $0
Pass Banning Ramsey 8th Highland Springs $0 $0
Pass Banning SR-243 I-10 Wesley $0 $0
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Home Sunset $30,502,000 $30,502,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Smith Creek bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Montgomery Creek bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Springs Highland Home $0 $0 Pass Banning Sunset Ramsey Lincoln $0 $0
Pass Banning Sunset I-10 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Pass Banning Wilson Highland Home 8th $0 $0
Pass Banning Wilson Highland Springs Highland Home $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 1st Viele Pennsylvania $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 1st Pennsylvania Highland Springs $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 6th I-10 Highland Springs $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Desert Lawn Champions Oak Valley (STC) $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Highland Springs Pennsylvania $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Pennsylvania Oak View $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Oak View I-10 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $62,401,000 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC) UP Railroad Tukwet Canyon $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC) Tukwet Canyon I-10 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania 6th 1st $6,588,000 $6,588,000 Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania I-10 interchange $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Bryant County Line Avenue L $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Calimesa County Line I-10 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Calimesa I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000 Pass Calimesa County Line 7th Bryant $0 $0
Pass Calimesa County Line I-10 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Pass Calimesa Desert Lawn Palmer Champions $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Singleton Avenue L Condit $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Singleton Condit Roberts $12,972,000 $12,972,000 Pass Calimesa Singleton I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $0 Pass Calimesa Tukwet Canyon Roberts Rd Palmer $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Live Oak Canyon Oak Valley (STC) San Bernardino County $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon San Bernardino County UP Railroad $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon UP Railroad railroad crossing $52,780,000 $52,780,000 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Acacia Menlo $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Domenigoni Stetson $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson RR Crossing Acacia $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Stetson RR Crossing $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Menlo Esplanade $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida) Warren Cawston $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida) Columbia Ramona $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74/SR-79 (Florida) Cawston Columbia $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Domenigoni Chambers $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Chambers Stetson $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Florida Esplanade $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Stetson Florida $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Cawston State $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Warren Cawston $4,357,000 $4,357,000 San Jacinto Hemet Warren Esplanade Domenigoni $19,926,000 $19,926,000 San Jacinto Hemet Warren Salt Creek bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Mountain State $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade State Warren $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Sanderson Ramona Esplanade $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (North Ramona) State San Jacinto $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto) North Ramona Blvd 7th $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto) 7th SR-74 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Ramona Esplanade $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto State Gilman Springs Quandt Ranch $3,317,000 $3,317,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto State San Jacinto River bridge $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Quandt Ranch Ramona $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Warren Ramona Esplanade $13,469,000 $13,469,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Sanderson State $11,097,000 $11,097,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Massacre Canyon Wash bridge $1,392,000 $1,392,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) SR-74 (Florida) Domenigoni $0 $0

