Resolution — Riverside City Council, February 25, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3900 MAIN STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92522
(951) 826-5567

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE APPLICABLE

TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUM F)
APPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE.

WHEREAS, the City of Riverside (“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 No. 6658 on March 25, 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 C ode sections 66000 et seq. (Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees; and WHEREAS, 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

2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3900 MAIN STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92522
(951) 826-5567

WHEREAS, on October 10, 2017,the City adopted Ordinance No. 7393 which adopted the 2016 Nexus Study and updated the TUMF; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, the TUMF Program was altered to adopted 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. 7461 on March 19, 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; and WHEREAS, 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 n 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. 6658 as amended and superseded by Ordinance Nos 6869, 7067 and 7393, 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; and
WHEREAS, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (p olice and fire) to respond and adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare and 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

3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3900 MAIN STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92522
(951) 826-5567

necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non -residential 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; and WHEREAS, 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 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 TUMF 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; and
WHEREAS, t he 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 20 24 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 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 t o the conclusion of the hearing; and

4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3900 MAIN STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92522
(951) 826-5567

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 fa cilities to the Regional system; and
WHEREAS, t he TUMF Ordinances authorize 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 2024 Nexus Study.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of

Riverside, California, as follows:

Section 1. Title and Findings.

This Resolution shall be known as the “Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Resolution of 2024” (“Resolution”). The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as findings in support of this Resolution. In addition, the City Council hereby readopts all finding included in those findings made in the 2024 Nexus Study and Ordinance No. _______.

Section 2. TUMF Schedule.

In accordance with Riverside Municipal Code (“RMC”) s ection 16.68.040, the City Council hereby adopts the following fee schedule for the TUMF which replaces the fee schedule set forth in Resolution No. 23808 in its entirety as of April 1, 2025:

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- family residential 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

5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3900 MAIN STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92522
(951) 826-5567

(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, a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “A.” Section 4. CEQA Findings.

The City Council hereby finds 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 take effect immediately upon its adoption.

ADOPTED by the City Council this ____ day of _______________, 2025.

_________________________________
Patricia Lock Dawson
Mayor of the City of Riverside

Attest:

__________________________
Donesia Gause
City Clerk of the City of Riverside

///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///

6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3900 MAIN STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92522
(951) 826-5567

I, Donesia Gause, City Clerk of the City of Riverside, California, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the City Council of said City at its meeting held on the _____ day of ________________, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Riverside, California, this ______ day of _______________, 2025.

_____________________________
Donesia Gause
City Clerk of the City of Riverside

25-0019 TAT 1/23/25

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3900 MAIN STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92522
(951) 826-5567

EXHIBIT “A”

2024 NEXUS STUDY

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 ...................................................................................................... iLL ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study ....................................................... LLL ES.2 Future Growth .......................................................................................................... vi ES.3 Need for the TUMF .................................................................................................. vi ES.4 The TUMF Network ...................................................................................................YLLL ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis ................................................................................................[ ES.6 Fair-Share Fee Calculation ....................................................................................[ 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 ...L x 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 iLL
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 sub- region.

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 Lv
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 demo graphic 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 YLLL
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:
¾ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development.
¾ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. ¾ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. ¾ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development.
¾ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program.
¾ 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:
¾ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development.
¾ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways; ¾ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County; ¾ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development;
¾ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program;
¾ 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 incorp orated 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.

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.

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 st rives 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 Ri verside 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 1 st 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 applicati on 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 model
1 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.

ϭThe 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 equally

2. 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.

ϮA 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 arterial- freeway 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 fore casts 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 multi- family 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 trip- generation 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 demog raphic 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 hori zon 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 non- residential sector type.

Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045)

SED Type 2018 2045 Cha nge 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

3The 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 6 th 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 wh o 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 buses

5. 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

ϱRTA, 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:

¾ A uniform fee that is levied on new d evelopment throughout Western Riverside County.

¾ 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.

¾ 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 County

6. 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 pass- through trips and the associated cost to mitigate the impact of pass-through trips (and other inter-regional freeway trips) is addressed in the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Western Riverside County Freeway Strategic Plan, Phase II – Detailed Evaluation and Impact Fee Nexus Determination, Final Report dated May 31, 2008.

WRCOG 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.

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-out
7, extend across and/or between multiple
Area Planning Districts 8, 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 Estimates 10 (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 impa cts.” 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 2 045 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 co rrections 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 associate d capital improvements to develop express bus or other high frequency inter-community transit bus services within the region.

Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF Program as they typically serve longer inter-regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips on the inter-regional highway system.

The network of regionally significant bus transit services represents those express bus and other high frequency transit bus services that primarily support inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional highway system and inter- regional commuter rail services. As a result, this portion of the bus transit system also represents the extents of the network of bus services that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements.

The TUMF Bus Transit Network is the system of bus services that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The Bus Transit Network for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transit network and performance guidelines as follows:

1. Bus transit routes (or corridors comprised of multiple overlapping routes) proposed to have a frequency of greater than three buses per direction during peak hours at ultimate build out.

2. Routes or corridors that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities, both within and adjoining western Riverside County.

3. Routes or corridors with forecast weekday bus ridership in excess of 1,000 person trips per day by 2040.

4. Routes or corridors that are proposed to provide timed interconnections with at least four other routes or corridors at ultimate build out.

5. Routes or corridors that utilize the majority of travel along the TUMF RSHA.

6. Routes or corridors that provide direct access to areas of forecast population and employment growth, major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers).

Express bus routes and other high-frequency bus transit routes and corridors in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were identified by RTA. 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 mil lion 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 canno t 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 methodology͗

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 on- and off-ramps in the case of interchanges.

2. Initial costs of addressing the existing need were calculated by estimating the share of a particular roadway segments “new lane” cost, or individual spot improvement cost (including all associated ROW and soft costs).

3. Incremental growth in v/c was determined by comparing the average directional 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.

ϭϭThe 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 pro vided 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:

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 evaluat e 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.

¾ 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).

¾ 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.

¾ 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.

¾ 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.

¾ 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.

¾ 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 1,0 73,340 154,271 78 4,244 366,724 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 inter- regional travel would occur on the freeway system. Peak period trips between zones (regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Peak period trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the secondary network in proportion to their lane-miles, since roadways on both networks serve intra-zonal trips. The backbone network includes approximately 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 intra-
zonal 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), home- based-other (HBO), home-based-school (HBS ), non-home-based (NHB), and home- based-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 home- based 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 grow th 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.

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 multi- family 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 non- residential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation rate for each sector. Typical trip generation rates per employee were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation – 11 th 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 employee 12. These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new trip- making, and the $946.5 million was then allocated among the non-residential categories based on the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate non- residential fee share by sector was then divided by the estimated square footage of future new development to obtain the rate per square foot for each type of use. The calculation of the non-residential fee by sector is shown in Table 6.3.

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 (11 th 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:

¾ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing because of future new development.

¾ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways.

¾ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County.

¾ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development.

¾ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program.

¾ 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.

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

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 A-5

WRCOG Finance Directors’ Committee

Lincoln Bogard City of Banning
Jennifer Ustation City of Beaumont
Celeste Reid City of Calimesa
Terry Shea City of Canyon Lake
Kim Sitton City of Corona
Amanda Wells City of Eastvale
vacant City of Hemet
June Overholt City of Jurupa Valley
Shannon Buckley City of Lake Elsinore
Travis Hickey City of Menifee
Launa Jimenez City of Moreno Valley
Javier Carcamo (Past Chair) City of Murrieta
Lisette Free City of Norco
Ernie Reyna (Chair) City of Perris
Kristie Thomas City of Riverside
Erika Gomez (2nd Vice-Chair) City of San Jacinto
Jennifer Hennessy City of Temecula
Adam Jantz City of Wildomar
Vacant County of Riverside
John Adams Eastern Municipal Water District
Grace Martin March Joint Power Authority
Dr. Ruth Perez Riverside County Office of Education
Kevin Mascaro Western Water

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9. 2024 B-1
Appendix B - Western Riverside County Population and Employment Growth 2008 – 2035

Although a variety of alternate demographic information is available for the purpose of quantifying population and household growth in Western Riverside County, it was determined that the data developed by SCAG to support the 2020 RTP/SCS represented the most comprehensive source of socioeconomic data (SED) for the six- county SCAG region that includes Riverside County. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED information is disaggregated to the level of traffic analysis zones (TAZ) that comprise inputs to RivCoM. These SED data by TAZ were extracted from RivCoM (specifically the TAZ_Data.CSV file located in the PopSyn output folder) and aggregated to correspond with the TUMF zones to support this update of the TUMF Nexus. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED data retrieved from RivCoM and used as the basis for the Nexus Update is summarized in this Appendix.

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 SCAG Employment Categories 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. This Appendix includes tables detailing the SCAG RTP/SCS SED Employment Categories and corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each non- residential sector type.

EXHIBIT B-1
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2018) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Base Year SED Type/Zone Central Northwest Pass San Jacinto Southwest Total Total Population 408,260 777,900 98,688 187,677 432,915 1,905,440 Single-Family 83,142 152,897 24,937 38,888 97,543 397,407 Multi-Family 26,889 63,591 8,661 26,055 31,970 157,166
Total Households 110,031 216,488 33,598 64,943 129,513 554,573 Farmin
g, Natural Resources and Mining 799 3,431 559 1,625 2,080 8,494 Construction 6,245 31,914 1,807 2,067 13,290 55,323
Manufacturin
g 4,172 25,866 1,101 925 8,902 40,966
Wholesale Trade 8,428 9,269 268 546 6,490 25,001
Retail Trade 13,346 32,061 5,472 4,564 18,371 73,814
Trans
portation, Warehousing and Utilities 7,349 22,686 1,132 2,132 6,251 39,550 Information 425 2,073 496 177 863 4,034
Financial Activities 1,887 8,632 586 1,003 5,414 17,522 Professional and Business Service 7,834 32,973 3,434 1,630 13,532 59,403 Education and Health Service 20,423 76,884 6,092 13,659 29,192 146,250 Leisure and Hos
pitality 8,391 21,990 7,207 3,726 18,270 59,584
Other Service 2,834 10,603 1,244 1,891 5,338 21,910
Government 2,579 11,727 871 761 2,631 18,569
TUMF Industrial 26,993 93,166 4,867 7,295 37,013 169,334 TUMF Retail 13,346 32,061 5,472 4,564 18,371 73,814
TUMF Service 41,794 153,155 19,059 22,086 72,609 308,703 TUMF Government/Public Sector 2,579 11,727 871 761 2,631 18,569 Total Employment 84,712 290,109 30,269 34,706 130,624 570,420 Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Population
Households
Employment
EXHIBIT B-2
Western Riverside County Population, Households & Employment (2045) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Horizon Year SED Type/Zone Central Northwest Pass San Jacinto Southwest Total Total Population 594,678 925,228 158,040 289,439 566,491 2,533,876 Single-Family 133,507 181,827 43,988 70,713 134,863 564,898 Multi-Family 53,555 79,359 14,362 43,654 56,571 247,501 Total Households 187,062 261,186 58,350 114,367 191,434 812,399 Farmin
g, Natural Resources and Mining 712 2,212 527 1,218 2,001 6,670 Construction 18,304 48,533 3,186 5,861 20,236 96,120
Manufacturin
g 6,836 24,624 1,393 1,149 10,335 44,337
Wholesale Trade 6,150 9,048 324 559 6,529 22,610
Retail Trade 16,310 33,656 7,136 6,338 23,489 86,929
Trans
portation, Warehousing and Utilities 18,227 38,043 2,705 4,771 12,432 76,178 Information 642 2,166 476 191 1,116 4,591
Financial Activities 2,906 9,889 1,229 1,536 6,665 22,225 Professional and Business Service 14,214 41,712 6,016 4,518 21,058 87,518 Education and Health Service 52,764 111,454 13,803 25,739 51,118 254,878 Leisure and Hos
pitality 13,197 27,739 10,540 8,424 24,641 84,541
Other Service 5,148 13,062 1,532 2,838 6,625 29,205
Government 6,229 18,222 1,176 1,471 3,542 30,640
TUMF Industrial 50,229 122,460 8,135 13,558 51,533 245,915 TUMF Retail 16,310 33,656 7,136 6,338 23,489 86,929
TUMF Service 88,871 206,022 33,596 43,246 111,223 482,958 TUMF Government/Public Sector 6,229 18,222 1,176 1,471 3,542 30,640 Total Employment 161,639 380,360 50,043 64,613 189,787 846,442 Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Population
Households
Employment
EXHIBIT B-3
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2018 to 2045 Change) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED Type/Zone Central Northwest Pass San Jacinto Southwest Total Total Population 186,418 147,328 59,352 101,762 133,576 628,436 Single-Family 50,365 28,930 19,051 31,825 37,320 167,491 Multi-Family 26,666 15,768 5,701 17,599 24,601 90,335
Total Households 77,031 44,698 24,752 49,424 61,921 257,826 Farmin
g, Natural Resources and Mining -87 -1,219 -32 -407 -79 -1,824 Construction 12,059 16,619 1,379 3,794 6,946 40,797
Manufacturin
g 2,664 -1,242 292 224 1,433 3,371
Wholesale Trade -2,278 -221 56 13 39 -2,391
Retail Trade 2,964 1,595 1,664 1,774 5,118 13,115
Trans
portation, Warehousing and Utilities 10,878 15,357 1,573 2,639 6,181 36,628 Information 217 93 -20 14 253 557
Financial Activities 1,019 1,257 643 533 1,251 4,703
Professional and Business Service 6,380 8,739 2,582 2,888 7,526 28,115 Education and Health Service 32,341 34,570 7,711 12,080 21,926 108,628 Leisure and Hos
pitality 4,806 5,749 3,333 4,698 6,371 24,957
Other Service 2,314 2,459 288 947 1,287 7,295
Government 3,650 6,495 305 710 911 12,071
TUMF Industrial 23,236 29,294 3,268 6,263 14,520 76,581 TUMF Retail 2,964 1,595 1,664 1,774 5,118 13,115
TUMF Service 47,077 52,867 14,537 21,160 38,614 174,255 TUMF Government/Public Sector 3,650 6,495 305 710 911 12,071 Total Employment 76,927 90,251 19,774 29,907 59,163 276,022 Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Population
Households
Employment
Exhibit B-4a - TUMF 2024 Nexus Update
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2018-2045) SED Type/Zone 2018 2045 Change Percent
Total Population 1,905,440 2,533,876 628,436 33%
Total Households 554,573 812,399 257,826 46%
Sin
gle-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
Exhibit B-4b - TUMF 2016 Nexus Update
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2012-2040) SED Type/Zone 2012 2040 Change Percent
Total Population 1,773,935 2,429,633 655,698 37%
Total Households 525,149 775,231 250,082 48%
Sin
gle-Family 366,588 539,631 173,043 47%
Multi-Family 158,561 235,600 77,039 49%
Total Employment 460,787 861,455 400,668 87%
TUMF Industrial 120,736 201,328 80,592 67%
TUMF Retail 65,888 101,729 35,841 54%
TUMF Service 253,372 528,092 274,720 108%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 20,791 30,306 9,515 46%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS
Exhibit B-4c - TUMF 2016 Nexus Update to 2024 Nexus Update Comparison Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (Existing to Future Change) SED Type/Zone 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%
Sin
gle-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 B-7
EXHIBIT B-4d
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment Change (2012 to 2040 and 2018 to 2045) TUMF 2016 Nexus Update Comparison to TUMF 2024 Nexus Update Sources:

Year 2012 to Year 2040 Growth (2016 Nexus Update): SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; WSP, April 2016 Year 2018 to Year 2045 Growth (2024 Nexus Update): SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 B-8
EXHIBIT B-4e
Difference in Population, Households and Employment Growth in Western Riverside County TUMF 2016 Nexus Update Comparison to TUMF 2024 Nexus Update Source:

Year 2012 to Year 2040 Growth (2016 Nexus Update): SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; WSP, April 2016 Year 2018 to Year 2045 Growth (2024 Nexus Update): SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