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 52 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Southwest Lake Elsinore Corydon Mission Grand $3,336,000 $3,336,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Diamond Mission I-15 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Franklin (integral to Railroad
Canyon Interchange)
I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Lincoln Toft $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Toft SR-74 (Riverside) $3,512,000 $3,512,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 Lincoln $39,817,000 $32,726,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $15,771,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake Temescal Wash bridge $2,506,000 $1,150,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Mission Railroad Canyon Bundy Canyon $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 Lake $7,850,000 $7,850,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols Temescal Wash bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Collier/Riverside) I-15 Lakeshore $24,303,000 $24,303,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Grand) Riverside SR-74 (Ortega) $9,733,000 $3,691,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Riverside) Lakeshore Grand $20,175,000 $20,175,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon I-15 Lake $7,411,000 $7,411,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon Temescal Wash bridge $3,480,000 $3,480,000 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jefferson I-15 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks I-15 Jackson $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jackson Clinton Keith $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jackson Whitewood Ynez $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Palomar Nutmeg $1,562,000 $1,562,000 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Nutmeg Murrieta Hot Springs $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Murrieta Hot Springs Cherry $30,634,000 $30,634,000 Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 Whitewood $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 interchange $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Los Alamos Jefferson I-215 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson I-215 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs I-215 Margarita $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Margarita SR-79 (Winchester) $4,057,000 $3,899,000 Southwest Murrieta Nutmeg Jefferson Clinton Keith $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Clinton Keith Los Alamos $2,708,000 $2,708,000 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Los Alamos Murrieta Hot Springs $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Murrieta Hot Springs Jackson $4,629,000 $4,629,000 Southwest Murrieta Ynez Jackson SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Murrieta Hot Springs Calle Chapos $816,000 $816,000 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Calle Chapos La Serena $696,000 $696,000 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage La Serena Rancho California $904,000 $904,000 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Rancho California Pauba $846,000 $846,000 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Pauba SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) $725,000 $725,000 Southwest Temecula Jefferson Cherry Rancho California $2,285,000 $2,285,000 Southwest Temecula Margarita Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) $7,644,000 $7,644,000 Southwest Temecula Old Town Front Rancho California I-15/SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Via Gilberto $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy Via Gilberto Pechanga Pkwy $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Jefferson Margarita $18,254,000 $18,181,000 Southwest Temecula Rancho California I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Margarita Butterfield Stage $0 $0 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) I-15 Pechanga Pkwy $0 $0 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Pechanga Pkwy Butterfield Stage $3,065,000 $3,065,000 Southwest Unincorporated Briggs Scott SR-79 (Winchester) $6,509,000 $6,509,000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Tucalota Creek bridge $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage (Pourroy) Auld Murrieta Hot Springs $23,076,000 $23,076,000 Southwest Unincorporated Grand Ortega Corydon $68,025,000 $68,025,000 Southwest Unincorporated Horsethief Canyon Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Indian Truck Trail Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Winchester) Pourroy $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Pala Pechanga San Diego County $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Pourroy SR-79 (Winchester) Auld $2,236,000 $2,236,000 Southwest Unincorporated Rancho California Butterfield Stage Glen Oaks $87,369,000 $87,369,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Horsethief Canyon Wash bridge $3,340,000 $3,340,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Truck Trail I-15 $15,739,000 $15,739,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Wash bridge $1,462,000 $1,462,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Mission I-15 $9,704,000 $9,704,000 Southwest Wildomar Grand Corydon Wildomar Trail $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Mission Bundy Canyon Palomar $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Palomar Clinton Keith Washington $3,227,000 $3,227,000 Southwest Wildomar Palomar Mission Clinton Keith $13,493,000 $13,493,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 Baxter $1,281,000 $1,281,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $27,858,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Baxter Palomar $11,316,000 $11,316,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Palomar Grand $0 $0
Subtotal $2,508,329,000 $1,913,028,000
Totals Network $4,840,250,000 $3,874,735,000
Transit $217,870,000 $154,831,000
Administration $161,183,000 $161,183,000
MSHCP $64,606,000 $53,859,000
TOTAL $5,283,909,000 $4,244,608,000

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 53 Table 4.5 – TUMF Transit Cost Estimates

AREA PLAN
DIST
LEAD
AGENCY PROJECT NAME LOCATION UNITS (number/ length in miles) UNIT COST TOTAL MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central RTA Menifee Mobility Hub Menifee 1 $7,465,000 $7,465,000 $5,305,000 Northwest RTA Riverside Mobility Hub at Vine Street Riverside 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 Central RTA Moreno Valley Mobility Hub(s) Moreno Valley 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 Northwest RTA Jurupa Valley Mobility Hub(s) Jurupa Valley 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 Pass RTA Pass Area Mobility Hub(s) Banning 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 Southwest RTA Lake Elsinore / Canyon Lake Mobility
Hub(s) Lake Elsinore 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 San Jacinto RTA Hemet Mobility Hub Hemet 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 San Jacinto RTA San Jacinto Mobility Hub San Jacinto 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 San Jacinto RTA MSJC Mobility Hub San Jacinto 1 $1,245,000 $1,245,000 $885,000 Regional RTA ZEB Technology Enhancements Various locations region wide 10 $100,000 $1,000,000 $711,000 Northwest RTA Regional Operations and Maintenance
Facility Riverside 1 $62,186,000 $62,186,000 $44,192,000 Regional RTA Annual Transit Enhancements Program Various locations region wide 290 $50,000 $14,500,000 $10,304,000 Northwest RTA HQTC Improvements UCR, Riverside to Perris 42 $75,000 $3,150,000 $2,239,000 Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Small Buses/Vans Various locations region wide 30 $160,000 $4,800,000 $3,411,000 Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Medium Buses Various locations region wide 20 $300,000 $6,000,000 $4,264,000 Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Large Buses Various locations region wide 29 $1,271,000 $36,859,000 $26,194,000 Regional RTA COA Study Various locations region wide 2 $1,150,000 $2,300,000 $1,634,000 TOTAL $217,870,000 $154,831,000