EXHIBIT B-5a
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence Summary SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title Industrial
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
111 Crop Production
112 Animal Production and Aquaculture
113 Forestry and Logging
114 Fishing, Hunting and Trapping
115 Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry
21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
211 Oil and Gas Extraction
212 Mining (except Oil and Gas)
213 Support Activities for Mining
Construction
23 Construction
236 Construction of Buildings
237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
238 Specialty Trade Contractors
Manufacturing
31-33 Manufacturing
311 Food Manufacturing
312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing
313 Textile Mills
314 Textile Product Mills
315 Apparel Manufacturing
316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing
321 Wood Product Manufacturing
322 Paper Manufacturing
323 Printing and Related Support Activities
324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
325 Chemical Manufacturing
326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
331 Primary Metal Manufacturing
332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
333 Machinery Manufacturing
334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing 337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
42 Wholesale Trade
423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods
424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods
425 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities
22 Utilities
221 Utilities
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing
481 Air Transportation
482 Rail Transportation
483 Water Transportation
484 Truck Transportation
485 Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
486 Pipeline Transportation
487 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation
488 Support Activities for Transportation
491 Postal Service
492 Couriers and Messengers
493 Warehousing and Storage
Retail
Retail Trade
44-45 Retail Trade
441 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
444 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers 445 Food and Beverage Retailers
449 Furniture, Home Furnishings, Electronics, and Appliance Retailers 455 General Merchandise Retailers
456 Health and Personal Care Retailers
457 Gasoline Stations and Fuel Dealers
458 Clothing, Clothing Accessories, Shoe, and Jewelry Retailers 459 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument, Book, and Miscellaneous Retailers TUMF Category
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence Summary SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS TitleTUMF Category Service
Information
51 Information
512 Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries
513 Publishing Industries
516 Broadcasting and Content Providers
517 Telecommunications
518 Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services 519 Web Search Portals, Libraries, Archives, and Other Information Services Financial Activities
52 Finance and Insurance
521 Monetary Authorities-Central Bank
522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities
523 Securities, Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities 524 Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
525 Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
531 Real Estate
532 Rental and Leasing Services
533 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works) Professional and Business Services
54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
55 Management of Companies and Enterprises
551 Management of Companies and Enterprises
56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 561 Administrative and Support Services
562 Waste Management and Remediation Services
Education and Health Services
61 Educational Services
611 Educational Services
62 Health Care and Social Assistance
621 Ambulatory Health Care Services
622 Hospitals
623 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities
624 Social Assistance
Leisure and Hospitality
71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
711 Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and Related Industries 712 Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions 713 Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation Industries
72 Accommodation and Food Services
721 Accommodation
722 Food Services and Drinking Places
Other Service
81 Other Services (except Public Administration)
811 Repair and Maintenance
812 Personal and Laundry Services
813 Religious, Grantmaking, Civic, Professional, and Similar Organizations 814 Private Households
Government/Public Sector
Government
92 Public Administration
921 Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support 922 Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
923 Administration of Human Resource Programs
924 Administration of Environmental Quality Programs
925 Administration of Housing Programs, Urban Planning, and Community Development 926 Administration of Economic Programs
927 Space Research and Technology
928 National Security and International Affairs
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
California Employment Development Department (EDD)
US Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), 2022 EXHIBIT B-5b
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title Industrial
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
111 Crop Production
111110 Soybean Farming
111120 Oilseed (except Soybean) Farming
111130 Dry Pea and Bean Farming
111140 Wheat Farming
111150 Corn Farming
111160 Rice Farming
111191 Oilseed and Grain Combination Farming
111199 All Other Grain Farming
111211 Potato Farming
111219 Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming 111310 Orange Groves
111320 Citrus (except Orange) Groves
111331 Apple Orchards
111332 Grape Vineyards
111333 Strawberry Farming
111334 Berry (except Strawberry) Farming
111335 Tree Nut Farming
111336 Fruit and Tree Nut Combination Farming
111339 Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming
111411 Mushroom Production
111419 Other Food Crops Grown Under Cover
111421 Nursery and Tree Production
111422 Floriculture Production
111910 Tobacco Farming
111920 Cotton Farming
111930 Sugarcane Farming
111940 Hay Farming
111991 Sugar Beet Farming
111992 Peanut Farming
111998 All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farming
112 Animal Production and Aquaculture
112111 Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming
112112 Cattle Feedlots
112120 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production
112130 Dual-Purpose Cattle Ranching and Farming
112210 Hog and Pig Farming
112310 Chicken Egg Production
112320 Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production
112330 Turkey Production
112340 Poultry Hatcheries
112390 Other Poultry Production
112410 Sheep Farming
112420 Goat Farming
112511 Finfish Farming and Fish Hatcheries
112512 Shellfish Farming
112519 Other Aquaculture
112910 Apiculture
112920 Horses and Other Equine Production
112930 Fur-Bearing Animal and Rabbit Production
112990 All Other Animal Production
113 Forestry and Logging
113110 Timber Tract Operations
113210 Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products 113310 Logging
114 Fishing, Hunting and Trapping
114111 Finfish Fishing
114112 Shellfish Fishing
114119 Other Marine Fishing
114210 Hunting and Trapping
115 Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry
115111 Cotton Ginning
115112 Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating
115113 Crop Harvesting, Primarily by Machine
115114 Postharvest Crop Activities (except Cotton Ginning) 115115 Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders
115116 Farm Management Services
115210 Support Activities for Animal Production
115310 Support Activities for Forestry
21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
211 Oil and Gas Extraction
211120 Crude Petroleum Extraction
211130 Natural Gas Extraction
212 Mining (except Oil and Gas)
212114 Surface Coal Mining
212115 Underground Coal Mining
212210 Iron Ore Mining
212220 Gold Ore and Silver Ore Mining
212230 Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining
212290 Other Metal Ore Mining
212311 Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying
212312 Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying 212313 Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quarrying
212319 Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying 212321 Construction Sand and Gravel Mining
212322 Industrial Sand Mining
212323 Kaolin, Clay, and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining 212390 Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying
213 Support Activities for Mining
213111 Drilling Oil and Gas Wells
213112 Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations
213113 Support Activities for Coal Mining
213114 Support Activities for Metal Mining
213115 Support Activities for Nonmetallic Minerals (except Fuels) Mining TUMF Category
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
Construction
23 Construction
236 Construction of Buildings
236115 New Single-Family Housing Construction (except For-Sale Builders) 236116 New Multifamily Housing Construction (except For-Sale Builders) 236117 New Housing For-Sale Builders
236118 Residential Remodelers
236210 Industrial Building Construction
236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction 237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction 237210 Land Subdivision
237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction
237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
238 Specialty Trade Contractors
238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 238130 Framing Contractors
238140 Masonry Contractors
238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors
238160 Roofing Contractors
238170 Siding Contractors
238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors 238210 Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors 238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors 238290 Other Building Equipment Contractors
238310 Drywall and Insulation Contractors
238320 Painting and Wall Covering Contractors
238330 Flooring Contractors
238340 Tile and Terrazzo Contractors
238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors
238390 Other Building Finishing Contractors
238910 Site Preparation Contractors
238990 All Other Specialty Trade Contractors
Manufacturing
31-33 Manufacturing
311 Food Manufacturing
311111 Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing
311119 Other Animal Food Manufacturing
311211 Flour Milling
311212 Rice Milling
311213 Malt Manufacturing
311221 Wet Corn Milling and Starch Manufacturing
311224 Soybean and Other Oilseed Processing
311225 Fats and Oils Refining and Blending
311230 Breakfast Cereal Manufacturing
311313 Beet Sugar Manufacturing
311314 Cane Sugar Manufacturing
311340 Nonchocolate Confectionery Manufacturing
311351 Chocolate and Confectionery Manufacturing from Cacao Beans 311352 Confectionery Manufacturing from Purchased Chocolate 311411 Frozen Fruit, Juice, and Vegetable Manufacturing 311412 Frozen Specialty Food Manufacturing
311421 Fruit and Vegetable Canning
311422 Specialty Canning
311423 Dried and Dehydrated Food Manufacturing
311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing
311512 Creamery Butter Manufacturing
311513 Cheese Manufacturing
311514 Dry, Condensed, and Evaporated Dairy Product Manufacturing 311520 Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturing
311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering
311612 Meat Processed from Carcasses
311613 Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing
311615 Poultry Processing
311710 Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging
311811 Retail Bakeries
311812 Commercial Bakeries
311813 Frozen Cakes, Pies, and Other Pastries Manufacturing 311821 Cookie and Cracker Manufacturing
311824 Dry Pasta, Dough, and Flour Mixes Manufacturing from Purchased Flour 311830 Tortilla Manufacturing
311911 Roasted Nuts and Peanut Butter Manufacturing
311919 Other Snack Food Manufacturing
311920 Coffee and Tea Manufacturing
311930 Flavoring Syrup and Concentrate Manufacturing
311941 Mayonnaise, Dressing, and Other Prepared Sauce Manufacturing 311942 Spice and Extract Manufacturing
311991 Perishable Prepared Food Manufacturing
311999 All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing
312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing
312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing
312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing
312113 Ice Manufacturing
312120 Breweries
312130 Wineries
312140 Distilleries
312230 Tobacco Manufacturing
313 Textile Mills
313110 Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills
313210 Broadwoven Fabric Mills
313220 Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery 313230 Nonwoven Fabric Mills
313240 Knit Fabric Mills
313310 Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills
313320 Fabric Coating Mills
314 Textile Product Mills
314110 Carpet and Rug Mills
314120 Curtain and Linen Mills
314910 Textile Bag and Canvas Mills
314994 Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire Cord, and Tire Fabric Mills 314999 All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills
315 Apparel Manufacturing
315120 Apparel Knitting Mills
315210 Cut and Sew Apparel Contractors
315250 Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing (except Contractors) 315990 Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing 316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing
316110 Leather and Hide Tanning and Finishing
316210 Footwear Manufacturing
316990 Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
321 Wood Product Manufacturing
321113 Sawmills
321114 Wood Preservation
321211 Hardwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing
321212 Softwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing
321215 Engineered Wood Member Manufacturing
321219 Reconstituted Wood Product Manufacturing
321911 Wood Window and Door Manufacturing
321912 Cut Stock, Resawing Lumber, and Planing
321918 Other Millwork (including Flooring)
321920 Wood Container and Pallet Manufacturing
321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing
321992 Prefabricated Wood Building Manufacturing
321999 All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product Manufacturing 322 Paper Manufacturing
322110 Pulp Mills
322120 Paper Mills
322130 Paperboard Mills
322211 Corrugated and Solid Fiber Box Manufacturing
322212 Folding Paperboard Box Manufacturing
322219 Other Paperboard Container Manufacturing
322220 Paper Bag and Coated and Treated Paper Manufacturing 322230 Stationery Product Manufacturing
322291 Sanitary Paper Product Manufacturing
322299 All Other Converted Paper Product Manufacturing
323 Printing and Related Support Activities
323111 Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books)
323113 Commercial Screen Printing
323117 Books Printing
323120 Support Activities for Printing
324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
324110 Petroleum Refineries
324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
324122 Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing 324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing 324199 All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 325 Chemical Manufacturing
325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing
325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing
325130 Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
325194 Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
325212 Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
325220 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing 325311 Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
325312 Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
325314 Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
325315 Compost Manufacturing
325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
325414 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing
325520 Adhesive Manufacturing
325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing
325920 Explosives Manufacturing
325991 Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, Chemical, and Copy Toner Manufacturing 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing 326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
326111 Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
326112 Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing 326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing 326121 Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing 326122 Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
326130 Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing 326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing 326160 Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
326191 Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
326211 Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
326212 Tire Retreading
326220 Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing 326291 Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
326299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
327110 Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing 327120 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing 327211 Flat Glass Manufacturing
327212 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing 327213 Glass Container Manufacturing
327215 Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass 327310 Cement Manufacturing
327320 Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
327331 Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
327390 Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
327410 Lime Manufacturing
327420 Gypsum Product Manufacturing
327910 Abrasive Product Manufacturing
327991 Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing 327993 Mineral Wool Manufacturing
327999 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
331 Primary Metal Manufacturing
331110 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing 331210 Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel 331221 Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
331222 Steel Wire Drawing
331313 Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production 331314 Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
331315 Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
331318 Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
331410 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining 331420 Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying 331491 Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding 331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) 331511 Iron Foundries
331512 Steel Investment Foundries
331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment)
331523 Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
331524 Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
331529 Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting) 332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
332111 Iron and Steel Forging
332112 Nonferrous Forging
332114 Custom Roll Forming
332117 Powder Metallurgy Part Manufacturing
332119 Metal Crown, Closure, and Other Metal Stamping (except Automotive) 332215 Metal Kitchen Cookware, Utensil, Cutlery, and Flatware (except Precious) Manufacturing 332216 Saw Blade and Handtool Manufacturing
332311 Prefabricated Metal Building and Component Manufacturing 332312 Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing
332313 Plate Work Manufacturing
332321 Metal Window and Door Manufacturing
332322 Sheet Metal Work Manufacturing
332323 Ornamental and Architectural Metal Work Manufacturing 332410 Power Boiler and Heat Exchanger Manufacturing
332420 Metal Tank (Heavy Gauge) Manufacturing
332431 Metal Can Manufacturing
332439 Other Metal Container Manufacturing
332510 Hardware Manufacturing
332613 Spring Manufacturing
332618 Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing
332710 Machine Shops
332721 Precision Turned Product Manufacturing
332722 Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and Washer Manufacturing 332811 Metal Heat Treating
332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers 332813 Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring 332911 Industrial Valve Manufacturing
332912 Fluid Power Valve and Hose Fitting Manufacturing 332913 Plumbing Fixture Fitting and Trim Manufacturing
332919 Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing 332991 Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturing
332992 Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturing
332993 Ammunition (except Small Arms) Manufacturing
332994 Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing 332996 Fabricated Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 333 Machinery Manufacturing
333111 Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
333112 Lawn and Garden Tractor and Home Lawn and Garden Equipment Manufacturing 333120 Construction Machinery Manufacturing
333131 Mining Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
333132 Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing 333241 Food Product Machinery Manufacturing
333242 Semiconductor Machinery Manufacturing
333243 Sawmill, Woodworking, and Paper Machinery Manufacturing 333248 All Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
333310 Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing 333413 Industrial and Commercial Fan and Blower and Air Purification Equipment Manufacturing 333414 Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing 333415 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturin 333511 Industrial Mold Manufacturing
333514 Special Die and Tool, Die Set, Jig, and Fixture Manufacturing 333515 Cutting Tool and Machine Tool Accessory Manufacturing 333517 Machine Tool Manufacturing
333519 Rolling Mill and Other Metalworking Machinery Manufacturing 333611 Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units Manufacturing 333612 Speed Changer, Industrial High-Speed Drive, and Gear Manufacturing 333613 Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing 333618 Other Engine Equipment Manufacturing
333912 Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing
333914 Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing 333921 Elevator and Moving Stairway Manufacturing
333922 Conveyor and Conveying Equipment Manufacturing
333923 Overhead Traveling Crane, Hoist, and Monorail System Manufacturing 333924 Industrial Truck, Tractor, Trailer, and Stacker Machinery Manufacturing 333991 Power-Driven Handtool Manufacturing
333992 Welding and Soldering Equipment Manufacturing
333993 Packaging Machinery Manufacturing
333994 Industrial Process Furnace and Oven Manufacturing 333995 Fluid Power Cylinder and Actuator Manufacturing
333996 Fluid Power Pump and Motor Manufacturing
333998 All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing 334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing
334112 Computer Storage Device Manufacturing
334118 Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing 334210 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing 334290 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
334310 Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing
334412 Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing
334413 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing
334416 Capacitor, Resistor, Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing 334417 Electronic Connector Manufacturing
334418 Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing 334419 Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
334510 Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing 334511 Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing 334512 Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use 334513 Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial Process Variables 334514 Totalizing Fluid Meter and Counting Device Manufacturing 334515 Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals 334516 Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing
334517 Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing
334519 Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing 334610 Manufacturing and Reproducing Magnetic and Optical Media TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing 335131 Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing 335132 Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing 335139 Electric Lamp Bulb and Other Lighting Equipment Manufacturing 335210 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing
335220 Major Household Appliance Manufacturing
335311 Power, Distribution, and Specialty Transformer Manufacturing 335312 Motor and Generator Manufacturing
335313 Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing 335314 Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing
335910 Battery Manufacturing
335921 Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing
335929 Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing 335931 Current-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing
335932 Noncurrent-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing
335991 Carbon and Graphite Product Manufacturing
335999 All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
336110 Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing 336120 Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing
336211 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing
336212 Truck Trailer Manufacturing
336213 Motor Home Manufacturing
336214 Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing
336310 Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 336320 Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment Manufacturing 336330 Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components (except Spring) Manufacturing 336340 Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing
336350 Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing 336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 336370 Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping
336390 Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
336411 Aircraft Manufacturing
336412 Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing 336414 Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
336415 Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Unit and Propulsion Unit Parts Manufacturing 336419 Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing 336510 Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing
336611 Ship Building and Repairing
336612 Boat Building
336991 Motorcycle, Bicycle, and Parts Manufacturing
336992 Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component Manufacturing 336999 All Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing
337110 Wood Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing 337121 Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing
337122 Nonupholstered Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing 337126 Household Furniture (except Wood and Upholstered) Manufacturing 337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing
337211 Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing
337212 Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing 337214 Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing
337215 Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing 337910 Mattress Manufacturing
337920 Blind and Shade Manufacturing
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
339114 Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
339115 Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
339116 Dental Laboratories
339910 Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
339920 Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
339930 Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
339940 Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
339950 Sign Manufacturing
339991 Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing 339992 Musical Instrument Manufacturing
339993 Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
339994 Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
339995 Burial Casket Manufacturing
339999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
42 Wholesale Trade
423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods
423110 Automobile and Other Motor Vehicle Merchant Wholesalers 423120 Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers 423130 Tire and Tube Merchant Wholesalers
423140 Motor Vehicle Parts (Used) Merchant Wholesalers
423210 Furniture Merchant Wholesalers
423220 Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers
423310 Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers 423320 Brick, Stone, and Related Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers 423330 Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Material Merchant Wholesalers 423390 Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers 423410 Photographic Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423420 Office Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423430 Computer and Computer Peripheral Equipment and Software Merchant Wholesalers 423440 Other Commercial Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423450 Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423460 Ophthalmic Goods Merchant Wholesalers
423490 Other Professional Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423510 Metal Service Centers and Other Metal Merchant Wholesalers 423520 Coal and Other Mineral and Ore Merchant Wholesalers 423610 Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423620 Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers 423690 Other Electronic Parts and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423710 Hardware Merchant Wholesalers
423720 Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers 423730 Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423810 Construction and Mining (except Oil Well) Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423820 Farm and Garden Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423830 Industrial Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423840 Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
423850 Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423860 Transportation Equipment and Supplies (except Motor Vehicle) Merchant Wholesalers 423910 Sporting and Recreational Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423920 Toy and Hobby Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423930 Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers
423940 Jewelry, Watch, Precious Stone, and Precious Metal Merchant Wholesalers 423990 Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods
424110 Printing and Writing Paper Merchant Wholesalers
424120 Stationery and Office Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 424130 Industrial and Personal Service Paper Merchant Wholesalers 424210 Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers 424310 Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Goods Merchant Wholesalers 424340 Footwear Merchant Wholesalers
424350 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Merchant Wholesalers 424410 General Line Grocery Merchant Wholesalers
424420 Packaged Frozen Food Merchant Wholesalers
424430 Dairy Product (except Dried or Canned) Merchant Wholesalers 424440 Poultry and Poultry Product Merchant Wholesalers 424450 Confectionery Merchant Wholesalers
424460 Fish and Seafood Merchant Wholesalers
424470 Meat and Meat Product Merchant Wholesalers
424480 Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers
424490 Other Grocery and Related Products Merchant Wholesalers 424510 Grain and Field Bean Merchant Wholesalers
424520 Livestock Merchant Wholesalers
424590 Other Farm Product Raw Material Merchant Wholesalers 424610 Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers 424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers 424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
424720 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals) 424810 Beer and Ale Merchant Wholesalers
424820 Wine and Distilled Alcoholic Beverage Merchant Wholesalers 424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424920 Book, Periodical, and Newspaper Merchant Wholesalers 424930 Flower, Nursery Stock, and Florists' Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 424940 Tobacco Product and Electronic Cigarette Merchant Wholesalers 424950 Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 424990 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers 425 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
425120 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities
22 Utilities
221 Utilities
221111 Hydroelectric Power Generation
221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation
221113 Nuclear Electric Power Generation
221114 Solar Electric Power Generation
221115 Wind Electric Power Generation
221116 Geothermal Electric Power Generation
221117 Biomass Electric Power Generation
221118 Other Electric Power Generation
221121 Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control
221122 Electric Power Distribution
221210 Natural Gas Distribution
221310 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems
221320 Sewage Treatment Facilities
221330 Steam and Air-Conditioning Supply
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing
481 Air Transportation
481111 Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation
481112 Scheduled Freight Air Transportation
481211 Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation 481212 Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation 481219 Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation
482 Rail Transportation
482111 Line-Haul Railroads
482112 Short Line Railroads
483 Water Transportation
483111 Deep Sea Freight Transportation
483112 Deep Sea Passenger Transportation
483113 Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation
483114 Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Transportation 483211 Inland Water Freight Transportation
483212 Inland Water Passenger Transportation
484 Truck Transportation
484110 General Freight Trucking, Local
484121 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Truckload 484122 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Less Than Truckload 484210 Used Household and Office Goods Moving
484220 Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Local 484230 Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Long-Distance 485 Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
485111 Mixed Mode Transit Systems
485112 Commuter Rail Systems
485113 Bus and Other Motor Vehicle Transit Systems
485119 Other Urban Transit Systems
485210 Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation
485310 Taxi and Ridesharing Services
485320 Limousine Service
485410 School and Employee Bus Transportation
485510 Charter Bus Industry
485991 Special Needs Transportation
485999 All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation 486 Pipeline Transportation
486110 Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil
486210 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas
486910 Pipeline Transportation of Refined Petroleum Products 486990 All Other Pipeline Transportation
487 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation
487110 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Land
487210 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water
487990 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Other
488 Support Activities for Transportation
488111 Air Traffic Control
488119 Other Airport Operations
488190 Other Support Activities for Air Transportation
488210 Support Activities for Rail Transportation
488310 Port and Harbor Operations
488320 Marine Cargo Handling
488330 Navigational Services to Shipping
488390 Other Support Activities for Water Transportation 488410 Motor Vehicle Towing
488490 Other Support Activities for Road Transportation 488510 Freight Transportation Arrangement
488991 Packing and Crating
488999 All Other Support Activities for Transportation
491 Postal Service
491110 Postal Service
492 Couriers and Messengers
492110 Couriers and Express Delivery Services
492210 Local Messengers and Local Delivery
493 Warehousing and Storage
493110 General Warehousing and Storage
493120 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
493130 Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
493190 Other Warehousing and Storage
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
Retail
Retail Trade
44-45 Retail Trade
441 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
441110 New Car Dealers
441120 Used Car Dealers
441210 Recreational Vehicle Dealers
441222 Boat Dealers
441227 Motorcycle, ATV, and All Other Motor Vehicle Dealers 441330 Automotive Parts and Accessories Retailers
441340 Tire Dealers
444 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers 444110 Home Centers
444120 Paint and Wallpaper Retailers
444140 Hardware Retailers
444180 Other Building Material Dealers
444230 Outdoor Power Equipment Retailers
444240 Nursery, Garden Center, and Farm Supply Retailers 445 Food and Beverage Retailers
445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery Retailers (except Convenience Retailers) 445131 Convenience Retailers
445132 Vending Machine Operators
445230 Fruit and Vegetable Retailers
445240 Meat Retailers
445250 Fish and Seafood Retailers
445291 Baked Goods Retailers
445292 Confectionery and Nut Retailers
445298 All Other Specialty Food Retailers
445320 Beer, Wine, and Liquor Retailers
449 Furniture, Home Furnishings, Electronics, and Appliance Retailers 449110 Furniture Retailers
449121 Floor Covering Retailers
449122 Window Treatment Retailers
449129 All Other Home Furnishings Retailers
449210 Electronics and Appliance Retailers
455 General Merchandise Retailers
455110 Department Stores
455211 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters
455219 All Other General Merchandise Retailers
456 Health and Personal Care Retailers
456110 Pharmacies and Drug Retailers
456120 Cosmetics, Beauty Supplies, and Perfume Retailers 456130 Optical Goods Retailers
456191 Food (Health) Supplement Retailers
456199 All Other Health and Personal Care Retailers
457 Gasoline Stations and Fuel Dealers
457110 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores
457120 Other Gasoline Stations
457210 Fuel Dealers
458 Clothing, Clothing Accessories, Shoe, and Jewelry Retailers 458110 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Retailers
458210 Shoe Retailers
458310 Jewelry Retailers
458320 Luggage and Leather Goods Retailers
459 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument, Book, and Miscellaneous Retailers 459110 Sporting Goods Retailers
459120 Hobby, Toy, and Game Retailers
459130 Sewing, Needlework, and Piece Goods Retailers
459140 Musical Instrument and Supplies Retailers
459210 Book Retailers and News Dealers
459310 Florists
459410 Office Supplies and Stationery Retailers
459420 Gift, Novelty, and Souvenir Retailers
459510 Used Merchandise Retailers
459910 Pet and Pet Supplies Retailers
459920 Art Dealers
459930 Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealers
459991 Tobacco, Electronic Cigarette, and Other Smoking Supplies Retailers 459999 All Other Miscellaneous Retailers
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
Service
Information
51 Information
512 Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries
512110 Motion Picture and Video Production
512120 Motion Picture and Video Distribution
512131 Motion Picture Theaters (except Drive-Ins)
512132 Drive-In Motion Picture Theaters
512191 Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services 512199 Other Motion Picture and Video Industries
512230 Music Publishers
512240 Sound Recording Studios
512250 Record Production and Distribution
512290 Other Sound Recording Industries
513 Publishing Industries
513110 Newspaper Publishers
513120 Periodical Publishers
513130 Book Publishers
513140 Directory and Mailing List Publishers
513191 Greeting Card Publishers
513199 All Other Publishers
513210 Software Publishers
516 Broadcasting and Content Providers
516110 Radio Broadcasting Stations
516120 Television Broadcasting Stations
516210 Media Streaming Distribution Services, Social Networks, and Other Media Networks and Content Providers 517 Telecommunications
517111 Wired Telecommunications Carriers
517112 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) 517121 Telecommunications Resellers
517122 Agents for Wireless Telecommunications Services
517410 Satellite Telecommunications
517810 All Other Telecommunications
518 Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services 518210 Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services 519 Web Search Portals, Libraries, Archives, and Other Information Services 519210 Libraries and Archives
519290 Web Search Portals and All Other Information Services Financial Activities
52 Finance and Insurance
521 Monetary Authorities-Central Bank
521110 Monetary Authorities-Central Bank
522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities
522110 Commercial Banking
522130 Credit Unions
522180 Savings Institutions and Other Depository Credit Intermediation 522210 Credit Card Issuing
522220 Sales Financing
522291 Consumer Lending
522292 Real Estate Credit
522299 International, Secondary Market, and All Other Nondepository Credit Intermediation 522310 Mortgage and Nonmortgage Loan Brokers
522320 Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and Clearinghouse Activities 522390 Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation 523 Securities, Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities 523150 Investment Banking and Securities Intermediation 523160 Commodity Contracts Intermediation
523210 Securities and Commodity Exchanges
523910 Miscellaneous Intermediation
523940 Portfolio Management and Investment Advice
523991 Trust, Fiduciary, and Custody Activities
523999 Miscellaneous Financial Investment Activities
524 Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
524113 Direct Life Insurance Carriers
524114 Direct Health and Medical Insurance Carriers
524126 Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Carriers
524127 Direct Title Insurance Carriers
524128 Other Direct Insurance (except Life, Health, and Medical) Carriers 524130 Reinsurance Carriers
524210 Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
524291 Claims Adjusting
524292 Pharmacy Benefit Management and Other Third Party Administration of Insurance and Pension Funds 524298 All Other Insurance Related Activities
525 Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles
525110 Pension Funds
525120 Health and Welfare Funds
525190 Other Insurance Funds
525910 Open-End Investment Funds
525920 Trusts, Estates, and Agency Accounts
525990 Other Financial Vehicles
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
531 Real Estate
531110 Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings
531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Miniwarehouses) 531130 Lessors of Miniwarehouses and Self-Storage Units 531190 Lessors of Other Real Estate Property
531210 Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers
531311 Residential Property Managers
531312 Nonresidential Property Managers
531320 Offices of Real Estate Appraisers
531390 Other Activities Related to Real Estate
532 Rental and Leasing Services
532111 Passenger Car Rental
532112 Passenger Car Leasing
532120 Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehicle) Rental and Leasing 532210 Consumer Electronics and Appliances Rental
532281 Formal Wear and Costume Rental
532282 Video Tape and Disc Rental
532283 Home Health Equipment Rental
532284 Recreational Goods Rental
532289 All Other Consumer Goods Rental
532310 General Rental Centers
532411 Commercial Air, Rail, and Water Transportation Equipment Rental and Leasing 532412 Construction, Mining, and Forestry Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing 532420 Office Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing 532490 Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing 533 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works) 533110 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works) TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
Professional and Business Services
54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
541110 Offices of Lawyers
541120 Offices of Notaries
541191 Title Abstract and Settlement Offices
541199 All Other Legal Services
541211 Offices of Certified Public Accountants
541213 Tax Preparation Services
541214 Payroll Services
541219 Other Accounting Services
541310 Architectural Services
541320 Landscape Architectural Services
541330 Engineering Services
541340 Drafting Services
541350 Building Inspection Services
541360 Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services
541370 Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services 541380 Testing Laboratories and Services
541410 Interior Design Services
541420 Industrial Design Services
541430 Graphic Design Services
541490 Other Specialized Design Services
541511 Custom Computer Programming Services
541512 Computer Systems Design Services
541513 Computer Facilities Management Services
541519 Other Computer Related Services
541611 Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services 541612 Human Resources Consulting Services
541613 Marketing Consulting Services
541614 Process, Physical Distribution, and Logistics Consulting Services 541618 Other Management Consulting Services
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services 541713 Research and Development in Nanotechnology
541714 Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology) 541715 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology) 541720 Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities 541810 Advertising Agencies
541820 Public Relations Agencies
541830 Media Buying Agencies
541840 Media Representatives
541850 Indoor and Outdoor Display Advertising
541860 Direct Mail Advertising
541870 Advertising Material Distribution Services
541890 Other Services Related to Advertising
541910 Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling
541921 Photography Studios, Portrait
541922 Commercial Photography
541930 Translation and Interpretation Services
541940 Veterinary Services
541990 All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises
551 Management of Companies and Enterprises
551111 Offices of Bank Holding Companies
551112 Offices of Other Holding Companies
551114 Corporate, Subsidiary, and Regional Managing Offices 56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 561 Administrative and Support Services
561110 Office Administrative Services
561210 Facilities Support Services
561311 Employment Placement Agencies
561312 Executive Search Services
561320 Temporary Help Services
561330 Professional Employer Organizations
561410 Document Preparation Services
561421 Telephone Answering Services
561422 Telemarketing Bureaus and Other Contact Centers
561431 Private Mail Centers
561439 Other Business Service Centers (including Copy Shops) 561440 Collection Agencies
561450 Credit Bureaus
561491 Repossession Services
561492 Court Reporting and Stenotype Services
561499 All Other Business Support Services
561510 Travel Agencies
561520 Tour Operators
561591 Convention and Visitors Bureaus
561599 All Other Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services 561611 Investigation and Personal Background Check Services 561612 Security Guards and Patrol Services
561613 Armored Car Services
561621 Security Systems Services (except Locksmiths)
561622 Locksmiths
561710 Exterminating and Pest Control Services
561720 Janitorial Services
561730 Landscaping Services
561740 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services
561790 Other Services to Buildings and Dwellings
561910 Packaging and Labeling Services
561920 Convention and Trade Show Organizers
561990 All Other Support Services
562 Waste Management and Remediation Services
562111 Solid Waste Collection
562112 Hazardous Waste Collection
562119 Other Waste Collection
562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
562212 Solid Waste Landfill
562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators
562219 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
562910 Remediation Services
562920 Materials Recovery Facilities
562991 Septic Tank and Related Services
562998 All Other Miscellaneous Waste Management Services TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
Education and Health Services
61 Educational Services
611 Educational Services
611110 Elementary and Secondary Schools
611210 Junior Colleges
611310 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools 611410 Business and Secretarial Schools
611420 Computer Training
611430 Professional and Management Development Training 611511 Cosmetology and Barber Schools
611512 Flight Training
611513 Apprenticeship Training
611519 Other Technical and Trade Schools
611610 Fine Arts Schools
611620 Sports and Recreation Instruction
611630 Language Schools
611691 Exam Preparation and Tutoring
611692 Automobile Driving Schools
611699 All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction
611710 Educational Support Services
62 Health Care and Social Assistance
621 Ambulatory Health Care Services
621111 Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) 621112 Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists 621210 Offices of Dentists
621310 Offices of Chiropractors
621320 Offices of Optometrists
621330 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians) 621340 Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists, and Audiologists 621391 Offices of Podiatrists
621399 Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners 621410 Family Planning Centers
621420 Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers 621491 HMO Medical Centers
621492 Kidney Dialysis Centers
621493 Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical and Emergency Centers 621498 All Other Outpatient Care Centers
621511 Medical Laboratories
621512 Diagnostic Imaging Centers
621610 Home Health Care Services
621910 Ambulance Services
621991 Blood and Organ Banks
621999 All Other Miscellaneous Ambulatory Health Care Services 622 Hospitals
622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
622210 Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals
622310 Specialty (except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse) Hospitals 623 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities
623110 Nursing Care Facilities (Skilled Nursing Facilities) 623210 Residential Intellectual and Developmental Disability Facilities 623220 Residential Mental Health and Substance Abuse Facilities 623311 Continuing Care Retirement Communities
623312 Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly
623990 Other Residential Care Facilities
624 Social Assistance
624110 Child and Youth Services
624120 Services for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities 624190 Other Individual and Family Services
624210 Community Food Services
624221 Temporary Shelters
624229 Other Community Housing Services
624230 Emergency and Other Relief Services
624310 Vocational Rehabilitation Services
624410 Child Care Services
Leisure and Hospitality
71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
711 Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and Related Industries 711110 Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters
711120 Dance Companies
711130 Musical Groups and Artists
711190 Other Performing Arts Companies
711211 Sports Teams and Clubs
711212 Racetracks
711219 Other Spectator Sports
711310 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events with Facilities 711320 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events without Facilities 711410 Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers, and Other Public Figures 711510 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers
712 Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions 712110 Museums
712120 Historical Sites
712130 Zoos and Botanical Gardens
712190 Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions
713 Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation Industries
713110 Amusement and Theme Parks
713120 Amusement Arcades
713210 Casinos (except Casino Hotels)
713290 Other Gambling Industries
713910 Golf Courses and Country Clubs
713920 Skiing Facilities
713930 Marinas
713940 Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
713950 Bowling Centers
713990 All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
72 Accommodation and Food Services
721 Accommodation
721110 Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels
721120 Casino Hotels
721191 Bed-and-Breakfast Inns
721199 All Other Traveler Accommodation
721211 RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and Campgrounds
721214 Recreational and Vacation Camps (except Campgrounds) 721310 Rooming and Boarding Houses, Dormitories, and Workers' Camps 722 Food Services and Drinking Places
722310 Food Service Contractors
722320 Caterers
722330 Mobile Food Services
722410 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
722511 Full-Service Restaurants
722513 Limited-Service Restaurants
722514 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets
722515 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars
Other Service
81 Other Services (except Public Administration)
811 Repair and Maintenance
811111 General Automotive Repair
811114 Specialized Automotive Repair
811121 Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance 811122 Automotive Glass Replacement Shops
811191 Automotive Oil Change and Lubrication Shops
811192 Car Washes
811198 All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance
811210 Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance 811310 Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance 811411 Home and Garden Equipment Repair and Maintenance 811412 Appliance Repair and Maintenance
811420 Reupholstery and Furniture Repair
811430 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair
811490 Other Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 812 Personal and Laundry Services
812111 Barber Shops
812112 Beauty Salons
812113 Nail Salons
812191 Diet and Weight Reducing Centers
812199 Other Personal Care Services
812210 Funeral Homes and Funeral Services
812220 Cemeteries and Crematories
812310 Coin-Operated Laundries and Drycleaners
812320 Drycleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated) 812331 Linen Supply
812332 Industrial Launderers
812910 Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services
812921 Photofinishing Laboratories (except One-Hour)
812922 One-Hour Photofinishing
812930 Parking Lots and Garages
812990 All Other Personal Services
813 Religious, Grantmaking, Civic, Professional, and Similar Organizations 813110 Religious Organizations
813211 Grantmaking Foundations
813212 Voluntary Health Organizations
813219 Other Grantmaking and Giving Services
813311 Human Rights Organizations
813312 Environment, Conservation and Wildlife Organizations 813319 Other Social Advocacy Organizations
813410 Civic and Social Organizations
813910 Business Associations
813920 Professional Organizations
813930 Labor Unions and Similar Labor Organizations
813940 Political Organizations
813990 Other Similar Organizations (except Business, Professional, Labor, and Political Organizations) 814 Private Households
814110 Private Households
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
Government/Public Sector
Government
92 Public Administration
921 Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support 921110 Executive Offices
921120 Legislative Bodies
921130 Public Finance Activities
921140 Executive and Legislative Offices, Combined
921150 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Governments 921190 Other General Government Support
922 Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
922110 Courts
922120 Police Protection
922130 Legal Counsel and Prosecution
922140 Correctional Institutions
922150 Parole Offices and Probation Offices
922160 Fire Protection
922190 Other Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities 923 Administration of Human Resource Programs
923110 Administration of Education Programs
923120 Administration of Public Health Programs
923130 Administration of Human Resource Programs (except Education, Public Health, and Veterans' Affairs Programs) 923140 Administration of Veterans' Affairs
924 Administration of Environmental Quality Programs
924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs 924120 Administration of Conservation Programs
925 Administration of Housing Programs, Urban Planning, and Community Development 925110 Administration of Housing Programs
925120 Administration of Urban Planning and Community and Rural Development 926 Administration of Economic Programs
926110 Administration of General Economic Programs
926120 Regulation and Administration of Transportation Programs 926130 Regulation and Administration of Communications, Electric, Gas, and Other Utilities 926140 Regulation of Agricultural Marketing and Commodities 926150 Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors 927 Space Research and Technology
927110 Space Research and Technology
928 National Security and International Affairs
928110 National Security
928120 International Affairs
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
California Employment Development Department (EDD)
US Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), 2022