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 2021 existing network in RivCoM and the model was run with 2045 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 2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build scenarios were again calculated for the 2045 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 2045 TUMF Build comparison results are provided in Table 4.6. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix H.

As shown in Table 4.6, the 2045 peak period VMT on all 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 TUMF arterial network experiencing LOS E or worse during the peak periods will be reduced to 32% (which is still above the level experienced in 2018). It should be noted that the total VMT on the arterial system increases because of freeway trips being diverted to the arterial system to benefit from the proposed TUMF improvements.

Despite a greater share of the total peak period VMT in 2045, the arterial system can more efficiently accommodate the increased demand with the proposed TUMF improvements. Although peak period VMT on the TUMF improved arterial system increases by approximately 6% in 2045 compared to the No Build condition, VHT on the arterial system remains almost constant. Additionally, a benefit is observed on the

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 54 freeway system with VMT and VHT being reduced following TUMF Network improvements. By completing TUMF improvements, the total VHD experienced by all area motorists would be reduced during the peak period by over 7% from the levels that would be experienced under the 2045 No-Build scenario. These results highlight the effectiveness of the TUMF Program to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development commensurate with the level of impact being created.

Table 4.6 – Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build Scenarios to 2045 TUMF Build Scenario) Measure of Performance*
Peak Periods (Total)
2018 Existing 2045 No-Build 2045 Build
VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 23,284,724 29,897,254 30,160,328 VMT - FREEWAYS 13,514,522 15,490,284 15,418,548
VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 9,770,202 14,406,970 14,741,781
TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 6,216,985 8,597,200 9,096,417 VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 541,350 915,439 895,725
VHT - FREEWAYS 263,792 399,128 388,847
VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 277,558 516,311 506,878
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 174,455 320,869 321,062
VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 108,900 338,056 313,288
VHD - FREEWAYS 66,156 170,649 161,528
VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 42,745 167,407 151,760
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 33,249 124,863 114,451
VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 5,605,070 13,369,483 12,788,016 VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS 4,725,471 9,316,891 9,115,937
VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 879,599 4,052,592 3,672,079 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 765,782 3,184,133 2,929,288 % of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 12% 37% 32%
* Source: RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network as existing in December 2021and RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network plus future TUMF network projects.

NOTES:

Volume is adjusted by PCE factor
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios).

LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 55 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 population, household 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 1.91 million in 2018 to a future level of about 2.53 million in 2045, while employment is projected to grow from a level of about 570,000 in 2018 to approximately 846,000 in 2045 (as shown in Table 2.3).  Continuing growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways.

Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.1). Without improvements to the transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy delays.
 The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development in Western Riverside County.

Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since longer-distance trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western Riverside County.
 Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to alleviate the future congestion caused by new development.

To maintain transportation service closer to 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 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 56 roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, grade separation of at-grade rail crossings, or the installation of new ITS to improve traffic flows. 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 over 2%, reduce peak period vehicle hours of delay (VHD) by over 7%, and reduce the share of traffic experiencing congestion in the peak periods by over 4% (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, 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 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 57 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 2045 No-Build scenario trip tables from RivCoM.

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 RivCoM outputs used to develop the regional trip distribution profile shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2.