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 C-1
Appendix C - Western Riverside County Traffic Growth 2018 – 2045
Existing (2018) and future (2045) traffic data were derived from RivCoM. The model area of coverage, level of roadway network and TAZ detail, and application on other regional transportation study efforts represented RivCoM as the appropriate tool for evaluating traffic growth as part of the Nexus Study.

The forecasts of existing and future congestion levels were derived from the Year 2018 Existing and Year 2045 No-Build scenarios, re spectively. The 2018 Existing and 2045 No- Build scenarios were developed using RivCoM to model 2018 and 2045 SED, respectively, as derived from the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS adopted SED forecasts, on the transportation network as it existed in 2021. The 2018 existing transportation network represents the most recent baseline network developed for RivCoM, and only reflects the inclusion of those projects that were funded, committed and under construction at that time, and therefore imminently to be part of the baseline transportation system in 2018. For the purposes of the TUMF network analysis, additional improvements on the TUMF arterial highway network that were either completed or under construction in the period between 2018 and December 2021 were added to the network to create a 2021 existing network. The 2021 existing network was subsequently modeled in RivCoM using both 2018 and 2045 SED to provide the 2018 Baseline and 2045 No-Build scenarios as the basis for comparison and analysis. The 2045 No-Build scenario did not include transportation improvements that are planned as part of the recently adopted SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS on the basis they are uncommitted (meaning that their implementation is dependent on securing future funding and approval). Inclusion of the uncommitted improvements masks the congestion effects of increasing travel. Inclusion of these improvements and the resultant masking is not appropriate for this analysis aimed at identifying the effects of increasing travel if improvements were not built.

The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from RivCoM for the purpose of calculating the following measures for Western Riverside County only. Traffic growth impacts for each of the two scenarios were calculated using the TransCAD platform.

¾ Total daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT),
¾ Total daily VMT on facilities experiencing LOS E or worse. ¾ Total daily vehicle hours of travel (VHT), and
¾ Total combined daily vehicle hours of delay (VHD)

The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values.

¾ VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume
¾ VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume ¾ VHD = VHT – (Free-flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume) ¾ VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90) 13 ϭϯLOS Thresholds for LOS E are based on the 2010 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 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 C-2
RivCoM breaks down its roadway network into functional categories called assignment groups. The measures were calculated selectively for all facilities, freeways only, arterials only, and TUMF arterials only by including and excluding different assignment groups and facilities. For the calculation of measures on “all facilities”, only the centroid connectors were excluded. Arterial values excluded all mixed-flow to carpool lane connector ramps, freeways, carpool lanes, centroid connectors, and freeway-to- freeway connector ramps, respectively. Freeways were defined as including mixed- flow to carpool lane connector ramps, freeways, carpool lanes, and freeway-to- freeway connector ramps, respectively.

The 2021 Existing Network by Facility Type is included in this Appendix as Exhibit C-1. The 2021 existing network was used as the basis for the 2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build scenarios by modeling 2018 and 2045 SED, respectively, on the 2021 existing network using RivCoM to determine the comparative effects of population, household an employment growth in the region. The results of the analysis of existing and future congestion levels are presented for peak periods in Exhibit C-2 and for daily in Exhibit C- 3 in this Appendix and extracted for the combined peak periods in Table 3.1 of the study report.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 C-4
EXHIBIT C-2

Western Riverside County
Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 - 2045) – Peak Periods
Measures of Performance
AM Peak PM Peak
2018 2045 % Change % Annual 2018 2045 % Change % Annual VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 10,324,900 13,225,039 28% 0.9% 12,959,824 16,672,215 29% 0.9% VMT - FREEWAYS 5,877,972 6,720,682 14% 0.5% 7,636,550 8,769,602 15% 0.5% VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 4,446,928 6,504,357 46% 1.4% 5,323,274 7,902,613 48% 1.5% TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 2,793,846 3,826,810 37% 1.2% 3,423,139 4,770,390 39% 1.2% VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 251,133 435,243 73% 2.1% 290,218 480,196 65% 1.9% VHT - FREEWAYS 120,257 186,102 55% 1.6% 143,535 213,027 48% 1.5% VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 130,875 249,142 90% 2.4% 146,683 267,169 82% 2.2% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 81,578 154,106 89% 2.4% 92,877 166,763 80% 2.2% VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 57,989 177,814 207% 4.2% 50,911 160,242 215% 4.3% VHD - FREEWAYS 34,221 86,616 153% 3.5% 31,935 84,033 163% 3.6% VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 23,768 91,198 284% 5.1% 18,977 76,209 302% 5.3% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 18,024 66,789 271% 5.0% 15,225 58,074 281% 5.1% VMT LOS E & F - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 2,960,551 6,364,419 115% 2.9% 2,644,519 7,005,063 165% 3.7% VMT LOS E & F - FREEWAYS 2,435,804 4,276,258 76% 2.1% 2,289,667 5,040,633 120% 3.0% VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 524,747 2,088,161 298% 5.2% 354,852 1,964,430 454% 6.5% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E & F 448,168 1,585,571 254% 4.8% 317,614 1,598,561 403% 6.2% % of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E & F 16% 41%

9% 34%

* Based on RivCoM 2018 network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network completed.

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 C-5
EXHIBIT C-3

Western Riverside County
Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 - 2045) – Daily

Measures of Performance
Peak Periods (Total) Daily
2018 2045 % Change % Annual 2018 2045 % Change % Annual VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 23,284,724 29,897,254 28% 0.9% 41,378,907 53,832,389 30% 1.0% VMT - FREEWAYS 13,514,522 15,490,284 15% 0.5% 24,642,357 29,200,582 18% 0.6% VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 9,770,202 14,406,970 47% 1.4% 16,736,551 24,631,807 47% 1.4% TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 6,216,985 8,597,200 38% 1.2% 10,794,415 15,170,125 41% 1.3% VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 541,350 915,439 69% 2.0% 893,813 1,433,458 60% 1.8% VHT - FREEWAYS 263,792 399,128 51% 1.5% 440,073 637,990 45% 1.4% VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 277,558 516,311 86% 2.3% 453,740 795,469 75% 2.1% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 174,455 320,869 84% 2.3% 285,520 496,757 74% 2.1% VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 108,900 338,056 210% 4.3% 131,965 410,511 211% 4.3% VHD - FREEWAYS 66,156 170,649 158% 3.6% 79,532 208,287 162% 3.6% VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 42,745 167,407 292% 5.2% 52,434 202,223 286% 5.1% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 33,249 124,863 276% 5.0% 41,025 152,200 271% 5.0% VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 5,605,070 13,369,483 139% 3.3% 6,153,146 16,090,205 161% 3.6% VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS 4,725,471 9,316,891 97% 2.5% 5,141,215 11,306,348 120% 3.0% VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 879,599 4,052,592 361% 5.8% 1,011,931 4,783,858 373% 5.9% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 765,782 3,184,133 316% 5.4% 878,465 3,819,635 335% 5.6% % of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 12% 37%

8% 25%

* Based on RivCoM 2018 network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network completed.

NOTES:

VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast tra 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 Genera

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 D-1
Appendix D - Western Riverside County Bus Transit System Ridership 2023 – 2045

Actual average weekday daily ridership for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) transit bus services was tabulated for 2023. Forecast average weekday daily ridership for RTA bus transit services was retrieved from the SCAG 2 020 RTP/SCS Model for horizon year 2045.

The bus transit ridership for 2023 and 2045 was tabulated to represent existing and future regional bus transit trips consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section

3.1 and Appendix C. Table D-1 summarizes the weekday bus transit ridership in Western Riverside County.

TABLE D-1 - Regional Bus Transit Weekday System Ridership

Year Western Riverside
Weekday Projected System Ridership
2023* 16,575
2045** 57,282

Notes: * - 2023 actual average weekday daily ridership provided by RTA staff December 1, 2023
** - 2045 forecast average weekday daily ridership obtained from SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model as provided by Fehr and
Peers, November 28, 2023

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 E-1
Appendix E - Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials Performance Measures

An integral element of the Nexus Study is the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the “TUMF Network”). 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, and represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The Regional System of Highways and Arterials does NOT include the freeways of Western Riverside County which primarily serve inter-regional trips.

The designation of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials in the original TUMF Nexus Study adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in October 2002 was initiated with the identification of highways and roadways that met certain specified guidelines as defined by the WRCOG Public Works Committee. The guidelines are defined in Section 4.1 of the Nexus Report, and include:

1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at future buildout (not including freeways).

2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County.

3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day in the future horizon year.

4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 (LOS E) or greater in the future horizon year.

5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services.

The original candidate facilities were identified by overlaying various transportation system and land use plots depicting parameters consistent with those defined by the specified guidelines. These plots included existing and proposed numbers of lanes, network volumes and volume to capacity ratio (LOS) derived from SCAG CTP Model networks developed by Transcore to supp ort the ongoing Western Riverside County CETAP study, and existing land use information provided by SCAG. These plots were included in the Appendices that accompanied the original 2002 TUMF Nexus Study.

Fixed route transit service information was provided by the Riverside County Regional Transportation Authority (RTA).

These various data inputs were overlaid and reviewed leading the definition of a segmented skeletal network of highways and roadways for further consideration. The skeletal network was further enhanced to reflect regional connectivity and access to activity center considerations. An initial draft Regional System of Highways and Arterials was developed and subsequently distributed to the County of Riverside and each City in Western Riverside County for review in the context of their respective City General

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 E-2
Plan Circulation Elements, primarily to confirm existing and future number of lanes and appropriateness of the facilities identified. The initial draft network was subsequently revised to consolidate appropriate General Plan Circulation Elements, including the identification of proposed new facilities as alternatives to existing facilities. It should be pointed out that the Regional System of Highways and Arterials does not represent a simple compilation of regional General Plan Circulation Elements, but rather incorporates the elements of regional General Plan Circulation Elements that are necessary for mitigating the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development within the horizon year of the TUMF program.

The consolidated list of proposed network improvements (along with associated initial cost estimates) was subsequently distributed to each of the WRCOG jurisdictions, individual landowners, and other stakeholders including representatives of the development community through the Building Industry Association (BIA) for review. The review of the consolidated list of improvements (and associated costs) prompted a series of five peer review workshop meetings to specifically review each segment of roadway identified and the associated improvements to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development. One peer review workshop meeting was held for each of the five zones in the WRCOG region with meetings held at the Riverside County Assessor’s Office between June 27, 2002 and July 18, 2002. The peer review workshop meetings involved representatives from WRCOG, the respective zone jurisdictions and the BIA.

The peer review workshops culminated in the development (by consensus of the groups) of a revised list of proposed network improvements (and associated costs) more accurately reflecting the improvements necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development.

Following the peer review, the initial Regional System of Highways and Arterials was reviewed and endorsed by the TUMF Technical Advisory Committee, the TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee and utilized as the basis for developing the original TUMF Nexus Study in October 2002.

For the 2024 update of the TUMF Nexus Study, the Regional System of Highways and Arterials was reassessed. Consistent with the changing rate of new development forecast for Western Riverside County as part of the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS, including reductions in the overall level of non-residential employment, the review of the TUMF Network as part of the 2024 Nexus Update ensured 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 involved the comparison of model outputs for the 2018 Baseline and 2045 No-Build Scenarios on the 2021 Existing arterial network to identify those facilities no longer expected to be impacted substantially by the cumulative effects of traffic growth from new development. This review resulted in various changes in the scope and magnitude of specific improvements previously identified on the TUMF Network. The updated model output plots utilized as the basis for the latest network review are included in this appendix as Exhibit E-1 through E-8.

The Regional System of Highways and Arterials is included as Figure 4.1 in the Nexus Study report.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-1
Appendix F - TUMF Network Cost Assumptions

The TUMF program was established as a uniform impact fee program that is applied to mitigate the cumulative transportation impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system. In establishing the technical basis for TUMF, like any impact fee program, there are two fundamental requirements that must be addressed: establishing a rational nexus for the program; and determining that any fee is roughly proportional to the impact of a proposed development. These requirements are rooted in two well- known legal cases: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825; and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374.

To establish project costs that meet the rough proportionality test for an expansive network of facilities, WRCOG utilizes a conce ptual planning level project and cost estimation approach based on typical unit costs for a variety of project types and conditions. These unit costs are intended to reflect a range of values that are typical for the types of projects that are necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. These unit costs are developed for each typical project type based on actual observed values for the various materials, labor and right-of-way that would typically be required to complete a project. Although the actual materials, labor, right-of-way and associate costs to complete each specific project can be expected to vary based on the particular conditions of each site and project requirements at the time the project is actually implemented, the approach of using typical unit costs as the basis for the TUMF program represents a manageable and appropriate level of detail to establish conceptual project cost estimates that meet the requirement for rough proportionality.

The application of typical unit costs and the associated identification of a maximum TUMF share for each eligible project also provides a framework that protects the program from projects with actual costs that vary significantly from the typical cost estimates used as the program basis. The TUMF program administrative polices limit reimbursement of costs associated with eligible TUMF projects to the lesser of maximum TUMF share identified in the Nexus Study or the actual eligible project costs. In this manner, projects that are completed by participating jurisdictions or developers for less than the maximum TUMF share are reimbursed (or credited) for the actual amount expended, while projects that exceed the maximum TUMF share are only reimbursed (or credited) by the program up to the maximum TUMF share value ensuring that the program is mitigating impacts at a level that is roughly proportional to that typically expected, and is not subject to extreme project costs to address unusual or exceptional local conditions or requirements.

For the purposes of TUMF, unit cost values were developed for various eligible improvement types that all provide additional capacity needed to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development to facilities on the TUMF Network. Eligible improvement types include:

1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes;

2. Construction of new Network roadway segments;

3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures;

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-2

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. Expansion of existing Network-to-Network intersections;

9. Infrastructure for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) of Network roadway segments.

Because roadway improvement standards vary considerably between respective jurisdictions, a typical roadway standard for the TUMF Network was recommended by the Public Works Committee (PWC) during the development of the original TUMF Nexus Study adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in October 2002 as the basis for developing the TUMF Network cost estimate. The typical roadway standard assumes the following design characteristics that are consistent with the minimum requirements of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual:

¾ Asphalt concrete pavement and appropriate base material to accomplish up to 12 feet per travel lane plus up to four feet for ancillary treatments (e.g. shoulders, or Class II Bike Lane);
¾ Concrete curb and gutter and associated drainage (e.g. paved roadway shoulders and/or open swale);
¾ Storm drains located within curb to curb, and associated transverse portions perpendicular to the roadway and adjoining portions longitudinal to the roadway;
¾ 14 foot paved and painted median (or dual center left turn lane); ¾ Traffic signals at intersections with state highways and other major arterials that are also on the TUMF Network;
¾ Pavement striping and roadway signing, as required;
¾ 6 foot wide concrete sidewalks and associated curb cuts for ADA access at street crossings.

A cross-section of the Typical Roadway Standard is illustrated in Figure F-1.

Figure F-1. Typical Roadway Standard Cross-Section

It is recognized that the typical roadway standard is not appropriate in all potential TUMF Network locations. Where appropriate, typical design standards could be substituted with design elements such as open swale drainage and paved roadway shoulders with no curbing that would typically cost less than the implementation of the

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-3
Typical Roadway Standard. Roadway improvements in excess of the Typical Roadway Standard include, but are not limited to:
¾ Portland concrete cement pavement or other aesthetic pavement types (except at intersections);
¾ Major rehabilitation or overlay of existing pavement in adjacent roadway lanes; ¾ Raised barrier medians;
¾ Parking lanes;
¾ Roadway tapers outside the extents of the approved project ¾ Sanitary sewage infrastructure;
¾ Water systems
¾ Dry utilities
¾ Undergrounding infrastructure
¾ Relocation of non-prior rights utilities
¾ Storm Drain Systems in excess of draining the roadway ¾ Landscaping;
¾ Streetlighting;
¾ Class I Bike Lanes (e.g. separate bicycle paths)
¾ Environmental Permitting
¾ Detection/Retention Basins outside of Street Right-of-Way ¾ Agency Staff time in excess of 15% of Engineering
¾ Agency Staff Time in excess of 15% of Construction

These improvements in excess of Typical Roadway Standards are not eligible for TUMF funding and will be the responsibility of the local funding agency.

Unit cost estimates for the implementation of TUMF Network improvements were developed based on the unit cost to accomplish the Typical Roadway Standard. Initial unit cost estimates were developed as part of the original TUMF Nexus in 2002. These original values were adjusted as part of the 2005 Nexus Update to reflect changes in cost based on relevant indices. The unit cost estimates were fully revised as part of the 2009 Nexus Update to capture the full effects of the economic recession on the costs of labor, materials and property acquisition. For the previous 2016 Nexus Update, the unit costs were fully revised. The 2016 Nexus Update reflected the effects of the ongoing recovery from the economic recession that has saw the costs of materials, labor and land acquisition in California rebound from relative historical lows previously observed at the time of the 2009 Nexus Update.

For the 2024 Nexus Update, the unit costs were again fully 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 and adjacent to Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed as part of the 2024 Nexus Update to account for the unprecedented materials cost increases, labor shortages and high rate of inflation generally attributable to a combination of the disruption to global supply chains caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and additional tariffs on a range of products imported into the United States.

In December 2023, the unit cost values were validated utilizing Caltrans Contract Cost Data and the resultant unit costs are noted in Exhibit F-2 and summarized in Table 4.1.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-4
For simplicity, the roadway unit cost was assumed to provide for the full depth construction (including grading) of 16 feet of new pavement per lane (to accommodate a minimum 12 foot lane and ancillary treatments). The unit cost was assumed to include the following construction elements:

¾ Sawcut of existing pavement
¾ Removal of existing pavement
¾ Roadway excavation and embankment
¾ 10” thick class 2 aggregate base
¾ 4.0” thick asphaltic concrete surface
¾ Concrete curb, gutter and drainage improvements

Roadway unit costs were determined for each unique cost item. The source used to determine the roadway unit costs as part of the 2024 Nexus Update are listed below.

¾ Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021-2022
¾ Projects within Riverside County and Adjacent Counties ¾ Typical experience for local cities, Western Riverside County ¾ Michael Baker international (MBI), Structural Group
¾ MBI, ITS Group
¾ Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022-2023

All data described above was initially obtained in October 2022 and refreshed and validated in December 2023.

Right-of-way acquisition costs were determined based on the cost to acquire 18 feet of right-of-way per lane of new roadway improvement. For urban and suburban land use areas, the amount of right-of-way to be acquired as part of the TUMF program was reduced by 75% to account for property already owned by a participating jurisdiction through prior acquisition or dedication. Right-of-way unit costs were assumed to include the following elements:

¾ Land acquisition
¾ Documentation and legal fees
¾ Relocation and demolition costs and condemnation compensation requirements
¾ Utility relocation
¾ Direct environmental mitigation

Right-of-way unit costs were determined based on a review of actual property sales within the WRCOG region during the prior 18 month period. The task of determining the valuation per square foot of right-of-way for different land uses was completed by Epic Land Solutions, Inc.

A typical existing condition of each component type was used as a guideline for quantity assessments.
¾ Terrain 1: Level terrain with 0% profile grade. Construction cost is per lane mile. ¾ Terrain 2: Rolling Terrain with 1.5 % profile grade. Construction cost is per lane mile.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-5
¾ Terrain 3: Mountainous Terrain with 3% profile grade. Construction cost is per lane mile.
¾ Land Use 1, 2 and 3; ROW cost factor per lane mile, for Urban, Suburban and Rural areas respectively.
¾ Interchange 1: Complex New Interchange/Interchange Modification. Existing complex interchange at I-15 & SR-91 was used as a guideline for quantity assessments.
¾ Interchange 2: New Interchange/Interchange Modification is assumed to be a New Cloverleaf Interchange consisting of 4 (3 lane) direct ramps and 4 (2 lane) loop ramps.
¾ Interchange 3: Major Interchange Improvement is assumed to correspond to adding 1 lane to each ramp on a cloverleaf Interchange. ¾ Bridge: New Bridge cost. Construction cost is per linear foot per lane. ¾ RRXing 1: New Rail Grade Crossing. Construction cost is per lane per crossing. ¾ RRXing 2: Widening Existing Grade Crossing. Construction cost is per lane per crossing.
¾ ITS 1: Infrastructure for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on TUMF Network roadway segments per route mile

The cost estimating methodology here is intended to provide a Present Value Cost Estimate for the WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee based on year 2023 unit prices. A more detailed description of cost categories is detailed below.

I. Roadway Items
Roadway Excavation:

A unit cost of $38.55 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data) is applied to account for the excavation quantities. Assuming proposed profiles to be at 0% grade, the excavation values are estimated based on the component type as follows:
¾ Terrain 2 and 3: excavation for one lane (16 feet wide and 4 feet deep) is assumed.

Imported Borrow:

The unit cost used for imported borrow is $20.47 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). Locations where imported borrow is required are determined from aerial photos.
¾ Terrain 2 and 3: Excavation for one lane (16 feet wide and 4 feet deep) is assumed.
¾ Interchanges 1, 2, and 3: Vertical clearance of 24.5 feet is used to calculate the maximum amount of imported borrow at areas adjacent to an undercrossing. ¾ RRXing 1 and 2: Vertical clearance of 31.5 feet and Bridge approach of 1,000 feet is used to determine the quantity of Imported borrow for this component type.

Clearing and Grubbing:

The unit cost for clearing and grubbing is $12,100.00 per acre (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data).

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-6
¾ Terrain 1, 2 and 3: The area of clearing and grubbing is assumed to extend 16 feet for the addition of each new lane.
¾ Interchange 1 and 2: The area of clearing and grubbing is assumed to extend 40 feet beyond the proposed outside edge of shoulder. The clearing and grubbing width varies depending on the number of added lanes.
¾ Interchange 3 and Intersection: The area of clearing and grubbing is assumed to extend 16 feet for the addition of each lane.

Development of Water Supply:

A lump sum value is used to account for developing water supply. The lump sum cost is estimated as 10% of the combined cost for roadway excavation and imported borrow (Source: RCTC).

PCC Pavement:

The unit cost for PCC pavement is $354.83 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data).
¾ Terrain 1, 2 and 3: It is assumed that PCC is used at mainline shoulders. The PCC shoulder pavement is assumed to be 4 inch thick and 4 feet wide.

Asphalt Concrete Type A:

It is assumed that Asphalt Concrete is used at mainline and where ramp and bridge widening is required. A unit cost of $240.62 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data) is used to account for asphalt concrete quantities. The asphalt concrete overlay is assumed to be 4 inch thick.

Aggregate Base:

The unit cost for aggregate base is $73.54 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). Aggregate base quantities are estimated by means of calculating the areas of additional lanes. The aggregate base layer is considered to be 10 inch thick. It is assumed that aggregate base is used over the entire widening width below the PCC pavement and asphalt concrete layers.

Curb and Gutter:

The unit cost used for curb and gutter is $65.74 per linear foot (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). It is assumed that type A2-6 curb and gutter is used on the entire length of travel way where required.

Project Drainage:

A lump sum value is used to account for project drainage cost of roadway construction. The project drainage cost is estimated as 15% (Source: RCTC project 2007) of combined cost for earthwork and pavement structural section.

Traffic Signals:

The costs for traffic signals are calculated per ramp termini intersection. The unit cost used for traffic signals is $531,086 (Source: Caltrans Contract Cost Data and typical experience, Western Riverside County) per intersection. Traffic signals costs are considered only at the Intersection (Network-to-Network) upgrade.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-7
Striping:

The unit cost used for Striping is $2.58 per linear foot (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). It is assumed that two lines of thermo-plastic striping are required for every lane addition.

Marking:

The unit cost used for marking is $7.31 per square foot (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data).
¾ Terrains 1, 2 and 3: It is assumed that there are 8 arrow markers, 2 Stop sign markers and 4 Bike sign markers.
¾ Interchanges 1, 2, and 3: It is assumed that there are 2 Type I arrows on each on ramp, and 2 Type IV (L) arrows on each off ramp.
¾ Intersection (network to network) upgrade: It is assumed that there are 2 right turn arrows and two right lane drop arrows for each lane modification for the interchange upgrade

Pavement Marker:

Type G one-way clear retroreflective pavement markers (Spacing @ 48 feet) were assumed for Terrain 1, 2 and 3 component types only. The unit cost used for pavement marker is $5.06 each (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data).

Signage:

The signage unit cost accounts for the costs of one-post signs and two-post signs.

The unit cost used for one-post signs and two-post signs are $367.69 and $1,211.58 each, respectively (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). The post sign quantities assumed for each component type is summarized below.

Sign Type Terrain 1, 2 & 3 Interchange Intersection
1 2 3
One Post Signs 33 14 36 20 3
Two Post Signs - 4 4 4 0

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS):

The unit cost used for ITS is $686,338.50 per route mile (Source: Local Projects and MBI ITS Group). It is assumed that there is no existing ITS infrastructure (with the exception of isolated ITS devices) within the TUMF Network roadway segments and essential ITS infrastructure is furnished and installed. This essential ITS infrastructure includes ethernet switch, fiber jumper, fiber distribution unit, splice enclosure, pull box, new cabinet with foundation, 144 strand single-mode fiber optic (SMFO) cable and 3” conduits.

Minor Items, Roadway Mobilization, and Roadway Additions:

A lump sum value is used to account for minor items, roadway mobilization and roadway additions as described below. These lump sum values are recommended based on provisions in Project Development Procedure Manual (PDPM) and the

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-8
date from individual sources presented in the introduction of this report (Source:

RCTC)

Items Unit Cost
Minor Items 10% of earthwork, pavement structure, drainage, specialty items and traffic items.

Roadway
Mobilization
10% of earthwork, pavement structure, drainage,
specialty items, traffic items and minor items.

Roadway Additions 10% of earthwork, pavement structure, drainage, specialty items, traffic items and minor items.

II. Structure Items
New Bridge:

New interchanges account for construction of a new bridge. The unit cost for a new travel way bridge construction and RRXings1 and 2 (New and Widening of Rail Grade Crossings) is $400.00 per square foot (Source: MBI Structural group). The width of a new bridge is assumed to be 82 feet (4 lanes x 12ft + 10ft shoulder x 2 + 14ft median).

Bridge Widening:

Bridge widenings account for the widening of existing bridges. The unit cost is $500.00 per square foot (Source: MBI Structural group). The width of a bridge widening is assumed to be: 2 lanes x 12ft + 10ft shoulder. The width of an arterial crossing over rail road is assumed to be 16 feet (1 lane x 12ft + 4ft shoulder).

Structural Mobilization:

The cost for structural mobilization is estimated as 10% of total structure item cost (Source: Typical experience).

III. Right of Way Items
The right of way unit cost varies with land use designation. The unit cost for ROW was developed by Epic Land Solutions, Inc. based on a review of actual property sales within the WRCOG region during the prior 18 month period. The area of right of way acquisition for the travel way is calculated per additional lane mile, assuming the width of the right-of-way required to be 18 feet per lane (to accommodate a 12 foot roadway lane, shoulders and ancillary amenities, like storm water drainage).

The right of way acquisition for RRXings1 and 2 is calculated based on ROW acquisition for bridge approaches.

Property costs per square foot are derived by reviewing a large sample of recently sold land and improved properties within the greater Riverside area. The properties reviewed are identified specifically from completed semi large to very large infrastructure projects and upcoming projects with preferred alternatives and/or approved environmental reports. For the purposes of the 2022 Nexus Study update, an overall sample of approximately 2,700 properties was used.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-9
The properties were designated as: urban areas (generally considered downtown, or very close to downtown in the larger cities - predominantly Corona and Riverside, with a few parcels in Temecula and Moreno Valley); suburban (primarily considered the greater areas of Hemet, Perris, San Jacinto, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore, outer portions of Riverside / Corona, Temecula, Murrieta, Calimesa, Eastvale, Norco, and other cities of relative size and location as those previously mentioned); and rural (considered the exurban areas between Corona / Lake Elsinore and Perris along the SR-74/79, Lake Matthews, between Wildomar and Murrieta, Temecula and Perris and other similar areas) to correspond with the land use classifications used for cost estimating purposes in the TUMF program. The properties were also determined to be partial or full property takes to determine the relative percentage of each in order to appropriately weight the average cost per square foot of each type of property. Specialty cost percentages as a share of total acquisition costs (i.e. relocation and demolition) were also derived from actual costs based on a sample of the Inland Empire projects that Epic Land Solutions, Inc. was directly involved in and therefore able to obtain reliable data.

The result is an estimated average cost per square foot for ROW acquisition by land use classification which is then multiplied by the number of square feet per lane mile to obtain the required ROW to accomplish the TUMF typical cross section. The ROW requirement is then reduced by a factor of 75% for urban and suburban areas based on the collective recommendation of the PWC during the development of the initial program cost estimation methodology to reflect the assumption that a majority of the proposed TUMF facilities in these areas already exist and/or have a substantial portion of the necessary right-of-way already owned by or dedicated to the responsible jurisdiction. As a result, the TUMF program only includes the estimated cost for 25% of the right-of-way that could potentially be required to accomplish the TUMF cross sections for the conceptual improvement projects identified as part of the program in urban and suburban areas.

Maintenance of Traffic:

A lump sum value is used to account for maintenance of traffic cost of roadway construction. The project maintenance of traffic cost is estimated as 5% (Source:

RCTC) of the total project cost.

The consolidated unit cost values include typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the eligible improvement element. These elements include new roadways, bridge improvements, interchange improvements and railroad grade separation construction costs, and right of way acquisition.

The consolidated unit costs as developed for the 2024 Nexus Update are summarized in Exhibit F-1. Exhibit F-2 provides a summary of the unit costs for the various roadway and structures construction elements defined. Exhibit F-3 provides a summary of the unit costs for the various right of way categories. Exhibit F-4 provides worksheets showing the detailed unit cost calculation for each TUMF unit cost category related to roadway and structures construction, and right of way acquisition.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-10
The unit cost assumptions were subsequently applied to the TUMF Network improvements identified to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development. The resultant cost value was tabulated for each unique segment of the network, by improvement type. A separate cost estimate was generated for regional transit improvements based on information provided by RTA and added to the TUMF Network Cost Estimate table.

Supplemental categories have been added to the cost assumptions to better delineate the costs associated with planning and engineering a project, accommodating contingencies, mitigating the cumulate multi-species habitat impacts of TUMF arterial highway improvements in accordance with the adopted Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and administering the TUMF program.

Soft Costs

The TUMF program provides for planning, engineering and contingency costs (collectively referred to as soft costs) for eligible projects to be reimbursed through the program. As indicated in Table 4.1 , planning costs are considered to include those costs associated with planning, preliminary engineering and environmental assessment of the proposed project, with the eligible amount being 10% of the estimated TUMF eligible construction cost only. Engineering costs are considered to include project study report, design, permitting and construction oversight costs based on 25% of the estimated eligible construction cost only. Contingency is provided based on 10% of the total estimated eligible facility cost.

Soft costs include all reasonable required planning, environmental clearance and mitigation, right-of-way documentation, engineering design, plan, specification and estimate preparation and construction management and oversight costs necessary to accomplish the project. The estimated soft cost factors for planning, engineering and contingency were initially established in 2002 by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, which was responsible for the development of the initial TUMF Nexus Study. The percentage multipliers were established by consensus of the PWC based on the collective experience of members in delivering similar public highway projects. A review of various data sources indicates the cost factors are generally consistent with industry guidance for conceptual cost estimation purposes. The City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering California Multi-Agency CIP Benchmarking Study (December 2016) indicates that combined design and construction management costs for roadway projects represent, on average, 50% of the total cost of construction

14. Similarly, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Practical Guide for Estimating (December 2011) also cites the following average multipliers for a range of planning and engineering activities based on national research as a basis for conceptual cost estimation:

ϭϰCity of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering California Multi- Agency CIP Benchmarking Study (December 2016), Table 3-6 Average Project Delivery Costs by Project Type (% of TCC) (Full Range of TCC).

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-11

x Preliminary Engineering Costs (including survey/data collection, design, environmental, utilities and contract administration) – 10% to 25% of total construction cost15
x Construction Engineering – 10% to 26% of total construction costs16

Furthermore, the contingency rate utilized in the TUMF program is significantly less than the industry norm for conceptual cost estimat ion purposes. Specifically, Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual (July 2021) advocates for contingency rates of 30% to 50% of total costs to be used at the project feasibility (conceptual planning) phase of project development
17, with contingency rates reduced to 10% for preliminary engineers cost estimates completed during project design18.

MSHCP

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 provision is reiterated in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020) section “6. RCA Non-Fee Revenues” which states “The MSHCP forecast an array of revenue sources, in addition to fee revenue, supporting the conservation program. These sources were anticipated to total about 44 percent of the revenue for the program, including:
• Transportation funding – includes the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through 2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) charged on new development.” Table 23 Annual Non-Fee Revenue Projection in this section indicates that an average of $950,000 in MSHCP revenue was derived annually from TUMF during the three years from FY16/17- 18/19 reflecting a TUMF contribution at 5% of construction costs consistent with the MSHCP as adopted in 2003. To clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP, the TUMF program will continue to incorporate a cost element to account for the required MSHCP contribution to mitigate the multi-species habitat impacts of constructing TUMF projects.

ϭϱAASHTO Technical Committee on Cost Estimating (TCCE) AASHTO Practical Guide for Estimating (December 2011), Table 2.4. Preliminary Engineering Costs’ Average Percentage Ranges (% of Construction).
ϭϲAASHTO Technical Committee on Cost Estimating (TCCE) AASHTO Practical Guide for Estimating (December 2011), Section 2.2.3.2.3 Construction Engineering, “highway improvement projects in an urban environment”.
ϭϳCalifornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Design Project Development Procedures Manual (July 2021), Chapter 20 – Project Development Cost Estimates, Section 2 – Project Planning Cost Estimates, Article 2 Project Feasibility Cost Estimate, Contingencies. ϭϴCalifornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Design Project Development Procedures Manual (July 2021), Chapter 20 – Project Development Cost Estimates, Section 3 – Project Design Cost Estimates, Article 4 Preliminary Engineer’s Cost Estimate, Contingencies.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-12

An amount equal to 5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges and railroad grade separations will continue to 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 2020 MSHCP Nexus Report are included in this Appendix as Exhibits F-5 and F-6, respectively.

Similarly, an amount of 4% of the total TUMF eligible network cost is included as part of the TUMF program with revenues to be utilized by WRCOG to cover the direct costs to administer the program. The 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.

Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate, including a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions and the current revised unit cost assumptions developed as part of the 2009 Update of the TUMF Nexus Study. Cost estimates are provided in year of original values as indicated.

EXHIBIT F-1
2024 TUMF Nexus Update - Arterial Highway Cost Assumptions:

Component
Type
Cost Assumptions
as published
October 18, 2002
Cost Assumption per
2009 Nexus Update
October 5, 2009
Cost Assumptions per
2016 Update
Cost Assumptions per
2024 Update Description
Terrain 1 $550,000.00 $628,000.00 $692,000.00 $1,132,000 Construction cost per lane mile - level terrain Terrain 2 $850,000.00 $761,000.00 $878,000.00 $1,740,000 Construction cost per lane mile - rolling terrain Terrain 3 $1,150,000.00 $895,000.00 $1,064,000.00 $2,350,000 Construction cost per lane mile - mountainous terrain Landuse 1 $900,000.00 $1,682,000.00 $2,509,000.00 $7,830,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - urban areas Landuse 2 $420,000.00 $803,000.00 $2,263,000.00 $5,440,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - suburban areas Landuse 3 $240,000.00 $237,000.00 $287,000.00 $490,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - rural areas Interchange 1 n/a $43,780,000.00 $50,032,000.00 $84,190,000 Complex new interchange/interchange modification cost Interchange 2 $20,000,000.00 $22,280,000.00 $25,558,000.00 $43,490,000 New interchange/interchange modification total cost Interchange 3 $10,000,000.00 $10,890,000.00 $12,343,000.00 $22,550,000 Major interchange improvement total cost Bridge 1 $2,000.00 $2,880.00 $3,180.00 $4,800 Bridge total cost per lane per linear foot RRXing 1 $4,500,000.00 $4,550,000.00 $6,376,000.00 $18,200,000 New Rail Grade Crossing per lane mile RRXing 2 $2,250,000.00 $2,120,000.00 $2,733,000.00 $6,900,000 Existing Rail Grade Crossing per lane mile ITS n/a n/a n/a $686,400 Infrastructure for ITS of Network roadway segments per route mile Planning 10% 10% 10% 10% Planning, preliminary engineering and environmental assessment costs based on construction cost only Engineering 25% 25% 25% 25% Project study report, design, permitting¬ and construction oversight costs based on construction cost only Contingency 10% 10% 10% 10% Contingency costs, including TUMF program administration based on total segment cost Administration 3% 4% 4% TUMF program administration based on total TUMF eligible network cost MSHCP 5% 5% 5% TUMF component of MSHCP based on total TUMF eligible construction cost I. Roadway Items Unit Notes
Section 1: Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Travel way cubic yard $38.55 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 190101 Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 198010 Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 170105 Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost Same as RCTC Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
PCC cubic yard $354.83 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 401050 Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 390132 Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $73.54 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 260203 Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022/2023 - ITEM 731504 Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 Same as RCTC Section 4: Specialty Items
Retaining Walls square foot $90.00 Source: MBI structural group Ramp Realignment each
Water Quality and Erosion Control lump sum 3% of sections 1 to 3 Same as RCTC Environmental Mitigation lump sum 3% of sections 1 to 3 Same as RCTC Section 5: Traffic Items
Lighting each $7,500 Source: RCTC
Traffic Signals each $531,086 Typical for public agency projects in Western Riverside County and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022/2023 Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 846007 Marking - Thermo plastic cross walks & pavement marking square foot $7.31 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 840516 Pavement Marker Retroreflective each $5.06 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022/2023 - ITEM 810230 Signage - 1 Post each $367.69 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 820840 Signage - 2 Post each $1,211.58 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022/2023 - ITEM 820850 Infrastructure for ITS of Network roadway segments route mile $686,383.00 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and MBI ITS Team - Assumptions: 3 Traffic Signals per route mile Section 6: Minor Items lump sum 10% of sections 1 to 5 Same as RCTC Section 7: Roadway Mobilization lump sum 10% of sections 1 to 6 Same as RCTC Section 8:Roadway Additions lump sum 10% of sections 1 to 6 Same as RCTC II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Major New Interchange - 2 Lane New Bridge square foot $400.00 Interchange/Interchange, Cloverleaf Interchange - Cost provided by MBI Structural Group New Interchange - 2 Lane New Bridge square foot $400.00 Interchange/Interchange, Diamond Interchange - Cost provided by MBI Structural Group Major Interchange Improvement - 2 Lane Bridge Widening square foot $500.00 Interchange/Interchange, Cloverleaf Interchange - Cost provided by MBI Structural Group Bridge square foot $400.00 Cost provided by MBI Structural Group Structure Mobilization lump sum 10% of structure cost Typical for public agency projects in Western Riverside County III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $330 Provided by Epic Land Solutions, Inc.

Suburban
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $229 Provided by Epic Land Solutions, Inc.

Rural
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $5 Provided by Epic Land Solutions, Inc.