Table 5.1 - 2045 No-Build Peak Period Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone

To
From Central Hemet/San Jacinto Northwest Pass Southwest Outside WRCOG TOTAL Central 417,608 23,474 89,780 6,301 55,101 57,558 649,822 Hemet/San Jacinto 29,401 209,005 8,647 8,432 16,081 18,078 289,645 Northwest 58,578 2,684 743,234 2,687 11,032 196,041 1,014,257 Pass 8,068 7,585 6,114 110,385 908 32,334 165,395
Southwest 55,812 16,232 32,852 1,976 667,255 62,713 836,839 Outside WRCOG 33,907 7,574 192,712 24,490 33,867 292,550 TOTAL 603,375 266,554 1,073,340 154,271 784,244 366,724 3,248,507 Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No-Build scenario
Table 5.2 – 2045 No-Build Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone

To
From Central Hemet/San Jacinto Northwest Pass Southwest Outside WRCOG TOTAL Central 64.3% 3.6% 13.8% 1.0% 8.5% 8.9% 100%
Hemet/San Jacinto 10.2% 72.2% 3.0% 2.9% 5.6% 6.2% 100%
Northwest 5.8% 0.3% 73.3% 0.3% 1.1% 19.3% 100%
Pass 4.9% 4.6% 3.7% 66.7% 0.5% 19.5% 100%
Southwest 6.7% 1.9% 3.9% 0.2% 79.7% 7.5% 100%
Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No-Build scenario

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 58 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 interregional travel would occur on the freeway system. Peak period trips between zones (regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Peak period trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the secondary network in proportion to their lane-miles, since roadways on both networks serve intra-zonal trips. The backbone network includes approximately 41.1% of the lane-miles on the future TUMF system, and the secondary network includes approximately 58.9% of the lane-miles.

The backbone network is therefore assigned all the inter-zonal peak period trips plus

41.1% of the intra-zonal peak period trips. The secondary network is assigned 58.9% of the intra-zonal peak period trips and none of the inter-zonal peak period trips. The overall result is that 51.1% of the regional travel is assigned to the backbone network and 48.9% is assigned to the secondary network.

Table 5.3 - Backbone-Secondary Network Share Calculation Calculation Value Description Input Values Backbone
Value
Backbone
Share
Secondary
Value
Secondary
Share
Total Western Riverside County
Peak Period Vehicle Trips 3,248,507
Less Internal/External Peak Period
Vehicle Trips -659,273
Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips
Internal to Western Riverside
County
2,589,234
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between
TUMF Zones 441,747
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within
TUMF Zones 2,147,487
TUMF Future Network Lane-Miles 3,029.9 1,243.9 41.1% 1,786.0 58.9% Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between
TUMF Zones 441,747 441,747 100.0% 0 0.0%
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within
TUMF Zones (as share of intrazonal trips) 2,147,487 882,332 41.1% 1,265,155 58.9% Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips
Assigned 2,589,234 1,324,079 51.1% 1,265,155 48.9%
Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No-Build scenario; TUMF Nexus Study Exhibit H-1

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 59 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 daily VMT between the 2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build Scenarios from RivCoM were aggregated by trip purpose. RivCoM produces person trips (irrespective of mode choice) on the basis of five trip purposes: home-based-work (HBW), homebased-other (HBO), home-based-school (HBS), non-home-based (NHB), and homebased-university (HBU).

NCHRP Report #187 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978) details operational travel estimation techniques that are universally used for the travel demand modeling. Chapter 2 of this report, which details trip generation estimation, states that "HBW (Home Based Work) and HBNW (Home Based Non-Work) trips are generated at the households, whereas the NHB (Non-Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere." In accordance with NCHRP Report #187, growth in daily VMT was aggregated into homebased growth in daily VMT (combining the four home-based purposes: HBW, HBO, HBSC and HBU) and non-home-based growth in daily VMT. The home-based growth in daily VMT represents 77.7% of the total future growth in daily VMT and the non-home-based growth in daily VMT represent 22.3% of the total future growth in daily VMT, as shown in Table 5.4. Appendix J includes the RivCoM outputs used to develop the trip purpose summary in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 - Daily VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2018 - 2045) VEHICLE TRIP PURPOSE 2018 EXISTING