Utility Relocation lump sum 10% of ROW Includes mobilization for one occurrence per lane mile Total Items I + II + III Same as RCTC
Maintenance of Traffic lump sum 5% of total items Same as RCTC WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
EXHIBIT F-2
Unit Cost
2024 Nexus Update Master Unit Cost Summary
URBAN Avg. $ per SF % of Total Area Weighted Cost
Commercial
Part Take $22 1.4% $0.30
Full Take $597 7.9% $47.40

9.3%
Industrial
Part Take $29 0.5% $0.15
Full Take $267 6.0% $16.02

6.5%
Single Family Residential
Part Take $10 16.8% $1.68
Full Take $348 66.2% $230.24

83.0%
Multi Family Residential
Part Take $27 0.3% $0.07
Full Take $307 0.8% $2.52

1.1%
Average Unit Price per Square Foot: $298.38
Residential & Non-Res. Relocation (7.5%): $22.38
Demolition (3%) $8.95
Urban Unit Cost per Square Foot: $329.71
SUBURBAN Avg. $ per SF % of Total Area Weighted Share
Commercial
Part Take $17 5.1% $0.87
Full Take $425 14.6% $62.01

19.7%
Industrial
Part Take $20 0.0288 $0.58
Full Take $227 0.08645 $19.62

11.5%
Single Family Residential
Part Take $4 0.24 $0.96
Full Take $292 0.3866 $112.89

62.7%
Multi Family Residential
Part Take $14 0.0284 $0.40
Full Take $313 0.0321 $10.05

6.1%
Average Unit Price per Square Foot: $207.37
Residential & Non-Res. Relocation (7.5%): $15.55
Demolition (3%) $6.22
Suburban Unit Cost per Square Foot: $229.14
RURAL $ per SF
Range of Value of Rural Vacant land sold within last year: $0.07 - $31.48 Average price per square foot of rural land: $4.66
Miscellaneous improvements (10%): $0.46
Rural Unit Cost per Square Foot: $5.12
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
2024 Nexus Update Master Property Cost Summary
EXHIBIT F-3
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Travel way cubic yard $38.55 0.00 $0
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 0.00 $0
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 1.94 $23,467
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $0 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Sidewalk
PCC cubic yard $354.83 258.13 $91,593
Travel way
Asphalt Concrete Type A cubic yard $240.62 1,032.53 $248,448 Aggregate Base cubic yard $73.54 2,596.98 $190,982
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 5,280.00 $347,107
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $135,240 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 10,560.00 $27,245 Marking square foot $7.31 211.50 $1,546
Pavement Marker (Type G One-way Clear Retroreflective) each $5.06 110.00 $557 Signage - 1 Post (Mainline) each $367.69 33.00 $12,134
Total Items I $1,078,318
Maintenance of Traffic 5% of total items 1.00 $53,916
Project Cost / Lane mile $1,132,234
EXHIBIT F-4
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 1 - Level Terrain
Unit Cost
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Travel way cubic yard $38.55 7,739.26 $298,348
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 7,739.26 $158,423
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 1.94 $23,467
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $45,677 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Sidewalk
PCC cubic yard $354.83 258.13 $91,593
Travel way
Asphalt Concrete Type A cubic yard $240.62 1,032.53 $248,448 Aggregate Base cubic yard $73.54 2,596.98 $190,982
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 5,280.00 $347,107
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $210,607 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 10,560.00 $27,245 Marking square foot $7.31 211.50 $1,546
Pavement Marker (Type G One-way Clear Retroreflective) each $5.06 110.00 $557 Signage - 1 Post (Mainline) each $367.69 33.00 $12,134
Total Items I $1,656,133
Maintenance of Traffic 5% of total items 1.00 $82,807
Project Cost / Lane mile $1,738,940
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 2 - Rolling Terrain
Unit Cost
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Travel way cubic yard $38.55 15,478.52 $596,697
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 15,478.52 $316,845
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 1.94 $23,467
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $91,354 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Sidewalk
PCC cubic yard $354.83 258.13 $91,593
Travel way
Asphalt Concrete Type A cubic yard $240.62 1,032.53 $248,448 Aggregate Base cubic yard $73.54 2,596.98 $190,982
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 5,280.00 $347,107
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $285,974 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 10,560.00 $27,245 Marking square foot $7.31 211.50 $1,546
Pavement Marker (Type G One-way Clear Retroreflective) each $5.06 110.00 $557 Signage - 1 Post (Mainline) each $367.69 33.00 $12,134
Total Items I $2,233,949
Maintenance of Traffic 5% of total items 1.00 $111,697
Project Cost / Lane mile $2,345,646
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 3 - Mountainous Terrain
Unit Cost
Unit Unit Cost Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
Travel Way square foot $329.71 95,040.00 $31,335,419
Project Cost / Lane mile 25% $7,833,855
Unit Unit Cost Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Suburban
Travel Way square foot $229.14 95,040.00 $21,777,847
Project Cost / Lane mile 25% $5,444,462
I. Roadway Items Unit Unit Cost Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Rural
Travel Way square foot $5.12 95,040.00 $486,605
Project Cost / Lane mile $486,605
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
Landuse 3 - ROW Rural areas
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Landuse 1 - ROW Urban areas
Landuse 2 - ROW Suburban Areas
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 700,000.00 $14,329,000
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 51.93 $628,349
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $1,432,900 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 13,500.00 $3,248,370 Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $73.54 34,000.00 $2,500,360 Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 31,000.00 $2,037,940 Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $3,626,538 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 84,250.00 $217,365 Marking square foot $7.31 368.00 $2,690
Signage - 1 Post each $367.69 14.00 $5,148
Signage - 2 Post each $1,211.58 4.00 $4,846
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Complex New Interchange - 2 Lane New Bridge square foot $400.00 140,400.00 $56,160,000 Total Items I + II + III $84,193,506
Total Project Cost / lane mile $84,193,506
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Interchange 1 - Complex New Interchange/Interchange Modification Unit Cost
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 400,000.00 $8,188,000
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 25.12 $304,000
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $818,800 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 7,040.00 $1,693,965 Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $73.54 17,706.67 $1,302,148 Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 16,000.00 $1,051,840 Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $2,003,813 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 43,200.00 $111,456 Marking square foot $7.31 368.00 $2,690
Signage - 1 Post each $367.69 36.00 $13,237
Signage - 2 Post each $1,211.58 4.00 $4,846
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
New Interchange - 2 Lane New Bridge square foot $400.00 70,000.00 $28,000,000 Total Items I + II + III $43,494,795
Total Project Cost / lane mile $43,494,795
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Interchange 2 - New Interchange/Interchange Modification Unit Cost
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 180,000.00 $3,684,600
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 3.97 $48,000
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $368,460 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 3,128.89 $752,873 Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $73.54 7,869.63 $578,733 Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 16,000.00 $1,051,840 Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $972,676 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 32,000.00 $82,560 Marking square foot $7.31 184.00 $1,345
Signage - 1 Post each $367.69 20.00 $7,354
Signage - 2 Post each $1,211.58 4.00 $4,846
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Major Interchange Improvement - 2 Lane Bridge Widening square foot $500.00 30,000.00 $15,000,000 Total Items I + II + III $22,553,287
Total Project Cost / lane mile $22,553,287
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Interchange 3 - Major Interchange Improvement
Unit Cost
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Bridge square foot $400.00 12.00 $4,800
Total Items I + II + III $4,800
Total Project Cost / lane mile $4,800
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Bridge 1 - New Bridge Cost
Unit Cost
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 17,931.03 $367,048
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 782.22 $188,218 Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $73.54 1,967.41 $144,683 Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 1,180.00 $77,573
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $116,628 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 1,180.00 $3,044 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Bridge square foot $400.00 2,880.00 $1,152,000
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $329.71 49,000.00 $16,155,790 Total Items I + II + III $18,204,986
Total Project Cost / lane mile $18,204,986
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
RRXing 1 - New Rail Grade Crossing
Unit Cost
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 17.78 $364
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 782.22 $188,218 Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $73.54 1,967.41 $144,683 Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 1,180.00 $77,573
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $61,626 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 1,180.00 $3,044 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Bridge square foot $400.00 2,880.00 $1,152,000
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $329.71 16,000.00 $5,275,360 Total Items I + II + III $6,902,869
Total Project Cost / lane mile $6,902,869
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
RRXing 2 - Widen Existing Rail Grade Crossing
Unit Cost
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / route mile Cost / route mile Infrastructure for ITS of Network roadway segments route mile $686,383.00 1.00 $686,383 Total Items I + II + III $686,383
Total Project Cost / route mile $686,383
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Infrastructure for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on TUMF Network Roadway Segments Unit Cost

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-13
EXHIBIT F-5

Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003

Section 8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of Reserve Assembly and Management

8.0 MSHCP Funding/ Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I /c151 SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-14

8.5 LOCAL FUNDING PROGRAM
The following local funding plan describes the local commitment for funding Reserve Assembly, Management, and Monitoring.

The local funding program includes funding from a variety of sources, including but not limited to, regional funding resulting from the importation of waste into landfills in Riverside County, mitigation for regional public infrastructure projects, mitigation for private infrastructure projects, mitigation for private Development, funds generated by local or regional incentive programs that encourage compact growth and the creation of transit-oriented communities, and dedications of lands in conjunction with local approval of private development projects.

The local funding program will fund the local portion of:
! Land acquisition
! Management
! Monitoring
! Adaptive Management
! Plan administration

8.5.1 Funding Sources
Local funding sources include funding from both public and private developers and regional entities in an effort to spread the financial burden of the MSHCP over a broad base. The mix of funding sources provides an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP. In addition to equitably distributing mitigation for local projects, utilizing a mixture of funding sources will help ensure the long-term viability of the local funding program because a temporary decline in funding from one source may be offset by increases from another. The proposed local funding sources are described below and include:
! Local Development Mitigation Fees
! Density Bonus Fees
! Regional Infrastructure Project Contribution
! Landfill Tipping Fees

8.0 MSHCP Funding/ Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I /c151 SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-15
! Other Potential New Revenue Sources
/c39Local Development Mitigation Fees
New Development affects the environment directly through construction activity and cumulatively through population bases that result from Development. Government Code Section 66000 et seq. allows cities and counties to charge new Development for the costs of mitigating the impacts of new Development. The Cities and County will implement a Development Mitigation Fee pursuant to the MSHCP; this fee will be one of the primary sources of funding the implementation of the MSHCP.

The fee ordinance adopted by the Cities and the County will provide for an annual CPI adjustment based upon the Consumer Price Index for “All Urban Consumers” in the Los Ange les-Anaheim- Riverside Area, measured as of the month of Dece mber in the calendar year which ends in the previous Fiscal Year. There will also be a provision for the fee to be reevaluated and revised should it be found to insufficiently cover mitigation of new Development. A fee of approximately $1,500 per residential unit (or an equivalent fee per acre) and $4,800 per acre of commercial or industrial Development was used in the revenue projection shown in Appendix B-05 of this document. The projected revenues from the Development Mitigation Fee are anticipated to be approximately $540 million over the next 25 years. A nexus study is required to demonstrate that the proposed fee is proportionate to the impacts of the new Development.
/c39Density Bonus Fees
The New Riverside County General Plan creates a number of incentive plans that have the potential both to further the goals of the County’s General Plan and to facilitate the implementation of the MSHCP. Section 8.4.2 above disc usses the use of the Rural Incentive Program to aid in the Conservation of lands through non-acquisition means. An additional component of the Incentive Program enables developers to acquire the right to develop at an additional 25% increase in density by providing enhancements to their projects and by paying a “Density Bonus Fee.” The fee is anticipated to be $3,000 – $5,000 per additional unit. This program offers a significant incentive to developers when compared with the typical cost of creating a new buildable lot.

The Density Bonus program is new to Riverside County, and it is, therefore, difficult to project annual revenues. The Local Funding Program assumes that between 10% and 20% of the residential units built in the unincorporated County area will participate in the incentive program and that only 50% of the revenues of the program will be committed to the MSHCP, with the remaining portion staying in the local community in which the additional units are located to provide additional

8.0 MSHCP Funding/ Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I /c151 SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-16
amenities that will help offset the greater density. Of the 330,000 units projected to be built over the next 25 years, 10% (or 33,000 units) are assumed to be built utilizing the Density Bonus Fee resulting in $132,000,000 in revenues of which 50% (or $66 ,000,000) will be allocated to the MSHCP.
/c39Regional Infrastructure Project Contribution
Regional infrastructure projects directly affect the environment not only through the effect they have on species and their Habitats, but also by facilitating continued new Development. It is appropriate, therefore, for regional infrastructure projects to contribute to Plan implementation . Four general categories of infrastructure projects have been identified:
! Transportation Infrastructure
! Regional Utility Projects
! Local Public Capital Construction Projects
! Regional Flood Control Projects
Transportation Infrastructure
The RCIP has identified the need for approximately $12 billion in new transportation infrastructure to support the Development proposed for the next 25 years. Each new transportation project will contribute to Plan implementation . Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% – 5% of their construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts. The local funding program anticipates that more than one-half of the $12 billion cost of contribution to acquisition of Additional Reserve Lands will be funded locally and will result in approximately $371 million in contribution over the next 25 years as discussed below.
/c60 Riverside County’s ½ cent sales tax for Transportation In 1988, Riverside County voters approved a measure to increase local sales tax by ½ cent to fund new transportation projects (Measure A). The sales tax measure is due to be reauthorized in 2002.

Under the reauthorization, $121 million will be allocated as local contribution under the MSHCP. (For further information on the sales tax measure, see Section 13.5 of the MSHCP Implementing Agreement and Appendix B-07 of this document).

8.0 MSHCP Funding/ Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I /c151 SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-17
Regional Utility Projects
As Riverside County’s population doubles over the next 25 years, new regional utility infrastructure will be require d. Since the utilities are not Permittees under the MSHCP, they may choose to mitigate under the Plan or seek their own regulatory permits. In either case, their mitigation will be focused on the objectives of the MSHCP and will contribute to the local implementation funding.

No estimate of the number of projects or the scope or costs is available at this time; consequently, no estimate of mitigation funding has been made. The Permittees expect that regional utility projects will contribute to the implementation of the MSHCP and provide an additional contingency should other revenue sources not generate the projected levels of funding or should implementation costs be higher than projected.

Local Public Capital Construction Projects
Local public capital construction projects may include construction of new schools, universities, City or County administrative facilities, jails, courts, juvenile facilities, parks, libraries, or other facilities that serve the public. These projects will be mitigated under the MSHCP and will utilize a per acre mitigation fee based on the fee then in place for private, commercial and industrial Development.

No attempt has been made to estimate the number or magnitude of these projects. The Permittees expect that local pubic construction projects will contribute to the implementation of the MSHCP and provide an additional contingency should other revenue sources not generate the projected levels of funding or should implementation costs be higher than projected.

Regional Flood Control Projects
Flood control projects will receive coverage under the MSHCP for both new capital construction and for the maintenance of existing and new facilities. Preliminary estimates from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District indicate that they will likely budget approximately $15 M in projects annually. Based on using 3% of capital costs, the District would be expected to contribute approximately $450,000 to $750,000 annually to MSHCP implementation. Since many flood control projects serve existing developed communities and therefore have less impacts than projects adding capacity to serve new Development and may provide some conservation value especially in terms of Constrained Linkages, the District’s contributions may average something below the 5% level on average.

8.0 MSHCP Funding/ Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I /c151 SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-18
/c39Landfill Tipping Fees
Riverside County has utilized revenues from public and private landfills in Riverside County to generate funding for conservation and open space projects for over a decade. In 1990, the County utilized $1 per ton tipping fee assessed all waste deposited in County landfills to fund the acquisition of the Santa Rosa Plateau and approximately $260,000 annually to fund the operation of the County Park and Open Space Distr icts. More recently, the County has negotiated agreements with two private landfills in the County to commit $1 per ton on all waste imported from outside Riverside County to Conservation within Riverside County.

El Sobrante Landfill
This privately owned landfill was permitted to expand its capacity to 10,000 tons per day in 2001.

In approving the landfill expansion, the Rive rside County Board of Supervisors authorized fifty cents per ton of the County’s portion of the revenue from the landfill expansion to be applied to Conservation in addition to the $1 per ton that was committed under the landfill agreement. The projection of the annual tonnage and revenue for Conservation included in Appendix B-09 of this document reflects the $1.5 per ton commitment to Conservation. Over the life of the landfill, 60 million tons of imported waste are allowed. Sixty million tons at $1.5 per ton will generate $90 million for Conservation. The Cash Flow Analysis in Appendix B-10 of this document reflects the annual revenues from the El Sobrante Landfill.

County Landfills
The County Board of Supervisors, beginning in 1990, authorized $1 per ton for all in-county waste deposited in County landfills to go toward habitat and open space Conservation. After adjusting for the debt service on the Santa Rosa Plateau acquisition and an annual commitment to the Park and Open Space District, there is a projected annual balance of $400,000 that can be applied to additional Conservation under the MSHCP. Appendix B-09 of this document includes a projection of tonnage from in-County waste at County landfills. The Cash Flow Analysis in Appendix B-10 of this document reflects the annual revenues from the County landfills. Over the next 25 years, County landfills will contribute approximately $10 million to the implementation of the MSHCP.

8.0 MSHCP Funding/ Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I /c151 SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-19
Eagle Mountain
In 1997, the County approved the use of the old Kaiser mine at Eagle Mountain in eastern Riverside County as a regional landfill to serve primarily Los Angeles County. Subsequently, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District has acquired the rig hts to the Eagle Mountain Landfill and intends to begin operation of the landfill within the next decade. At this time, litigation is still pending that could prohibit the development of the landfill. The Development Agreement with the County would require the payment of $1 per ton for Conservation if the landfill is developed. Conservation needs in the Coachella Valley would have first priority over the revenues from the Eagle Mountain Landfill; however, some portion of the revenues would be available to support Conservation needs in Western Riverside County. The Permittees expect that the Eagle Mountain Landfill will provide funding to support implementation of the MSHCP over the life of the MSHCP. However, no revenue from the Eagle Mountain Landfill has been projected in the funding program at this time.

These potential revenues provide a contingency should other revenue sources not generate the projected levels of funding or should implementation costs be higher than projected. /c39Potential New Revenue Sources
The County and Cities may levy assessments to pay for services that directly benefit the property on which the fee is levied. Under current law, a local election may be required to initially levy the assessment or to confirm the assessment if a protest is filed. No such assessments are currently projected for the MSHCP. As the MSHCP Conservation Area is developed, however, its value as open space and for recreation opportunities may lend itself to a local funding program for ongoing management and enhancement. In more urban areas, which Western Riverside County will be in 25 years, local voters routinely approve such funding programs.

Other revenue opportunities may be realized over the next 25 years. The County, Cities, and RCA will explore new revenue sources to support the acquisition of the MSHCP Conservation Area and its long-term management and enhancement. A goal of any new fee would be to spread a portion of the costs for the MSHCP across as broad a regional base as possible.

8.0 MSHCP Funding/ Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I /c151 SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-20
TABLE 8-5

LOCAL PUBLIC/REGIONAL FUNDING SOURCES
Source Anticipated $ Range Requirements to Implement Responsible Party Private Funding Sources:

Cities and County
Development Mitigation Fees
$539.6M Approval of County Ordinance
Approval of City(ies) Ordinance
County
Cities
Density Bonus Fees $66M Approval of General Plan Co unty Public Funding Sources
Local Roads $121M Approval of Measure A, local agreement on allocation
RCTC/County
Other Transportation $250M % of new road construction RCTC/Co unty Other infrastructure Projects $unknown Project-by-project negotiation County and Cities El Sobrante Landfill $90M In place Co unty
County Landfills $10M In place Co unty
Eagle Mountain Landfill $unknown In pl ace pending start-up Co unty New Regional funding $unknown Voter approval County and Cities TOTAL LOCAL FUNDS $1,076. 6M

8.6 ADEQUACY OF FUNDING
The Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies will annually evaluate the performance of the funding mechanisms and, notwithstanding oth er provisions of the MSHCP, will develop any necessary modifications to the funding mechanisms to address additional funding n eeds. Additionally, this annual evaluation will include an assessment of the funding plan and anticipate funding needs over the ensuing 18 mont hs for the purpose of ident ifying any potential deficiencies in cash flow. If deficiencies are identified through this evaluation, then the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies will develop strategies to address any additional funding needs consistent with the terms and conditions of the MSHCP.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-14
EXHIBIT F-6

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020

Final Report
Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Nexus Fee Study Update
Prepared for:

Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

October 2020
EPS #171034
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS ..............................................................................1 Background............................................................................................................ 1 Original and Existing Fee Schedule ............................................................................ 2 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedules ............................................................................. 3 Key Drivers of Fee Change ....................................................................................... 6 Organization of Report............................................................................................. 8

2. MSHCP POLICIES,G OALS, AND FINANCING STRATEGY.......................................................9 MSHCP Purpose, Basis, and Goals.............................................................................. 9 MSHCP Financing Strategy ..................................................................................... 11 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources ................................................... 13 Development Mitigation Fees and Calculation ............................................................ 16

3. HABITAT PROTECTION TO DATE AND FUTURE CONSERVATION SCENARIO................................. 18 Habitat Protection Accomplishments Through 2019 .................................................... 18 Conservation Goals and Progress ............................................................................ 18 Land Dedications .................................................................................................. 20 Future Conservation Scenario ................................................................................. 21

4. FORECASTS OF DEVELOPMENT,D EDICATION,F EE PAYMENT................................................ 25 Historic Development and HCP Fees......................................................................... 25 Growth Projections................................................................................................ 26

5. MSHCP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS.............................................................................. 31 Land Costs........................................................................................................... 31 Other Costs—Administration, Management, and Monitoring......................................... 35 Endowment Funding.............................................................................................. 38 Total Implementation Costs.................................................................................... 40

6. RCA NON-FEE REVENUES ....................................................................................... 43 MSHCP Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues ..................................................................... 43 New Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues ......................................................................... 44

7. MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION ................................................................................. 46

8. MITIGATION FEE ACT (NEXUS)F INDINGS..................................................................... 52 Purpose of Fee ..................................................................................................... 52 Use of Fee Revenues ............................................................................................. 53 Relationship ......................................................................................................... 53 Need................................................................................................................... 54 Proportionality...................................................................................................... 54

9. FEE IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................ 56 Adoption of Revised LDMF ...................................................................................... 56 Securing Supplemental Funding .............................................................................. 56 Annual Review...................................................................................................... 56 Surplus Funds ...................................................................................................... 57 Annual and Periodic Updates................................................................................... 57 Appendix I: Detailed Time Series of Implementation Costs, Excluding Endowment Funding Appendix II: Detailed Time Series of Endowment Funding
List of Tables
Table 1 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule ............................................................ 3 Table 2 Updated MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees.................. 4 Table 3 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule by Extension Scenario................................... 6 Table 4 MSHCP Goals by Area Plan ........................................................................ 11 Table 5 2004 Estimates: MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources............... 14 Table 6 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule .......................................................... 17 Table 7 Conservation Through End of 2019 ............................................................. 18 Table 8 Required Acquisition Acres to Achieve ARL Goals .......................................... 24 Table 9 Projected Growth in Western Riverside County, through 2050......................... 29 Table 10 Projected Developed Acres in Western Riverside County, by Extension Scenario................................................................................... 30 Table 11 Per-Acre Land Value Estimates—200 3 Dollars (2003 Nexus Study).................. 32 Table 12 Local Conservation Costs Through 2018 ...................................................... 32 Table 13 Planning Level Per Acre Land Value Estimates by Category............................. 33 Table 14 Illustrative Distribution of Land Acquisitions by Land Use and Size................... 34 Table 15 Aggregate Land Value of Remaining Areas (2017 dollars)............................... 34 Table 16 Administrative and Professional Services Costs............................................. 36 Table 17 Management and Monitoring Anticipated Costs in 2004 and 2019 Dollars ........ 38 Table 18 Annual Implementation Cost Estimate (2019$)............................................. 39 Table 19 Endowment Funding (2019$), by Extension Scenario .................................... 40 Table 20 Total Implementation Costs (2019$*), by Extension Scenario......................... 41 Table 21 Average Annual Implementation Costs (2019$), by Extension Scenario............ 42 Table 22 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources ................................................... 44 Table 23 Annual Non-Fee Revenue Projection (2019$s) .............................................. 45 Table 24 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees............................ 47 Table 25 Recommended Fee Level— No Extension ...................................................... 48 Table 26 Recommended Fee Level—5- Year Extension................................................. 49 Table 27 Recommended Fee Level—10- Year Extension ............................................... 50 Table 28 Recommended Fee Level—15- Year Extension ............................................... 51 List of Figures
Figure 1 State of Conservation in 2003: Conserved Land, Additional Reserve Land to be Acquired, and Total MSHCP Conservation Area Needed .................. 10 Figure 2 MSHCP Estimated Annual Costs in Millions, 2004 Dollars................................ 15 Figure 3 MSHCP Estimated Annual Revenues in Millions, 2004 Dollars .......................... 16 Figure 4 MSHCP Conservation Goals, 2019 and 2029 Goals Highlighted........................ 19 Figure 5 Progress Towards ARL Through End of 2019 ................................................ 20 Figure 6 Residential Unit Development, Western Riverside County, 2005-2019.............. 25 Figure 7 New Housing Units per Year, SCAG and MSHCP Projections and Historic Production (2005-2019)................................................................. 27 Figure 8 Newly Developed Commercial Acres per Year ............................................... 27 Figure 9 Comparison of Costs by Category ............................................................... 40 Figure 10 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources ................................................... 44 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx

1. I NTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS
This Updated Nexus Study (2020 Nexus Study) provides the technical justification for changes to the Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule that applies to Local Permittee participants in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan). These changes are necessary to ensure adequate funding of the obligations of the Local Permittees under the MSHCP and the associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement. The resulting increased fee revenues will support the continued implementation of the MSHCP and the streamlining of endangered species incidental take permitting for new Western Riverside County development provided under the MSHCP. This Nexus Study is consistent with the requirements of California Government Code 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act) that requires specific findings (as well as administration and implementation procedures) for “any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency.”
Background
The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan), originally adopted in 2004, is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP was developed in response to the need for future growth opportunities in Western Riverside County while addressing the requirements of the State and federal Endangered Species Acts. The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan under the NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP streamlines these environmental permitting processes by allowing the participating jurisdictions to authorize “take” of plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. At the same time, Plan implementation provides a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program to preserve biological diversity and maintain the region’s quality of life.

The MSHCP and the associated Implementing Agreement and Incidental Take Permit collectively determine a set of conservation actions that must be taken to meet the terms of the Incidental Take Permit and benefit from the regulatory streamlining and other benefits of the MSHCP. This includes the identification of the responsible parties, including the responsibilities of the Local Permittees.1 One of the key requirements of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement, and Incidental Take Permit (consistent with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act) is the provision of adequate funding by Local Permittees to the Implementing Entity (the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority2) to conduct their portion of the conservation actions identified in the MSHCP.
1 Local Permittees include the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, County Regional Park and Open-Space District, County Department of Waste Resources, and Riverside County Transportation Commission. 2 The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency is a Joint Powers Authority established in 2004 to implement the MSHCP.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Section 8.0 of the MSHCP outlines the MSHCP funding/financing approach. It also identified best estimates of Plan implementation costs at the time of Plan adoption, including the local funding commitment that represents a portion of the overall land acquisition, management and monitoring, and Plan administration costs. The Local Funding Program included a mix of funding sources to provide “an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP.” The proposed funding sources included Local Development Mitigation Fees (and land dedications), regional infrastructure project public contributions (including contributions to mitigate for transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects), and landfill tipping fees.