DAILY VMT
2045 NO-BUILD

DAILY VMT

DAILY VMT
GROWTH

DAILY VMT
GROWTH
SHARE
Home-Based-Work 81,121,525 98,818,811 17,697,286 31.8%
Home-Based-Other 114,840,696 138,710,519 23,869,822 42.9% Home-Based-School (K-12) 8,592,941 9,230,272 637,331 1.1% Non-Home-Based 61,534,566 73,907,099 12,372,533 22.3%
Home-Based-University 5,377,197 6,400,662 1,023,465 1.8% TOTAL 271,466,925 327,067,363 55,600,437 100.00%
Home-Based Trips
(Residential Uses) 43,227,904 77.7%
Non-Home-Based Trips
(Non-Residential Uses) 12,372,533 22.3%
Based on RivCoM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023 and RivCoM Year 2045 No Build Scenario, November 2023

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 60 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 $5.28 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals $382.9 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development represent $646.9 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $4.24 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 $4.24 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 77.7% ($3.30 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 22.3% ($946.5 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 $3.30 billion. Since this future transportation system improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through the Year 2045, the fee will be spread between the residential developments projected to be constructed between 2018 and 2045. The projected residential growth from year 2018 to 2045 is 257,826 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 2020 RTP/SCS forecasts included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to constitute 65.0% of the growth in residential dwelling units in the region between 2018 and 2045.

Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021) show that, on average, single-family dwelling units generate 0.99 vehicle trips per dwelling unit per hour in the PM peak hour, whereas apartments, condominiums and townhouses (considered to be representative of higher density multi-family dwelling units) generate a median of 0.50 vehicle trips per unit per hour in the PM peak hour. The growth in dwelling units for single-family and multi-family, respectively, were multiplied by the corresponding trip generation rates to determine

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 61 the weighted proportion of the change in trips attributable to each use type as the basis for determining the per unit fee required to levy the necessary $3.20 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
Residential Sector
2018
Dwelling
Units
2045
Dwelling
Units
Dwelling
Unit
Change
Trip
Generation
Rate
Trip Change
Percentage
of Trip
Change
Fee/DU
Single-Family 397,407 564,898 167,491 0.99 165,816 78.6% $15,476 Multi-Family 157,166 247,501 90,335 0.50 45,168 21.4% $7,816 Total 554,573 812,399 257,826 210,984 100.0%
Household data based on SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS;
Trip Generation based on ITE Trip Generation (2021).

Consistent with the socio-economic forecasts developed by SCAG and the trip generation basis to assess the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development, the residential fee calculation for TUMF reflects a uniform fee per dwelling unit for two categories as described previously: single-family residential and multi-family residential. On September 28, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsome signed Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602) approving several changes to the Mitigation Fee Act, including the additional of §66016.5 to the California Government Code (CGC). CGC §66016.5(a)(5)(A) states “A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development.…” unless certain findings are made. These findings include:
“(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on housing development project.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
(iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.”
To address these provisions of AB 602, WRCOG analyzed the trip generation characteristics of single-family and multi-family residential dwelling units of various sizes to determine whether the TUMF should be imposed based on the square footage of the respective housing type. The findings of the analyses for single-family and multi-family, respectively, were summarized in technical memoranda that are included in Appendix K. Based on the findings of the analyses, WRCOG has determined that the fee for single-family residential units should be adjusted in four tiers to correlate to the trip generation characteristics associated with various ranges of single-family housing sizes to demonstrate compliance with AB 602. The tiers reflecting the adjustments to the

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 62 standard single-family residential fee per dwelling unit (as calculated in Table 6.1) for differing ranges of single-family dwelling unit sizes are summarized in Table 6.2.

Adjustments to the standard uniform fair-share single-family residential fee to account for variations in trip generation rates based on the size of the units will be made at the time of determining the fee obligation consistent with the process outlined further in the WRCOG TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook.

Table 6.2 – Single-Family Residential Fee Adjustments by Unit Size Adjustment Tier Housing Unit Size Range (in square feet) Base Fee Adjustment Tier 1 Less than or equal to 1,800 80%
Tier 2 1,801 to 2,300 90%
Tier 3 2,301 to 2,700 100%
Tier 4 More than 2,700 125%
For multi-family residential units, WRCOG determined that the fee can be imposed on all multi-family units uniformly consistent with the conclusions of the analysis of multifamily trip generation rates by unit size, which demonstrated little variation in trip generation rates across the range of multi-family residential unit sizes. Therefore, the multi-family residential fee, as calculated in Table 6.2, can be applied uniformly to all multi-family residential units under the TUMF program.