Participating cities and the County were each required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee under California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee Act”) and supported by the separate “Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,” July 1, 2003 (Original or 2003 Nexus Study). The MSHCP funding chapter notes the need for frequent evaluations of the performance of the funding mechanisms and assessments of the funding plan and the need to make any necessary modifications to the funding mechanisms. The MSHCP also notes that the mitigation fee will need to be “reevaluated and revised should it be found to insufficiently cover mitigation of new development.”
In addition to the common practice of updating mitigation fees periodically to account for changing circumstances, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) has determined that significant changes have occurred and/or circumstances have arisen that justify an update to the mitigation fees. These changes include, but are not limited to, the following:
x The need to acquire more land than originally forecast due to the lower than expected land dedication.
x The lower-than-expected levels of non-fee funding from local and regional funding sources. x The lower than expected levels of residential development. x The need to diversify land acquisitions away from a focus on the larger, more remote parcels to also acquiring parcels closer to urbanized areas, consistent with the reserve assembly requirements of the MSHCP.

Original and Existing Fee Schedule
All local jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP and obtaining coverage for public and private take in their jurisdictions were required to adopt and implement the 2004 Mitigation Fee Schedule through ordinance and resolution and then to pass through the fee funding (except for any additional administrative charges added by the jurisdictions) to the RCA to fund MSHCP implementation. The ordinances allowed for periodic inflationary increases based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area. In 2018 the Bureau of Labor Statistics implemented a geographic revision, establishing Riverside as its own Core Based Statistical Area. As a result, Riverside was removed from the Consumer Price Index encompassing Los Angeles and Anaheim. Going forward, inflationary increases will be based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the newly established Riverside-San Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Bernardino-Ontario area. As outlined in the 2003 Nexus Study (Original Nexus Study), all new development in Western Riverside County is required to pay the mitigation fee.

Table 1 shows the original 2004 Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule and the current 2021 Fee Schedule that reflects periodic inflationary fee adjustments using the indexing process that collectively increased the fees by 35 percent between 2004 and 2020 (this was below the overall inflation index increase over this period).

Table 1 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule
Fee Category
2004 Fee per unit or
per acre
2021 Fee per
unit or per acre3
Residential: Up to 8.0 dwelling units per acre
(DUAC) $1,651 $2,234
Residential: 8.0-14.0 DUAC $1,057 $1,430
Residential: 14.0+ DUAC $859 $1,161
Commercial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Industrial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606

Updated Mitigation Fee Schedules
This 2020 Nexus Study has estimated the increased fee level that would be required to provide sufficient revenues, based on the best available forecasts of future growth, to support the full implementation of the MSHCP, including the completion of all land acquisition and the establishment of the necessary endowment, by 2029 (Year 25 of Plan implementation).4 Because, as shown below, this would require a major increase in the fee levels, three other scenarios are also considered where different time extensions provide more time for land acquisition.5 These extensions allow for the costs of Plan implementation (including land acquisitions) to be spread across more development and, as a result, moderate the level of mitigation fee increase required. In addition, the longer extension scenarios require a pace of land acquisition that is more consistent with what has proven to be achievable. All of these fee 3 Note it is RCA procedure to refer to fees during, for example, Fiscal Year 2020/2021, as the 2021 fee. The 2021 fee became effective July 1, 2020, and applies for the fiscal year of 2020-21 (i.e., until June 30, 2021 when the 2022 Fee begins).
4 The MSHCP provided a 25-year period of the required land acquisition with the larger 75-year permit term. This is labelled the “No Extension” or “Baseline Scenario” in this Update Study. 5 The baseline scenario as well as the extension scenarios assume that all land acquisition as well as the full endowment will be completed/ established by the end of the specified implementation/ land acquisition period. Interest from the non-depleting endowment will fund all ongoing costs thereafter.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx increases would be consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and the MSHCP and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement.

The mitigation fee levels shown for each extension scenario are the fee levels required to cover the appropriate portion of the Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs based on the best information available at this time. The revised mitigation fee levels reflect changes in estimated costs, expected levels of land dedication, and non-fee funding. Consistent with the MSHCP and Original Nexus Study, it is assumed that all new development in Western Riverside County will pay the mitigation fee because, as noted in the MSHCP, “new development affects the environment through construction activity and cumulatively through population bases that result from such development.”6 Importantly, the revised mitigation fee levels also reflect the decision to determine the mitigation fee that applies to different land uses on a consistent per gross acre basis. This approach is considered to provide a clear, consistent, and proportionate method for determining mitigation fees on new development.7 The 2020 Nexus Study does convert the overarching per gross acre fee into per unit residential fees for different density ranges; this conversion was conducted to provide implementation/administrative consistency for member jurisdictions.

Table 2 Updated MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees 6 Consistent with the Original Nexus Study and the technical analysis in this study update (and as described in more detail in the Fee Implementation Handbook), certain types of public improvements/ infrastructure projects will make mitigation payments calculated as a percent of total improvement cost. All projects are required to make a mitigation payment/contribution (except where exempted as specified in the Ordinance); where no mitigation payment process is specified, the project will pay the updated per acre mitigation fee.
7 This is the approach taken by the majority of regional Habitat Conservation Plans in California, including the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee.

Fee Per Acre No Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Net Cost $912,756,583 $902,353,150 $892,767,438 $883,987,805 Acres of Development
Residential 14,026 21,818 29,611 37,403
Nonresidential 6,239 9,705 13,171 16,637
Total 20,265 31,523 42,782 54,040
Mitigation Fee per Acre $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358 Sources: Southern California Association of Government s; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx As shown in Table 2, the required mitigation fee per gross acre of development varies substantially based on level of extension as follows:
x No Extension. Under the current structure, where all land acquisition must occur by the end of Year 25 of MSHCP implementation (2029), a mitigation fee of $45,041 per acre of development would be required.
x 5-Year Extension. With a 5-year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the end of Year 30 of MSHCP implementation (2034), a mitigation fee of $28,625 per acre of development would be required.
x 10-Year Extension. With a 10-year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the end of Year 35 of MSHCP implementation (2039), a mitigation fee of $20,868 per acre of development would be required.
x 15-Year Extension. With a 15-year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the end of Year 40 of MSHCP implementation (2044), a mitigation fee of $16,358 per acre of development would be required.

For residential development, the per gross acre fee is translated into per residential unit fees by density category to provide for a fee framework that is consistent with the current fee structure.

The per residential unit fees are calculated by dividing the per gross acre fee by an assumed typical/ average density for each of the three density ranges (low, medium, and high).8 The full mitigation fee schedule (for each extension scenario) is shown in Table 3, including the per unit residential fees by density category and per gross acre fees for non-residential development.

The typical/ average residential densities used to calculate the per-unit residential fees are the same as the density assumptions in the Original Nexus Study.9 8 For example, the $3,635 per unit Residential – Low fee under the 15-year extension is derived by dividing the overall per gross acre mitigation fee of $16,358 (shown in Figure 2) by the assumed typical/average density of Residential Low of 4.5 units/acre. 9 The Fee Implementation Handbook provides more specifics on how to determine a project’s residential density and therefore the appropriate per unit residential fee that applies.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 3 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule by Extension Scenario Key Drivers of Fee Change
The change in Local Development Mitigation Fee is the result of a number of different contributing factors (“moving parts”), fully documented and detailed in Chapters 2 through 7.

This Nexus Study is based on the most current information available including, for some inputs, recent years of experience from MSHCP implementation. The factors that have had the most significant effect on the Local Development Mitigation Fee calculations are summarized below.

1. Lower-than-expected land dedications substantially increase the Local Permittee habitat acquisition cost component of MSHCP implementation. The MSHCP assumed that 41,000 of the 97,000 acres (42 percent) to be conserved by Local Permittee action/funding would be provided at no cost through land dedication associated with development inside the Criteria Cells. Through the first sixteen years of Plan implementation, less than 1,000 acres of the Local Permittee habitat conservation obligations have been generated through these dedications. An additional 10,000 acres of land dedication requirements have been required as part of proposed developments that have yet to occur. Beyond the dedication associated with previously proposed projects, additional land dedication is not expected.
10 As a result, the 2020 Nexus Study assumes the noted 10,000 acres of land dedication is formalized over the next eight years (an average annual land dedication of 1,250 acres per year) prior to the end of the current land acquisition period. No additional land dedication is assumed, even if the acquisition period is extended.

As a result, at the end of the current habitat acquisition period (Year 25 of Plan 10 In September 2016, the RCA revised its fee credit and waiver policy, limiting the likelihood of projects paying fees and dedicating land.

Fee Per Unit No
Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Residential - Low (Up to 8.0 DUAC)2 3
$2,234 $10,009 $6,361 $4,637 $3,635
Residential - Medium (8.0-14.0 DUAC)2 3
$1,430 $4,170 $2,650 $1,932 $1,515
Residential - High (14.0+ DUAC) 2 3
$1,161 $1,846 $1,173 $855 $670
Commercial / Industrial (per acre) $7,606 $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358 Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside Co unty RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

3. DUAC stands for Dwelling Units per Acre.

Current Fee
20211

1. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Conservation. Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule for FY 2020-21 (Effective July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021), annually adjusted using the Consumer Price Index.

2. Per acre mitigation fees translated into per unit fees based on the following residential densities: for low density, 4.5 un its per acre; for medium density, 10.8 units per acre; for high density, 24.4 units per acre, consistent with the assumptions used in Appendix E of the original Nexus Study.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx implementation), total land dedication is expected to represent about 11,000 acres and about 11 percent of the Local Permittee land conservation requirement. The RCA therefore needs to directly acquire an additional 30,000 acres of land relative to the expectations of the Original Nexus Study.

2. Lower than expected regional infrastructure public contributions have reduced the non-fee funding available, increasing the costs to be funded through the mitigation fee. The MSHCP assumed a substantial level of funding from regional infrastructure project public contributions, including transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects, as well as from landfill tipping fees. While the Measure A sales tax has provided substantial funding as expected, other revenue sources, on aggregate, have provided (and are expected to continue to provide) substantially less funding than forecast in the 2003 Nexus Study. As a result, mitigation fees will need to cover about 91 percent of Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs relative to the original assumption of about 56 percent.

3. The change towards a consistent “per gross developed acre” fee basis provides a more consistent approach for all land use development types. The 2003 Nexus Study used an “Equivalent Benefit Unit” approach to distributing mitigation costs between different land use categories. This Nexus Study adjusts the fee calculation to the more commonly used per gross acre basis. Under this approach, the new Local Development Mitigation Fees are all based on one “across the board” per gross acre fee determination. Non-residential development then pays this per acre fee, while per unit residential fees by density category are derived from this common per gross acre fee.11 This change evens out some of the prior differences in mitigation fee levels.

4. The estimates of average per acre land values have not changed substantially, so they have had a limited effect on the change in mitigation fees. The original MSHCP implementation cost estimate was based on an average land value of about $13,100 per acre. This was based on research on land transactions of parcels with different land use designations and sizes in 2001/2002. The land valuation analysis conducted for this Nexus Study estimated a planning-level land value of about $14,300 per acre based on land transactions primarily in the 2014 to 2017 period (inflated to 2019-dollar terms). As a result, land value estimates have not changed substantially in nominal dollar terms since the Original Nexus Study. This estimated per acre land value is above the cost of most RCA transactions to date, though the average land values of future RCA land acquisition are expected to increase due to the increasing need to purchase more expensive land in “linkage” areas.
11 Similar to the Original Nexus Study, all new development in Western Riverside County is required to pay the mitigation fee (or otherwise provide the necessary mitigation). The conversion from per gross acre to per unit fees for residential development is conducted to provide administrative continuity for member agencies.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Organization of Report
This Nexus Study includes several chapters. Chapter 1, this chapter, describes the purpose and need for this Nexus Study, the recommended changes in the Local Development Mitigation Fee, and the key drivers of these changes. Chapters 2 through 7 provide the technical analysis that supports the updated fees and nexus findings. Chapter 2 summarizes the purpose of and basis for the MSHCP, the conservation requirements of the MSHCP, and the financing strategy and approach developed to implement the MSHCP in 2004. Chapter 3 describes the conservation achievements to date, identifies the remaining conservation requirements, and identifies expected land dedication. Chapter 4 provides the development forecast used in the calculation of the updated mitigation fees. Chapter 5 provides the estimates of MSHCP implementation costs, including land acquisition, management and monitoring, program administration, and endowment. Chapter 6 describes the historical levels of non-fee revenues available to help fund Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs. Chapter 7 brings together the technical analysis in Chapters 2 through 6 to estimate the updated 2020 Local Development Mitigation Fees.

Chapter 8 provides the nexus findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act as require to establish the updated fees. Finally, Chapter 9 highlights some of the administration and implementation requirements under the Mitigation Fee Act, recognizing that the Fee Implementation Handbook provides more specific guidance to the RCA and its partner agencies on the implementation of the mitigation fee program.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx

2. MSHCP P OLICIES,G OALS, AND FINANCING STRATEGY
MSHCP Purpose, Basis, and Goals
In response to the need to maintain future growth opportunities in Western Riverside County while addressing the requirements of the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, the County and the Riverside County Transportation Commission initiated the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) in 1999. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is one part of the RCIP that includes:
x Updated County General Plan. Addresses the required general plan elements such as land use, circulation, housing and open space, and conservation and includes programs to implement the MSHCP, enhance transit alternatives, and encourage development of mixed- use centers.
x Community and Environment Transportation Acceptability Process. Identifies future transportation corridors in Western Riverside and provides needed environmental documentation to allow preservation of future right-of-ways. x MSHCP. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan) is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP conserves vulnerable plant and animal species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County and supports economic development.

The MSHCP was adopted in 2003 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Subsequently, all of the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, County Regional Parks and Open-Space District, County Department of Waste Resources, Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Department of Transportation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Fish and Game, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the RCA signed an Implementing Agreement for the MSHCP. The Implementing Agreement includes terms to ensure MSHCP-implementation, defines remedies and recourses should any of the parties of the Agreement fail to perform obligations, and provides assurances that, as long as the MSHCP is being implemented, the Wildlife Agencies will not require additional mitigation from the Permittees. 12 The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan under the NCCP Act of 2001.

The MSHCP streamlines these environmental permitting processes by allowing the participating jurisdictions to authorize “take” of plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. At the same time, Plan implementation provides a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program to preserve biological diversity and maintain the region’s quality of life. 12 The Wildlife Agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Permittees include all of the other parties to the Implementing Agreement.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx The MSHCP and the associated Implementing Agreement and Incidental Take Permit collectively determine a set of conservation actions, and the associated responsible parties, that must be taken to meet the terms of the Incidental Take Permit and benefit from the regulatory streamlining and other benefits of the MSHCP. This includes the identification of the responsibilities of the Local Permittees.13
MSHCP Conservation Requirements
The goal of the MSHCP is to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystems processes while allowing future economic growth. The MSHCP calls for an MSHCP Conservation Area of 500,000 acres and focuses on the conservation of 146 species.

Figure 1 State of Conservation in 2003: Co nserved Land, Additional Reserve Land to be Acquired, and Total MSHCP Conservation Area Needed
e County
Regional
As shown in Figure 1, when the MSHCP was adopted, existing public and quasi-public conservation lands covered 347,000 acres, leaving a need for 153,000 acres of land, called Additional Reserve Land (ARL), to meet the goals of the MSHCP (see Figure 1). The MSHCP specifies that responsibility for the conservation of the 153,000-acre Additional Reserve Lands is shared by the local development process (97,000 acres) and state and federal purchases (56,000).
13 Local Permittees include the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, County Regional Park and Open Space District, County Department of Waste Resources, and Riverside County Transportation Commission. 282,000
56,000
338,000
65,000
97,000
162,000347,000
153,000
500,000
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2004 Existing
Public/Quasi Public
Land
Acquire: Additional
Reserve Land
Total
Acres
Federal/State Local
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 4 MSHCP Goals by Area Plan
The MSHCP includes methods to determine whether the goals of the Plan are being met. One of the methods is measuring the extent to which conservation acquisitions are moving toward acquisition goals by each Area Plan.14 Area Plans are established in the County’s General Plan and are used in the MSHCP as a common geographic unit in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP established low, high, and midpoint acquisition goals for each Area Plan based on biological needs. The midpoint acquisition goals for each Area Plan range from 165 to nearly 49,935 acres, as shown in Table 4. The midpoint goals sum to 158,605 which represents 5,605 acres more than are needed to fulfill the MSHCP goals. As a result, acquisitions in some Area Plans can fall below the mid-point targets while the total ARL can still achieve the 153,000-acre goal.

MSHCP Financing Strategy
One of the key requirements of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement, and Incidental Take Permit (consistent with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act) is the provision of adequate funding by Local Permittees to the Implementing Entity (the Regional Conservation Authority) to conduct the conservation actions identified in the MSHCP as the responsibility of the Local Permittees.
14 Other geographic units include Rough Steps, city jurisdictions, and Area Plan subunits. For the purposes of this analysis, Area Plans have been selected as the primary unit of analysis because they are the middle-sized unit (smaller than Rough Steps and larger than Area Plan subunits) and have not changed over time (unlike jurisdictions, several of which have incorporated since the adoption of the MSHCP.

Cities of Riverside and Norco 1,756 90 240 165
Eastvale 665 145 290 220
Elsinore 28,946 11,700 18,515 15,110
Harvest Valley / Winchester 820 430 605 515
Highgrove 1,452 345 675 510
Jurupa 5,476 890 1,870 1,380
Lake Mathews / Woodcrest 11,673 3,215 5,470 4,340
Lakeview / Nuevo 14,682 6,650 10,235 8,445
Mead Valley 7,703 1,885 3,635 2,760
Reche Canyon / Badlands 26,000 10,520 15,610 13,065
REMAP 78,423 41,400 58,470 49,935
San Jacinto Valley 32,828 11,540 19,465 15,500
Southwest Area 66,076 22,500 36,360 29,430
Sun City / Menifee Valley 2,059 1,120 1,585 1,355
Temescal Canyon 10,007 3,485 5,800 4,645
The Pass 22,652 8,540 13,925 11,230
Total 311,218 124,455 192,750 158,605
Area Plan Total Area of
Criteria Cells Low End of Goal High End of
Goal Midpoint
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Section 8.0 of the MSHCP addresses “MSHCP Funding/Financing of Reserve Assembly and Management.” This section provides best estimates of Plan implementation costs at the time of Plan adoption, including the local funding commitment – the portion of Plan implementation costs that represents the Local Permittees’ portion of the overall land acquisition, management, monitoring, adaptive management, and Plan administration costs. Section 8.5 describes the Local Funding Program. The Local Funding Program included a mix of funding sources to provide “an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP.” The proposed funding sources included Local Development Mitigation Fees, density bonus fees, regional infrastructure project public contributions (including transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects), and landfill tipping fees. Key components of the overall MSHCP implementation and funding strategy are highlighted below:
x The Regional Conservation Authority would implement the MSHCP with funding from different sources.
x The permanent protection of 97,000 acres in Additional Reserve Lands by Year 25 of the Plan (2029) would be achieved through direct purchase of habitat lands by the RCA using local funding and through the HANS dedication process.15
x Local funding sources would fund the ongoing management and maintenance costs of the local portion of the Additional Reserve Lands acquired through local funding (97,000 acres by end of acquisition period).
x Local funding sources would fund monitoring activities on the pre-Plan local conservation and all the new Additional Reserve Lands (500,000 acers by end of acquisition period). x The permanent protection of 56,000 acres in Additional Reserve Lands by Year 25 would be achieved using state/federal funding sources or contributions. x State and federal funding sources would fund the management and maintenance costs of the State/federal portion of the required Additional Reserve Lands. x Local Development Mitigation Fees (on private development) would fund the Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs that were not funded by other local/regional funding sources or public contributions for public development project mitigation. x The overall permit period was set at 75 years. Once habitat acquisition was completed by Year 25, remaining funds along with newly created revenue sources were to be used to fund 15 Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP describes the HANS process. The Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process applied to any property owner applying for a discretionary permit for land within a Criteria Area/Criteria Cell. Under the process, the County determined whether portions of the property are needed for conservation and then may send their evaluation to the RCA for Joint Project Review (JPR). During JPR, the project applicant negotiated the terms of the development and conservation of the project. The applicant also paid fees on the new development.

This approach was refined when a new fee credit policy, adopted in 2016, provided for fee credits where appropriate lands are dedicated.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx monitoring and management as well as to fund the establishment of an endowment to cover ongoing post-permit costs (beyond Year 75).

Importantly, the MSHCP funding chapter notes that frequent evaluations of the performance of the funding mechanisms and assessments of the funding plan will occur and that any necessary modifications to the funding mechanisms will be developed.

MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources
The original estimated costs and proposed funding sources were documented in the MSHCP and are summarized in Table 5. These were developed based on research and analysis conducted as part of MSHCP development.

As shown, Plan implementation costs over the first 25 years of implementation were estimated at about $950 million in 2004-dollar terms. Key assumptions driving the implementation cost estimates included:
x Dedications. Direct acquisition using local funding sources would be required to acquire 56,000 acres, with 41,000 acres (or 42 percent) of the required local habitat protection coming through HANS dedication.
x Land Cost. Average land value of $13,100 per acre for Additional Reserve Lands purchased by the RCA.
x Management and Monitoring: Management and monitoring costs included three key components as follows: Reserve Management, Adaptive Management, and Biological Monitoring.16
x Program Administration. RCA program administration costs would average about $1.2 million each year in 2004 dollars during the 25-year period where land acquisition was required.
x Cost Distribution. Overall, land acquisition costs were estimated at 77 percent of total implementation costs, with management and monitoring at 20 percent, and program administration at 3 percent (see Figure 2).
16 See Chapter 5 of the MSHCP for a description of these activities.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 5 2004 Estimates: MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources Total for % of
2004 - 2028 Average Total Cost/
Item (Years 1 - 25) Annual Funding Need
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 97,000 acres 3,880 acres na
HANS Dedication 41,000 acres 1,640 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 56,000 acres 2,240 acres na Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1) $733,600,000 $29,344,000 76.91%
Management & Monitoring $190,200,000 $7,608,000 19.94%
RCA Staff $30,000,000 $1,200,000 3.15%
Other Costs na na na
Endowment not included not included na
Total Costs $953,800,000 $38,152,000 100.0%
Local Revenues
Private Development Mitigation Fees $539,600,000 $21,584,000 50.1% Density Bonus Fees $66,000,000 $2,640,000 6.1%
Regional Transportation Infra. (2) $250,000,000 $10,000,000 23.2% Local Roads (Measure A) $121,000,000 $4,840,000 (3) 11.2% Tipping Fees (4) $100,000,000 $4,000,000 9.3%
Miscellaneous Revenues (5) $0
$0 0.0%
Total Revenues $1,076,600,000 $43,064,000 100%
(1) Average land value per acre assumed to be $13,100 per acre. (2) Public contributions at specificed % of new road construction. (3) $121 million to be provided over 10 years, so $12.1 million annually over that period. (4) Includes $90 million from El Sobrante Landfill and $10 million from other County landfills. (5) Other potential revenues, including public contributions from other public projects, tipping fees from Eagle Mountain Landfill, and potential new voter-approved regional funding were noted but not estimated.

Source: Chapter 8 of MSHCP; Economic & Planning Systems.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Figure 2 MSHCP Estimated Annual Costs in Millions, 2004 Dollars As also shown in Table 5, MSHCP funding from local/regional sources was estimated to be about $1.0 billion in 2004 dollars through Year 25, sufficient to cover the implementation costs over this period. Key assumptions driving the funding estimates included:
x Measure A. Measure A (local sales tax transportation funding measure) would provide $121 million over 10 years in 2004-dollar terms.
x Regional Transportation Funding. Public contributions from regional transportation infrastructure projects would provide an average of $10 million each year or $250 million through Year 25.
x Tipping Fees. Landfill tipping fees would provide about $100 million in revenue over 25 years, about $4 million each year, primarily from the El Sobrante landfill. x Mitigation Fees. Private development fees, including private development mitigation fees and density bonus fees, would generate over $600 million over the first 25 years, about $24 million annually.
x Development Forecast and Participation. The forecast of private development fees was based on a preliminary fee schedule and the forecast of 336,000 new residential units (13,440 units each year) and 371 acres each year of commercial and industrial development.

All new development was assumed to pay the private development mitigation fee with a portion paying the density bonus fee.
x Other Funding Options. Potential additional funding might come through contributions from other local/regional public entities, other landfills, or new voter-approved funding initiatives.
x Funding Distribution. Overall, about 55 percent of the estimated funding was expected to be generated by private development fees, with 45 percent from other funding sources.

Land,
$29.3, 77%
Mangmnt.
&
Monitoring
$7.6 , 20%
RCA Staff,
$1.2 , 3%
$38.1 million total
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Figure 3 MSHCP Estimated Annual Revenues in Millions, 2004 Dollars Development Mitigation Fees and Calculation
The MSHCP notes that “new development affects the environment directly through construction activity and cumulatively through population bases that result from Development.” As a result, the cities and County are required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee that was expected to represent one of the primary sources of funding for the implementation of the MSHCP. The MSHCP indicates that the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be adopted under California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee Act”) that “allows cities and counties to charge new development for the costs of mitigating the impacts of new development.”
The MSHCP identified preliminary estimates of Local Development Mitigation Fees and indicated that these mitigation fees were expected to generate the majority of funding for Local Permittee obligations. The MSHCP noted that, under the Mitigation Fee Act, “a nexus study is required to demonstrate that the proposed fee is proportionate to the impacts of new development.” The Mitigation Fee Act also includes a number of reviewing and reporting requirements. The MSHCP also notes that the fee will need to be “reevaluated and revised should it be found to insufficiently cover mitigation of new development.”
A nexus study entitled “Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan” was completed on July 1, 2003 (2003/Original Nexus Study). This nexus study co nducted a detailed analysis of the costs of implementing the Plan, identified the Local Permittee funding obligations, determined the portion to be funded through the Local Development Mitigation Fee, and made the necessary nexus findings under the Mitigation Fee Act. The MSHCP and 2003 Nexus Study both indicated that all new development in the Western Riverside County Plan Area affects covered species and habitat and so the Local Development Mitigation Fees would apply to all new development in participating jurisdictions in Western Riverside County.

Private
Dev. Mit.

Fees,
$21.6, 50%
Density
Bonus Fees,
$2.6 , 6%
Regional
Transp.

Infra.,
$10.0 , 23%
Local Roads
(Meas. A) ,
$4.8 , 11%
Tipping
Fees, $4.0 ,
10%
$43.3 million total
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Mitigation Fee Schedule and Adjustments
All local jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP and obtaining coverage for public and private take in their jurisdictions were required to adopt and implement this mitigation fee schedule through ordinance and resolution and then to pass through the fee funding (minus any additional administrative charges) to the RCA to fund MSHCP implementation. Indexed-increases based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area were provided for in the ordinances to allow modest adjustments in mitigation fees to respond to inflationary cost increases. Due to the geographic revision implemented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, going forward indexed-adjustments will be based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area.

Table 6 shows the original 2004 Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule and current 2021 Fee schedule that reflects periodic inflationary fee adjustments using the indexing process.

Table 6 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule
Fee Category
2004 Fee per unit or
per acre
2021 Fee per unit or per
acre
Residential: Up to 8.0 dwelling
units per acre (DUAC) $1,651 $2,234
Residential: 8.0-14.0 DUAC $1,057 $1,430
Residential: 14.0+ DUAC $859 $1,161
Commercial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Industrial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx

3. H ABITAT PROTECTION TO DATE AND FUTURE CONSERVATION

SCENARIO
The RCA has achieved substantial levels of habitat protection to date using the funding sources established and the associated variable flows of incoming revenues. The level of habitat protection achieved, because of lower levels of funding and land dedication than expected, has however fallen behind the pace of protection forecast in the Original Nexus Study. This chapter summarizes the achieved protection to (1) establish both the scale of future acquisitions required to meet the overall Additional Reserve Land (ARL) goals, (2) consider the annual pace of habitat protection through acquisitions and dedications in absolute terms and relative to the original MSHCP forecasts, and (3) inform the development of the Conservation Scenario that forms the baseline (project description) for estimating future MSHCP implementation costs and associated funding requirements and updated mitigation fees.

Habitat Protection Accomplishments Through 2019
Between the start of the MSHCP program and the end of 2019, the most recent full calendar year, about 40 percent of the 153,000-acre ARL target has been achieved, totaling almost 62,000 acres in acquisitions, easements, or dedications (see Table 7). 17 As shown of the
97,000 acres in Local Permittee ARL obligation about 40,200 acres had been protected by the end of 2019. Of the 56,000 acres in State/Federal ARL obligation, about 21,600 acres have been protected to date.

Table 7 Conservation Through End of 2019
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Annual Reports; RCA information on 2019 purchases; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Conservation Goals and Progress
The MSHCP anticipated that acquisition would take place for 25 years, through the end of 2029, with 97,000 acres conserved through local means and 56,000 acres conserved with State/federal funding. To achieve this goal, an average of 6,120 acres of conservation is required each year, 17 Note that while the MSHCP was adopted in 2004, certain conservation which took place between 2000 and 2003 was counted toward the MSHCP reserve.

Total
Party Need Conserved Conserved Conserved Remaining Need 2000-2003 2004 - 2019 2000 - 2019 2020-2043
Local 97,000 4,531 35,681 40,212 56,788
State + Fed 56,000 12,408 9,200 21,608 34,392
Total 153,000 16,939 44,881 61,820 91,180
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx including an average of 3,880 annually from local funding sources/dedications and 2,240 annually from State and federal conservation.

Figure 4 illustrates how steady progress would result in achievement of the ARL goals by 2029.

Figure 5 shows actual progress toward the goals, through 2019. More than 21,000 acres have been conserved through State/federal means, and over 40,000 acres have been conserved through local actions. These totals sum to about 40 percent of the total ARL goal of 153,000 acres. As shown in Figure 5, with 16 years of the 25-year acquisition period completed, the ARL acquisitions have fallen behind the pace forecast in the Original Nexus Study. Protection through the end of 2019 represents 63 percent of the original forecast (65 percent for Local obligations and 60 percent for State/federal obligations). For the Local Permittee obligations, as discussed further below, the lower level of land dedication relative to the original forecasts account for much of the habitat protection gap that has emerged over the last 16 years.

Figure 4 MSHCP Conservation Goals, 2019 and 2029 Goals Highlighted 62,080
97,000
35,840
56,000
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
MSHCP Goals, 2019 and 2028 Highlighted
Local State/Fed
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Figure 5 Progress Towards ARL Through End of 2019
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Land Dedications
The MSHCP envisioned a conservation program where land and easements would be purchased by the RCA and land would be dedicated to the RCA through the development process.18 In addition, the potential for no-cost and low-cost donations for tax benefit purposes was also created. The MSHCP did not assume donations or conservation easement acquisitions as part of its financial analysis (this is appropriate given the limited number of such transactions). The MSHCP did, however, anticipate that 41,000 acres would be conserved through dedications, 56,000 acres through purchases on behalf of local permittees, and 56,000 acres through purchases conducted by or funded by federal and State agencies/sources for a total of 153,000 acres.

For the local portion of the goal (97,000 acres), this translates into about 42 percent of the goal conserved via dedications associated with the development review process—called Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS)—and the other 58 percent purchased by the RCA from willing sellers. The level of dedi cation is a key assumption for the MSHCP implementation cost estimate as each acre dedicated through HANS is one fewer acre which must be conserved through land acquisitions at market values.

The HANS process was established to apply to developments proposed within the Criteria Cells of the MSHCP Study Area. The Criteria Cells represent areas with high conservation values relative to the areas outside of the Criteria Cells. The HANS process was designed to indicate what conservation (dedication) may be needed from new development from a biological needs 18 This process is known as the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS).

Fed+State Local Total
Acqu. through 2019 21,608 40,212 61,820
Remaining Need 34,392 56,788 91,180
% of 2019 Expected Goal Achieved 60% 65% 63%
% of Total Goal Achieved 39% 41% 40%
60%
65% 63%
39% 41% 40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
Acres
153,000
97,000
56,000
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx perspective. Subsequent to that technical analysis, applicants could then proceed to the Joint Project Review (JPR) process during which the parties negotiate an implementation plan for the project, consistent with the HANS findings. The applicants would also pay mitigation fees on the actual development. To date, a modest amount of land (less than 1,000 acres) has been conserved via the HANS/JPR method compared to the 26,000 acres that was forecast to have occurred by this point in the MSHCP implementation.

While very little land has been dedicated to the RCA through HANS/JPR, several projects went through the HANS/JPR process and have agreements in place for dedication/conservation of lands, but the start date (if any) for these projects is unknown (i.e., may be far in the future).

These projects cover about 35,000 acres in the Criteria Cells and, under the JPR agreements, have set aside about 30 percent of that total or about 10,000 acres for conservation/dedication.

The adoption of Resolution No. 2016-003 in September 2016 revised the RCA’s fee credit and waiver policy. This resolution indicated that MSHCP fee credit should be provided in exchange for land that contributes to reserve assembly. As a result, after the adoption of this resolution, new development is not be expected to pay mitigation fees and dedicate land in the manner originally envisioned in the MSHCP limiting the likelihood of the types of dedications envisioned in the Original Nexus Study.

Future Conservation Scenario
This updated financial analysis, nexus study, and mitigation fees estimate require a base description of the additional habitat protection required. In subsequent chapters, cost estimates are developed in reference to, and in application to, this conservation scenario to develop the overall implementation costs and the associated funding required, both in aggregate and through time during the land acquisition period of the program. Four questions are of particular importance:

1. Remaining Habitat Protection. The amount of habitat protection required to meet the MSHCP requirements.

2. Dedications. The amount of land dedication assumed to occur through the HANS/JPR process over the habitat protection period and the associated amount of habitat that must be acquired.

3. Time Frame. The period over which habitat protection goals must be met.

4. Land Characteristics. The characteristics of the land to be protected to meet MSHCP requirements (e.g., goals by Area Plan, habitat cores and linkages etc., land use designations and parcel sizes).

The answers to question 1 are provided in the data above (see Table 7). The answer to question 4 is provided in the subsequent chapter on land costs, with illustrative answers coming from RCA data and GIS analysis. The answer to question 2 is addressed below and is based on information on accomplishments to date (described above), discussions with RCA staff, the current Fee Waiver and Credit Policy, and an assessment of realistic opportunities and expectations. Finally, question 3 raises the issue of whether an extension to the MSHCP land acquisition implementation period should be provided. As described below, three different Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx extension scenarios (5-, 10-, and 15-year extension scenarios) are evaluated, as well as the baseline, “No Extension Scenario,” to indicate the outcomes under different scenarios.

Habitat Protection, Land Dedication, and Conservation Scenarios As shown in Table 8, there is a total of about 91,200 acres of land protection still required to complete the land protection obligations under the MSHCP and to bring the Additional Reserve Lands to 153,000 acres. Of this, the State/federal requirements is for about 34,400 acres, while the Local Permittee requirement is for about 56,800 acres.

The experience of the last 16 years indicates that the MSHCP was overly optimistic in terms of land dedications, assuming that 41,000 acres would be dedicated to the RCA. As noted above, about 10,000 acres of potential future land dedication is associated with a range of previously proposed projects. Based on historical information on actual, dedications agreements on proposed projects, current RCA policy, and consultations with RCA staff, minimal additional dedication is expected or assumed. This analysis, therefore, assumes that the prior agreement concerning dedications, summing to about 10,000 acres, will be secured over the next eight years and prior to the end of the current habitat protection period. Even if the implementation period were extended, no extra land dedication is forecast to occur.

As a result, and as shown in Table 8, a total of about 46,800 acres of Additional Reserve Land acquisition is required by Local Permittees for MSHCP implementation once the forecast of dedications is incorporated. As shown in Table 8, the required average annual pace of habitat protection varies considerably under the different acquisition period extension scenarios, as described below: 19
x Baseline/No Extension Scenario. As currently structured, RCA is required to complete land acquisition by the end of Year 25 of Plan implementation in 2029. This provides nine (9) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 5,200 acres each year. x 5-Year Extension. With a 5-year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 30 of Plan implementation in 2034.

This provides fourteen (14) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 3,300 acres each year.
x 10-Year Extension. With a 10-year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 35 of Plan implementation in 2039.

This provides nineteen (19) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 2,500 acres each year.
19 As a point of reference, the historical pace of Local Permittee-driven habitat protection has been somewhat above 2,000 acres each year with availability of funding being an important determinant of the pace of acquisition. The pace of State/federal-driven acquisition has averaged about 1,000 acres each year.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx x 15-Year Extension. With a 15-year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 40 of Plan implementation in 2044.

This provides twenty-four (24) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 2,000 acres each year.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 8 Required Acquisition Acres to Achieve ARL Goals Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Entity/Item Through 2019
2020-End of
Acquisition
Period
Years
Remaining
Annual
Conservation
Acres Required Total Acres
State/Federal 21,608 34,392 9 3,821 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication (1) 715 10,000 9 1,111 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 39,497 46,788 9 5,199 86,285
Total Local Conservation 40,212 56,788 9 6,310 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 61,820 91,180 9 10,131 153,000 State/Federal 14 2,457 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication 14 714 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 14 3,342 86,285
Total Local Conservation 14 4,056 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 14 6,513 153,000
State/Federal 19 1,810 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication 19 526 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 19 2,463 86,285
Total Local Conservation 19 2,989 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 19 4,799 153,000
State/Federal 24 1,433 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication 24 417 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 24 1,950 86,285
Total Local Conservation 24 2,366 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 24 3,799 153,000
State/Federal 29 1,186 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication 29 345 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 29 1,613 86,285
Total Local Conservation 29 1,958 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 29 3,144 153,000

NO EXTENSION
10 YEAR EXTENSION
15 YEAR EXTENSION
20 YEAR EXTENSION
5 YEAR EXTENSION
Shading indicates acreage to be acquired with fee revenue.

See above
See above
See above
See above

1. About 10,000 acres of potential future land dedication is associat ed with a range of previously proposed projects. Based on historical information on actual, dedications agreements on proposed projects, current RCA policy, and consultations with RCA staff, minimal additional dedication is expected or assumed beyond these agreements. This analysis, therefore, assumes that the prior agreements concerning dedications will occur with future dedications summing to about 10,000 acres. The precise timing of these dedicatio ns is uncertain, but are assumed to occur over the next eight years. Average annual numbers in this table are shown distributed acros s the full remaining acquisition period of each extension scenario.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx

4. F ORECASTS OF DEVELOPMENT,D EDICATION,F EE PAYMENT
Future development within Western Riverside County will both reduce land available for conservation while also serving as a primary funding mechanism for habitat acquisitions. This chapter identifies forecasts of future growth in Western Riverside County and develops an associated forecast of land development that is a key component of the fee calculation.

Historic Development and HCP Fees
The MSHCP anticipated that 13,000 to 14,000 residential units and about 370 commercial and industrial acres would be developed on average annually. Specifically, between 2005 and 2019, 206,000 residential units were expected in the Plan Area. A review of new units in the Plan Area indicates about 130,000 units were developed over the period (see Figure 6), about 37 percent below the forecast.20 While the substantial volatility in the real estate market over the period (including the housing boom, deep recession, and modest recovery) may explain some of this difference, the slower pace of development means that fee revenues have been similarly constrained relative to the original revenue projections.

Figure 6 Residential Unit Development, Western Riverside County, 2005-2019 Source: California Department of Finance; MSHCP Projections 20 Actual units developed have been derived from the California Department of Finance (DOF), Demographics Unit information through January 1, 2019. Note that the DOF reports data by city and for the entire Riverside County unincorporated area. Western Riverside’s portion of the total unincorporated area has been derived based on the area’s historic share of unincorporated County, taking into account the incorporations of new cities that occurred in Western Riverside County since MSHCP Plan adoption (Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar). 0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000Number of Residential Units
Projected
Actual
76,000
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Growth Projections
SCAG Forecasts in Context
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)21 representing six counties, 191 cities and more than 18 million residents.

MPOs, such as SCAG are charged under California Senate Bill 375 with developing Sustainable Community Strategies (SCSs) as part of regional transportation plans. SCAG’s SCS includes population, household, and job projections through 2040 by city and unincorporated area. SCAG consults with local governments within the region, including the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) which represents Western Riverside County, to develop the projections.

SCAG adopted the 2012-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS) in 2016. The 2016 RTP/SCS forms the basis of the SCAG projections; EPS extrapolated an annual growth rate from the SCAG projections and, assuming consistent development trends through 2050, applied the rate in order to estimate development projections through 2050.

SCAG forecasts for the future, on an annualized basis, were compared with the MSHCP’s original forecast along with historical information (when available) as described further below:
x Residential Development Forecast. Figure 7 shows, for Western Riverside County, the annual residential unit count for SCAG projections through 2050, MSHCP projections through 2029, and residential units produced in Western Riverside County between 2005 and 2019.

As shown, the SCAG projections suggest about 8,750 units each. This is similar to the average annual historic pace of growth between 2005 and 2019 of about 9,260 units, but well below the original MSHCP projections of about 13,400 units each year. Based on the similarity between the historical average and the SCAG forecast, the SCAG forecast is considered a reasonable basis for determining the future pace of residential development and associated residential land development (based on assumed densities of development). x Commercial Development Forecast. The SCAG jobs forecast of about 15,000 jobs each year was converted into an annual gross amount of commercial/industrial development using the employment density and FAR assumptions used in the most recent Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) update documents. As shown in Figure 8, this results in a forecast of about 690 acres of commercial/industrial land development each year (representing an overall average of about 21 jobs per acre of development), considerably above the original MSHCP projections of about 370 acres each year. The higher SCAG number, however, appears reasonable given recent and ongoing trends in Western Riverside County where substantial amounts of new logistics/distribution development have occurred covering substantial land areas and, as such, is considered reasonable as the basis of the future forecast of commercial/industrial land development. 21 Federal law requires that an urbanized area with a population of at least 50,000 be guided by a regional entity known as an MPO. California’s Senate Bill 375 expands the role of the State’s 18 MPOs to include regional plans that help the State reach its greenhouse gas reduction targets by encouraging compact development and new development near public transit.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Figure 7 New Housing Units per Year, SCAG and MSHCP Projections and Historic Production (2005-2019)
SCAG (2012-2040) and MSHCP Projections (2004-2029) and Historic Production (2005-2019) Figure 8 Newly Developed Commercial Acres per Year
SCAG (2012-2040) and MSHCP Projections
Note: SCAG job projections converted into acres by EPS
8,747
13,440
9,262
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
SCAG MSHCP Historic
693
371
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800

SCAG MSHCP
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Forecasts for Fee Calculation
For this fee program update, the SCAG projections are considered a reasonable basis for forecasting future land development. Because all new development is expected to pay the mitigation fee, all of the forecasted household and job growth is converted into a land development forecast that is, in turn, used to calculate the mitigation fees. Table 9 shows SCAG’s overall projections for households and employment in Western Riverside County between 2012 and 2050, and Table 10 shows the implied average annual land development rates, and, in turn, the overall level of residential and commercial/industrial land development that would be expected to occur through the end of the land acquisition period for each of the extension scenarios.22 As shown, all scenarios assume an overall average annual land development of 2,252 acres each year, including 693 acres in commercial/industrial land development and 1,558 acres in annual residential land development.23
x Baseline/No Extension Scenario. Under the no extension scenario, a total of 20,265 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation period of nine (9) years and would pay the mitigation fees. x 5-Year Extension. Under the 5-year extension to the acquisition period, a total of 31,523 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation period of 14 years and would pay the mitigation fees.
x 10-Year Extension. Under the 10-year extension to the acquisition period, a total of 42,782 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation period of 19 years and would pay the mitigation fees. x 15-Year Extension. Under the 15-year extension to the acquisition period, a total of 54,040 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation period of 24 years and would pay the mitigation fees. 22 Under the MSHCP, all new development is required to pay the mitigation fee and contribute to funding the implementation of the MSHCP except where specifically exempted in the Ordinance. 23 The 1,558 acres of residential land development was derived based on the forecasted 8,747 residential units each year and assumptions concerning distribution by density category and an average density level. More specifically, consistent with the recent TUMF analysis assumptions, 70 percent of new residential units are assumed to be in the low density category (less than 8 units per acre) with an average of 4.5 units/acre, 20 percent are assumed to be the medium density category (8 to 16 units per acre) with an average of 10.8 units/acre, and 10 percent are assumed to be the high density category (over 16 units per acre) with an average of 24.4 units/acre. The unit per acre factors are consistent with those indicated in the Original Nexus Study. The overall implied average residential density is 5.6 units/gross acre.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 9 Projected Growth in Western Riverside County, through 2050 SCAG
Households Employment
2012 530,970 463,833
2040 Projection 775,882 869,792
2050 Projection (1) 863,350 1,014,777
New Households/Jobs Expected by 2050 332,380 550,944
Average Annual 8,747 14,499
Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area
(1) SCAG projections forecast growth through 2040. EPS assumes the annual growth rate from 2012 to 2040 remains constant through 2050 and applies the rate to an additional 10 years in order to project growth through 2050.

Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 10 Projected Developed Acres in Western Riverside County, by Extension Scenario
Proportionate Share 2020-20281
78,722 Households 130,487 Jobs
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2028 14,026 Acres 6,239 Acres 20,265 Acres Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres
Proportionate Share 2020-20341
122,456 Households 202,979 Jobs
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2034 21,818 Acres 9,705 Acres 31,523 Acres Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres
Proportionate Share 2020-20381
166,190 Households 275,472 Jobs
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2038 29,611 Acres 13,171 Acres 42,782 Acres Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres
Proportionate Share 2020-20431
209,924 Households 347,965 Jobs
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2043 37,403 Acres 16,637 Acres 54,040 Acres Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres
Sources: California Department of Finance; US Census Bureau; Southern California Association of Governments; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area
5 Year Extension
10 Year Extension
15 Year Extension
(1) SCAG forecasts from the 2016 Report have been used for all citi es in Western Riverside County. The projections for the ent ire unincorporated area in Riverside have been split into just the We stern part of the County through a review of WRCOG's recent proportion of unincorporated growth, compared to the whole County. (2) Conversion from household projections to residential acres of developed land is based on expected development mix and average residential density by land use type, with an average resident ial density of 5.6 DUAC. Similarly, conversion from job projections to nonresidential acres of developed land is based on dist ribution of jobs by workspace type and average employment density by land use type, with an average nonresidential density of 21 jobs per land acre. Residential density assumptions are based on data from the Census and California Department of Fi nance; Employment density assumptions are based on SCAG data.

Total
No Extension
Residential Non ResidentialSCAG
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx

5. MSHCP I MPLEMENTATION COSTS
This chapter describes the analysis and assumptions that underpin the estimation of the total remaining MSHCP implementation costs in 2019 dollars. Key cost factors evaluated include land costs, management and monitoring costs, administration and professional services costs, and endowment costs. Together these cost components form the total MSHCP implementation costs.

Because the duration allowed for land acquisition and endowment establishment affect several of these cost items, distinct total implementation cost estimates are provided for all scenarios (i.e., Baseline/ No Extension and the three extension scenarios).

Land Costs
Planning-level estimates of the per acre values associated with potential Additional Reserve Land (ARL) acquisitions are a critical input into the estimation of total land acquisition costs associated with Plan implementation. Land acquisition costs represented the majority of the original estimates of MSHCP implementation costs. This chapter provides planning-level estimates of per acre land conservation costs in 2019-dollar terms based on available information. In combination with assumptions concerning the characteristics of the Additional Reserve Lands to be acquired and potential levels of dedication, the per acre land value estimates drive the estimate of overall land acquisition costs.

Actual per acre habitat conservation costs may vary from the average planning-level estimates presented in this chapter for a number of reasons, including differences in the specific characteristics of the actual parcels acquired as well as fluctuations in economic, real estate, and land market conditions over time. Individual transactions will require appraisals to establish their value at the time of acquisition based on parcel characteristics and pertinent market conditions at the time of appraisal. Over time, per acre and overall cost estimates typically change for a number of reasons as discussed further in Chapter 9.

MSHCP/Original Nexus Study
The initial adoption of the mitigation fees was based on a nexus study completed in July 2003 that included a land valuation analysis that was completed in December 2002. The land valuation analysis assumed the acquisition of vacant and unentitled lands in the Criteria Cells.