6.2 Non-Residential Fees
The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new non-residential development through the TUMF is $946.5 million. Estimates of employment by sector were obtained from the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS socioeconomic data included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B. From the 2045 employment forecast, the amount of employee growth in each sector was calculated. The employment figures were then translated into square footage of new development using typical ratios of square feet per employee derived from four sources including: Cordoba Corporation/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas (PBQD), Land Use Density Conversion Factors For Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20, 1990; Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange County Subarea Model Guidelines Manual, June 2001; SCAG, Employment Density Study, October 31, 2001; and the County of Riverside, General Plan, as amended December 15, 2015. Worksheets showing the development of the TUMF employee conversion factors and the application of the conversion factors to calculate the square footage of future new non-residential development in Western Riverside County are included in Appendix L.

To account for the differences in trip generation between various types of nonresidential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation rate for each sector. Typical trip generation rates per employee were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation – 11th Edition (2021), and were weighted based on a calculated value of trips per employee as derived from the

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 63 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 – 0.6 PM peak hour trips per employee, Retail – 1.8 PM peak hour trips per employee, Service – 1.2 PM peak hour trips per employee, and Government/Public –

2.1 PM peak hour trips per employee12. These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new tripmaking, and the $946.5 million was then allocated among the non-residential categories based on the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate nonresidential 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 6.3.

Table 6.3 - Fee Calculation for Non-Residential Share
Non-Residential Sector Employment
Change
Trip
Generation
Rate per
Employee
Trip Change
Percentage
of Trip
Change
Change in
Square Feet of
Gross Floor
Area
Fee/SF
Industrial 76,581 0.6 45,949 15.1% 61,489,565 $2.33
Retail 13,115 1.8 23,607 7.8% 6,557,500 $11.21
Service 174,255 1.2 209,106 68.8% 66,735,957 $9.76
Government/Public 12,071 2.1 25,349 8.3% 3,420,665 $23.07 Total 276,022 304,011 100.0% 138,203,688
Employment Change data based on SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS; Trip Generation based on ITE (2021); Change in Square Feet conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990), OCTA (2001), SCAG (2001) and County of Riverside (2015). 12 The median trip generation rate for ‘Retail’ and ‘Service’ was reduced to reflect the influence of pass-by trips using the weekday PM peak median pass-by trip rate for select uses as derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) (September 2021).

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 64 7.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, 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 because 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
Change Fee Per Unit Total Revenue ($ million)
Single Family Residential DU 167,491 $15,476 $2,592.0
Multi Family Residential DU 90,335 $7,816 $706.1
Industrial SF GFA 61,489,565 $2.33 $143.1
Retail SF GFA 6,557,500 $11.21 $73.5
Service SF GFA 66,735,957 $9.76 $651.1
Government/Public SF GFA 3,420,665 $23.07 $78.9
MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $4,244.6

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 65 8.0 APPENDICES
The following Appendices incorporate the extent of materials used to support the development of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study and, where appropriate, specifically the 2024 Update. The respective Appendices also incorporate an explanation of the methodology and assumptions used to develop the various elements of the Nexus Study.

These Appendices represent a compilation of materials derived from a variety of technical resources. Each of the following Appendices relate to the development of a specific element of the Nexus Study. These Appendices are as follows:

Appendix A - List of WRCOG Committees
Appendix B - Western Riverside County Population and Employment Growth 2018 – 2045
Appendix C - Western Riverside County Traffic Growth 2018 – 2045 Appendix D - Western Riverside County Transit System Ridership 2018 – 2045 Appendix E - Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials Performance Measures
Appendix F - TUMF Network Cost Assumptions
Appendix G - TUMF 2024 Program Update Disposition of Network Change Requests Appendix H - TUMF Network Cost Estimate and Evaluation
Appendix I - Western Riverside County Regional Trip Distribution Appendix J - Western Riverside County Regional Trip Purpose Appendix K - Residential Fee Calculation
Appendix L - Non-Residential Fee Calculation

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 A-1
Appendix A - List of WRCOG Committees
WRCOG Executive Committee
Sheri Flynn City of Banning
Mike Lara City of Beaumont
Wendy Hewitt City of Calimesa
Mark Terry City of Canyon Lake
Jacque Casillas (2nd Vice-Chair) City of Corona
Christian Dinco City of Eastvale
Jackie Peterson City of Hemet
Chris Barajas (Past Chair) City of Jurupa Valley
Brian Tisdale City of Lake Elsinore
Bob Karwin City of Menifee
Elena Baca-Santa Cruz City of Moreno Valley
Lisa DeForest City of Murrieta
Kevin Bash City of Norco
Rita Rogers (Chair) City of Perris
Chuck Conder City of Riverside
Crystal Ruiz City of San Jacinto
James Stewart City of Temecula
Joseph Morabito City of Wildomar
Kevin Jeffries County of Riverside Dist. 1
Karen Spiegel County of Riverside Dist. 2
Chuck Washington County of Riverside Dist. 3
Yxstian Gutierrez County of Riverside Dist. 5
Phil Paule Eastern Municipal Water District
Dr. Edwin Gomez Riverside County Superintendent of
Schools (ex-officio)
Brenda Dennstedt (Vice-Chair) Western Water

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 A-2
WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee
Doug Schulze City of Banning
Elizabeth Gibbs City of Beaumont
Will Kolbow City of Calimesa
Aaron Brown City of Canyon Lake
Brett Channing City of Corona
Mark Orme City of Eastvale
Mark Prestwich City of Hemet
Rod Butler (Past Chair) City of Jurupa Valley
Jason Simpson City of Lake Elsinore
Armando Villa City of Menifee
Mike Lee City of Moreno Valley
Kim Summers City of Murrieta
Lori Sassoon City of Norco
Clara Miramontes (Chair) City of Perris
Mike Futrell City of Riverside
Rob Johnson City of San Jacinto
Aaron Adams City of Temecula
Dan York City of Wildomar
Jeff Van Wagenen County of Riverside
Joe Mouawad Eastern Municipal Water District
Grace Martin March Joint Power Authority
Matt Snellings Riverside County Office of Education
Craig Miller Western Water

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 A-3
WRCOG Planning Directors’ Committee
no new appointment made (as of 07/24/24) City of Banning Carole Kendrick City of Beaumont
Kelly Lucia City of Calimesa
Jim Morrisey City of Canyon Lake
Joanne Coletta City of Corona
David Murray City of Eastvale
Monique Alaniz-Flejter City of Hemet
Joe Perez (Chair) City of Jurupa Valley
Damaris Abraham City of Lake Elsinore
Cheryl Kitzerow City of Menifee
Sean Kelleher (2nd Vice-Chair) City of Moreno Valley
David Chantarangsu City of Murrieta
Alma Robles City of Norco
Kenneth Phung (Vice-Chair) City of Perris
Judy Eguez City of Riverside
Travis Randel City of San Jacinto
Matt Peters City of Temecula
Matthew Bassi City of Wildomar
John Hildebrand County of Riverside
Jeffrey Smith March Joint Powers Authority
Jennifer Nguyen Riverside Transit Agency
Ryan Shaw Western Water

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 A-4
WRCOG Public Works Committee
Art Vela City of Banning
Robert Vestal City of Beaumont
Michael Thornton City of Calimesa
Stuart McKibben City of Canyon Lake
Savat Khamphou (Vice-Chair) City of Corona
Jimmy Chung City of Eastvale
Noah Rau City of Hemet
Paul Toor (Chair) City of Jurupa Valley
Remon Habib City of Lake Elsinore
Nick Fidler City of Menifee
Melissa Walker City of Moreno Valley
Bob Moehling City of Murrieta
Sam Nelson City of Norco
John Pourkazemi City of Perris
Gil Hernandez City of Riverside
Stuart McKibbin (Vice-Chair) City of San Jacinto
Patrick Thomas City of Temecula
Jason Farag City of Wildomar
Patricia Romo County of Riverside
Lauren Sotelo March Joint Powers Authority
Jillian Guizado Riverside County Transportation Commission Mauricio Alvarez Riverside Transit Agency