The land value analysis provided planning-level estimates of per acre land values by grouped land use designation and by Area Plan. Planning-level land value estimates were based on sales comparables. The land value estimates indicated per acre land values that were primarily driven by differentiation in land use category. The land use designation categories represent groupings of the broad number of land use designations present in the Study Area. Table 11 summarizes the per-acre land value ranges and resulting averages. Based on this analysis, an overall weighted average of $13,100 per acre was applied in the MSHCP financial sections in the Original Nexus Study.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 11 Per-Acre Land Value Estimates—2003 Dollars (2003 Nexus Study) Land Use Designation Value Range Resulting Average *
Open Space $2,500 to $10,000 per acre $ 8,000 per acre
Rural/Agricultural $5,000 to $25,000 per acre $11,000 per acre Community Development $20,000 to $80,000 per acre $45,000 per acre Overall (1) $2,500 to $80,000 per acre Varied (1)
* Per acre values rounded to the nearest 1,000.
(1) Reported overall average land value per acre depends on mix of land types. Number varies by documents, though $13,100 per acre was overall value applied in the MSHCP financing sections.

Source: Original 2003 Nexus Study
RCA Experience to Date
Table 12 summarizes average RCA land acquisition costs to date. Including land purchased shortly before the MSHCP was adopted through the end of 2018, costs for Local Permittee land acquisitions summed to $352.5 million in nominal dollar terms, an average of $9,400 per acre.

However, for the year 2018, about 2,100 acres were acquired at the higher average per acre cost of $13,200 per acre.

Table 12 Local Conservation Costs Through 2018
Item Pre-MSHCP
through 2018
2018
Total Acres Acquired (1) 37,547 2,066
Total Cost (millions) $352.5 $27.4
Cost per Acre (Nominal $s) $9,400 $13,200
(1) Includes all acres purchased; does not include acres conserved via easement.

Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Annual Report 2018; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

To date, the overall historical level of per acre land acquisition expenditures is well below the original 2004 per acre land value estimates. The cost of RCA acquisitions during this timeframe were kept relatively low by concentrating more on lower cost parcels (larger parcels in remote areas with limited development potential). In 2018, as in the future, the average cost per acre is expected to be higher than this historical average due to the characteristics of land still needing to be acquired.

New Land Value Analysis and Conclusions
New 2019 per acre land value estimates were developed based on recent historical transactions as reported in the sales comparables sections of appraisals conducted for RCA acquisitions. This data set provided a substantial inventory of over 150 land sales between 2012 and 2017 that supported conclusions concerning per acre land values by key land value characteristic.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Similar to the Original Nexus Study, land values were determined to be substantially affected by land use designation and by parcel size. Land values were developed for twelve different value categories based on combinations of three land use designations and four different size ranges.

Based on the land valuation data and detailed GIS analysis by RCA staff, parcels were divided into three groups of development potential based on their land use designation:24 x Open Space. Low development potential land use designations included open space, rural mountainous, and rural residential.
x Rural. Medium development potential land use designations include agriculture and rural communities land use designations.
x Community Development. High development potential land use designations include all community development designations, including residential, non-residential, and other community development designations.

In addition to these three land use designation groupings reflecting different levels of development potential, parcels were also divided by parcel size. The land value information indicated a per acre value distinction between the following parcels sizes:
x Parcels less than 5 acres.
x Parcels between 5 and 20 acres.
x Parcels between 20 and 80 acers.
x Parcels over 80 acres.

Based on the analysis of the sales comparables, Table 13 shows the planning level per acre land value by land use designation grouping/size range in 2017 dollars.

Table 13 Planning Level Per Acre Land Value Estimates by Category 24 RCA staff developed a consistent set of land use designation categories across different jurisdictions in the Study Area for the purposes of this study. These formed the basis of the development potential categories.

Land Use Designation
Less than 5
Acres 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres 80 + Acres
Open Space $11,761 $5,091 $3,949 $1,866
Rural $33,363 $11,553 $8,337 $5,531
Community Development $177,414 $76,050 $72,369 $24,335
Sources: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Per Acre Land Value ($ / Acre)1

1. Most land sale comparables used for pricing are from 2013 to 2017 and were converted to 2017 dollars using BLS CPI adjustments for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County area.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx The average land value per acre for future RCA acquisitions is dependent on the different land values per acre as well as the expected distribution of future acquisitions. The actual land to be acquired is uncertain and is dependent on the availability of land through willing sellers.

However, based on the conservation needs by Area Plan, the suitable land available for protection, as well as the specific linkages that must be created between the core reserve areas, RCA staff provided sufficient information for EPS to develop a general expression of parcels by characteristic to support the land value analysis. An illustration of the expected distribution of acres by land use designation and size range is provided in Table 14.

Table 14 Illustrative Distribution of Land Acquisitions by Land Use and Size Applying the per acre land values in Table 13 to the illustrative land conservation distribution in Table 14 provides an estimate of the aggregate land value, supporting the estimate of the average planning level land value per acre in 2017-dollar terms (see Table 15).

Table 15 Aggregate Land Value of Remaining Areas (2017 dollars) Land Use Designation
Less than 5
Acres 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres 80 + Acres
Open Space 535 1,531 3,626 4,654 10,346
Rural 1,901 17,241 26,802 29,428 75,371
Community Development 638 1,707 3,613 4,384 10,342
Total Purchases by Acreage 3,074 20,479 34,041 38,466 96,059

1. Conservation scenario analysis was conducted in 2017 so overall acres acquired more than those required as of end of 2019.

Sources: RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Total
Conservation Scenario (Acres) (1)
Land Use Designation
Less than 5
Acres 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres 80 + Acres
Open Space $6,292,633 $7,795,633 $14,319,467 $8,682,942 $37,090,674 Rural $63,411,345 $199,183,566 $223,437,526 $162,777,034 $648,809,470 Community Development $113,198,910 $129,817,405 $261,456,200 $106,682,740 $611,155,254 Total Cost of Purchases $182,902,887 $336,796,603 $499,213,192 $278,142,716 $1,297,055,399 % of Total 14% 26% 38% 21% 100%

1. This table is the average land value per acre multiplied by the Conservation Scenario. See Table E-1 and E-2.

Sources: RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Total
Land Comparables by Acres
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 35 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx As shown in Table 15, the aggregate land value of the approximately 96,000 acres remaining to be protected as part of the MSHCP as of 2017 is estimated at about $1.3 billion in 2017 dollars.

This represents an average land value of about $13,500 per acre. To convert this land value into 2019 dollars terms (similar to the rest of the analysis), EPS indexed the value to about $14,300 per acre in 2019-dollar terms.25
Other Costs—Administration, Management, and
Monitoring
Program administration, reserve management, and reserve monitoring are required functions that require annual funding. The forecasts for each of these cost categories are described below.

Administration and Professional Service Costs
The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority is responsible for implementing the MSHCP. Since 2004, RCA staff members have directed the acquisition, management, and monitoring of the local portion of the Additional Reserve Land (ARL) required by the MSHCP, monitored State and federal Public/Quasi-Public lands and the State and federal portions of the ARL, and undertook all of the administrative tasks associated with maintaining the permit.

Costs categorized in this fee study under MSHCP administration include all RCA staff costs and other costs like building rents and average expenditures on non-acquisition related professional services that are not anticipated to vary as the size of the ARL increases. The forecast for the acquisition period assumes that these costs will remain at approximately $4.2 million in constant 2019 dollars, increasing with inflation but not increasing as the size of the ARL grows (see Table 16). This includes salaries and benefits of about $2.3 million annually and about $1.5 million in professional services, supplies, and other costs.
25 Two years of inflation (2017 – 2019) based on by BLS CPI adjustment for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metro Area.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 16 Administrative and Professional Services Costs Management and Monitoring
Reserve Management
The MSHCP describes reserve management activities focused on maintaining and improving habitat conditions and ecosystem functions including habitat and landscape-based activities and species-specific activities. For the purposes of this analysis, the average per acre cost estimate for Reserve Management as reported in the RCA actual spending for FY 2018-19 has been used to inform cost projections through the full acquisition period. Because RCA staff and relevant contractors have indicated that the current spending on staff capacity is not adequate to accomplish necessary management with existing land holdings, additional staffing and associated expenditures have been added to the current reserve management expenditures. Specifically, three new full time equivalent (FTE) positions are added to the current 2019 spending for reserve management. Overall, the 2019 per acre reserve management cost of $25.39 per acre was adjusted to $32.70 per acre (2019 dollars) to account for three new mid-level park ranger FTEs. While as of the end of 2019 about 40,200 acres were under management, ultimately, reserve management activities will cover the entire 97,000 acres to be acquired by the RCA.

Biological Monitoring
The purpose of biological monitoring is to provide Reserve Managers with information and data upon which reserve management decisions will be made. According to the MSHCP, the monitoring program must provide “sufficient, scientifically reliable data for Reserve Managers to assess the MSHCP’s effectiveness at meeting resource objectives and achieving or maintaining a Expenditures
RCA FY16/17- 18/19
3-Year Average of
Actuals
CPI Adjusted to
2019$1
Total Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,219,261 $2,288,495 Professional Services and Supplies
Environmental
Legal $394,320 $406,621
Auditing, Accounting & Financial Services $101,717 $104,891 GIS Services $10,000 $10,312
Personnel Services $13,920 $14,354
Real Estate Services $653,774 $674,169
Other Services
$247,979 $255,715
Subtotal $1,421,710 $1,466,062
Other Charges $388,145 $400,254
Total $4 ,029,116 $4 ,154,811
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conser vation Authority; Bureau of Labor Statistics; (1) Three year average CPI-adjusted by one year, the average of the annual CPI adjustments for the three years.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 37 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx healthy MSHCP Conservation Area in perpetuity.” Unlike the RCA’s reserve management activities which are limited to local ARL acres, the RCA will ultimately be responsible for monitoring all 500,000 acres of the reserve lands mandated under the MSHCP. The acreage currently being monitored totals roughly 408,000 acres. For the purposes of this analysis, the $1.1 million annual cost estimate based on FY 2018-19 actual spending was used to inform cost projections through the full acquisition period. Because current staff capacity is not adequate to accomplish necessary biological monitoring with existing land holdings, to address the additional land acquisitions, two new full time equivalent (FTE) positions are added to the current 2019 spending for reserve monitoring. The 2019 per acre reserve monitoring cost of $2.67 was adjusted to $3.01 (2019 dollars) to account for two new entry-level biologist FTEs. (see Table 17). This constant dollar per acre cost was assumed to apply throughout the period of implementation.

Reserve Management and Biological Monitoring Costs
Table 17 summarizes estimated per acre costs for reserve management and monitoring in 2019 dollars. Applying these per acre costs (in 2019 dollars) to current acreage under management and monitoring projects results in annual costs of $1.32 million and $1.23 million, respectively.

The annual reserve management and biological monitoring costs increase as new acquisitions occur.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 38 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 17 Management and Monitoring Anticipated Costs in 2004 and 2019 Dollars
Endowment Funding
The overall permit period was set at 75 years, ending in 2079. To cover ongoing management and monitoring costs beyond the duration when mitigation fees will be collected, the establishment of a non-depleting endowment is required. In other words, the endowment must be sufficient such that expected average interest revenues (after inflation and transaction costs) can cover the ongoing costs associated with administration, management and monitoring in perpetuity. This section summarizes the estimated cost of establishing this endowment under the different scenarios. A key assumption is that the endowment must be fully established by Reserve Management1
Acres under Management 40,212
Existing Reserve Management Expenses $1,021,000
Additional Staff Capacity Required3
$294,000
Total Reserve Management Expenses $1,315,000
$/Acre $32.70
$/Acre without additional staff capacity $25.39
Biological Monitoring2
Acres being Monitored 408,820
Existing Biological Monitoring Expenses $1,092,000
Additional Staff Capacity Required3
$140,000
Total Biological Monitoring Expenses $1,232,000
$/Acre $3.01
$/Acre without additional staff capacity $2.67
Item Actual FY 2019
Spending

3. Current staff capacity is not sufficient to accomplish necessary management and monitoring. An Expanded staff capacity scenario envisions adding 3 FTE mid- level park rangers to Reserve Management and 2 FTE entry-level biologists to Reserve Monitoring, with salaries and benfits of $98,000 and $70,000 ti l
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

1. Reserve Management costs include Parks & Open Space contract fees, maintenance of motor vehicles, and HOA dues.

2. Biological Monitoring costs include SAWA contract fees, office and computer supplies, training, private mileage reimbursement, building rent, and rental vehicles/fuel.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 39 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx the end of the land acquisition period as it is assumed that no more mitigation fees will be collected at that time.26
For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that habitat management and habitat monitoring costs continue in full, while administration costs are reduced by half following the end of the land acquisition period. All of these costs then continue in perpetuity. As a result and as shown in Table 18, the endowment is sized to cover the expected annual management and monitoring costs and 50 percent of the administration costs, totaling $6.8 million (2019 dollars) once all lands have been acquired.

Table 18 Annual Implementation Cost Estimate (2019$)
Consistent with many regional habitat conservations plans, the average annual net, real (allowing for inflation and institutional fees) interest rate is assumed to be three (3) percent.27 Under all extension scenarios, the total required endowment funding is $225.2 million. Because the longer extension periods provide more time for the accrual of interest revenues, the net endowment cost (that must be funded by mitigation fees) is different for each scenario. Table 19 shows the consistent total endowment funding required by scenario as well as the different levels of aggregate endowment interest and associated net endowment funding requirement. For a detailed time-series accounting of endowment funding by extension scenario, see Appendix II.
26 It is important to note that the RCA has collected a distinct set of endowment funds for situations where specific conservation activities are required over-and-above the core activities covered by this endowment calculation.
27 This assumes that the implementing entity can use investment vehicles that may be not be typical for Riverside County.

Annual Cost
Cost Categories
by Last Year of
Land Acquisition
Period
Adjustment
Ongoing Habitat Management $3,172,063 100% $3,172,063
Ongoing Habitat Monitoring $1,506,776 100% $1,506,776
Administration1 $4,154,811 50% $2,077,406
Total $8,833,650 $6,756,244

1. Adminsitration includes salaries and benefits, accounting, auditing and reporting, contracts, etc.. Assumes less administration is needed following the land acquisition peri od; ongoing adminsitrative needs include oversight, auditing and reporting, and board staffing.

Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservati on Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Annual Post-Land
Acquisition Cost
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 40 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 19 Endowment Funding (2019$), by Extension Scenario Total Implementation Costs
Implementation costs include land costs, administrative and professional services expenses, management and monitoring costs, and the required net endowment funding. The remaining MSHCP implementation costs, as described in detail in the preceding sections, are all estimated in 2019 constant dollar terms. Under the Baseline/ No Extension scenario, as shown in Figure 9, the $702 million in estimated land acquisition costs make up 72 percent of the total implementation cost of $974 million. Administrative costs total about 4 percent of total costs, management and monitoring sum to 3 percent of total implementation costs, and the endowment constitutes 21 percent of total costs.

Figure 9 Comparison of Costs by Category
Total implementation costs vary by extension scenario. Land acquisition costs are the same for all scenarios. Administrative, management and monitoring costs increase the longer the acquisition period is extended, but the endowment funding required decreases the longer the No Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Total Endowment Funding Required $225,208,133 $225,208,133 $225,208,133 $225,208,133 (Less) Endowment Interest ($25,695,187) ($40,679,628) ($54,846,349) ($68,206,990) Net Endowment Funding Required $199,512,947 $184,528,506 $170,361,785 $157,001,144 Item
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservati on Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Land Acqusition
72%
M&M
3%
RCA Staff
2%
Prof Svcs+Misc
2%
Endowment
21%
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 41 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx acquisition period is extended. As shown in Table 20, total implementation costs range from $890 million to $967 million depending on the extension period. Although total costs over time increase with longer extension periods the per-year implementation costs decrease with longer extension periods, as shown in Table 21. For a detailed time-series of all implementation costs excepting the endowment, see Appendix I.

Table 20 Total Implementation Costs (2019$*), by Extension Scenario * All costs are provided in constant 2019 dollar terms. Costs will change over time due to inflation and other factors. These changes will be addressed through the fee indexing/ updating process that will include automatic inflation-indexed fee changes annually based on the regional Consumer Price Index and periodic comprehensive updates to the Nexus Study.

Total for Total for Total for Total for
2020 - 2028 2020 - 2033 2020 - 2038 2020 - 2043
No Extension 5-Yr Extension 10-Yr Extension 15-Yr Extension Land 1
$701,931,902 $701,931,902 $701,931,902 $701,931,902
Management & Monitoring $33,582,193 $51,646,790 $69,711,387 $87,775,983 RCA Staff 2
$20,596,453 $32,038,927 $43,481,401 $54,923,875
Professional Services and Supplies 2
$13,194,561 $20,524,873 $27,855,185 $35,185,497
Loan Repayment 3
$2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Other Costs 2 4
$3,602,285 $5,603,554 $7,604,824 $9,606,093
Net Endowment Funding Required $199,512,947 $184,528,506 $170,361,785 $157,001,144 Total Costs $974,420,341 $998,274,552 $1,022,946,483 $1,048,424,494 Sources: Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Local Permittee MSHCP
Implementation Costs

1. Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms.

2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.

3. RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $5 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million starting in FY 2018.

4. Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.

NOTE: In some cases numbers may not perfectly sum due to rounding.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 42 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 21 Average Annual Implementation Costs (2019$), by Extension Scenario 2020 - 2028 2020 - 2033 2020 - 2038 2020 - 2043
No Extension 5-Yr Extension 10-Yr Extension 15-Yr Extension Land 1
$77,992,434 $50,137,993 $36,943,784 $29,247,163
Management & Monitoring $3,731,355 $3,689,056 $3,669,020 $3,657,333 RCA Staff 2
$2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495
Professional Services and Supplies 2
$1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062
Loan Repayment 3
$222,222 $142,857 $105,263 $83,333
Other Costs 2 4
$400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254
Net Endowment Funding Required $22,168,105 $13,180,608 $8,966,410 $6,541,714 Total Costs $108,268,927 $71,305,325 $53,839,289 $43,684,354

3. RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $5 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million starting in FY 2018.

4. Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.

Average AnnualLocal Permittee MSHCP
Implementation Costs
Sources: Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

1. Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms.

2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.

NOTE: In some cases numbers may not perfectly sum due to rounding.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 43 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx

6. RCA N ON-FEE REVENUES
MSHCP Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues
The MSHCP forecast an array of revenue sources, in addition to fee revenue, supporting the conservation program. These sources were anticipated to total about 44 percent of the revenue for the program, including:
x Transportation funding – includes the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through 2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) charged on new development. Note that the MSHCP envisioned up to $121 million of Measure A money to the HCP.
x Other infrastructure projects – funding from this source was not quantified in the MSHCP but reflected the expectation that local public construction projects such as schools, administrative facilities, libraries, jails, and other projects like flood control and utility projects would mitigate the construction through the payment of a per-acre fee. 28 Since
MSHCP adoption, the standard contribution has been three to five percent of total project costs.
x Landfill contributions – Landfill tipping fees have been used in the County since the 1990 for conservation programs. Under county permitting of landfills, the County has committed to divert portions of tipping fees to MSHCP implementation.

Table 22 and Figure 10 summarizes the revenue forecasts under the MSHCP. Including the fee revenues, these sources totaled $1.07 billion or an estimated average almost $43 million per year for 25-years (in 2004 dollars). Excluding fee revenues, a total of $18.84 million in annual revenues were forecast, including Measure A funding, $10 million each year from other transportation projects, and $4.0 million from land fill contributions.

As described further below, at this point, the average annual funding from non-fee revenues sources are well below the MSCHP forecast. Measure A, a voter-approved ½ cent sales tax measure did provide substantial funding as envisioned (though is now fully used/ allocated) and, collectively, the other non-fee funding sources are well beyond what was originally envisioned. 28 See Chapter 8.5.1 Funding Sources in the MSHCP.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 44 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 22 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources
Figure 10 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources
New Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues
Non-fee revenues to the RCA are projected to be $6.85 million annually in 2019 dollars. This estimate was derived from a line by line review of the major revenue items for a 3-year period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19, projections by collection entities (e.g., TUMF revenue), and recent dynamics likely to affect the revenue source (e.g., greater diversion of trash to recycling MSHCP Anticipated Funding Source
Estimate
(millions)
% of
Total
Avg/Yr (millions over 25
years)
Fee Funded Sources:

Cities and County Development Mitigation Fees $539.6 50% $21,584,000 Density Bonus Fees $66.0 6% $2,640,000
Non-Fee Funded Sources $605.6 $24,224,000.0
Public Funding Sources
Local Roads (Measure A) $121.0 11% $4,840,000
Other Transportation $250.0 23% $10,000,000
Other infrastructure Projects unknown 0% $0
El Sobrante Landfill $90.0 8% $3,600,000
County Landfills $10.0 1% $400,000
Eagle Mountain Landfill unknown 0% $0
New Regional funding unknown 0% $0
Non-Fee Funded Sources $471.0 $18,840,000
Total, Local Funds $1,076.6 100% $43,064,000
Fee funded
56%
Local Roads
11%
Other
Transportation
23%
El Sobrante/Other
County Landfills
10%
Non-Fee Funded
44%
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 45 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx will likely reduce tipping fees). The estimates have been inflated from a three-year average to 2019 dollars, as detailed in Table 23.

Table 23 Annual Non-Fee Revenue Projection (2019$s)
Non-Fee Revenue Item
RCA FY16/17- 18/19
3-Year Average of
Actuals
CPI Adjusted to
2019$
Transportation Mitigation1
TUMF Revenue-Developer Fees $950,000 $979,637
Subtotal $950,000 $979,637
Tipping Fee $3,865,728 $3,986,326
Public Project Mitigation
PSE Mitigation Fee2 NA $500,000
Other Gov MSHCP Infrastructure $284,570 $293,448
Other Gov MSHCP Civic Projects $93,629 $96,550
Flood Control District $293,084
$302,227
Subtotal $671,283 $1,192,225
Other Revenue
Interest and Other Sources $467,073 $481,644
Rents $80,531 $83,043
Joint Project Review Fees $124,762 $128,654
Subtotal $672,365 $693,341
Total Revenue NA $6,851,529

1. All Measure A funding was provided prior to 2020 and the associated obligations have been met.

2. Participating Special Entities fees. This does not include Developer Mitigation Fees.

These fees vary widely year over year, $500,000 is used as an annual average per the recommendation of RCA staff.

Sources: Western Riverside County Region al Conservation Authority; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 46 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx

7. M ITIGATION FEE CALCULATION
The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee is based on a generally similar methodology to the Original Nexus Study that ensures the fee level is proportional to the development impact. This methodology looks at the remaining conservation requirements associated with Local Permittee obligations under the MSHCP and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement, determines the remaining Local Permittee implementation cost, subtracts out reasonable estimates of non-fee revenues and other contributions, to determine the overall fee- funding obligation. This obligation is then divided among the new development forecast to determine the required mitigation fee. In others words, the original 2003 and updated 2020 Local Development Mitigation Fee estimates are the outcome of the following formula (the 2003 and 2020 Nexus Studies differ in their process of allocating funding required between land uses):

1. Implementation Costs
minus

2. Non-Fee Funding
equals

3. Outstanding Funding Required
divided by

4. Development Forecast
equals

5. Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule
Table 24 summarizes the estimated Net Implementation Costs, Expected Acres of Development, and the associated per gross acre mitigation fee. As shown, the average mitigation fee per gross acre decreases with each extension as similar levels of net implementation costs are spread across more development. Tables 25 through 28 provide the detailed calculations that determine the total net MSHCP implementation costs shown in Table 24. As noted in Chapter 1, for residential development, the per-gross-acre fee is translated into a per-unit fee schedule for administrative continuity.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 47 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 24 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees Fee Per Acre No Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Net Cost $912,756,583 $902,353,150 $892,767,438 $883,987,805 Acres of Development
Residential 14,026 21,818 29,611 37,403
Nonresidential 6,239 9,705 13,171 16,637
Total 20,265 31,523 42,782 54,040
Mitigation Fee per Acre $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358 Sources: Southern California Association of Government s; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 48 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 25 Recommended Fee Level—No Extension
Total for
2020 - 2029
Item (Years 17 - 25) 9y r s
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 6,310 acres na
(less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 1,111 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 5,199 acres na Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1) $701,931,902 $77,992,434 72.0%
Management & Monitoring $33,582,193 $3,731,355 3.4%
RCA Staff (2) $20,596,453 $2,288,495 2.1%
Professional Services and Supplies (2) $13,194,561 $1,466,062 1.4% Loan Repayment (3) $2,000,000 $222,222 0.2%
Other Costs (2) (4) $3,602,285 $400,254 0.4%
Net Endowment Funding Required $199,512,947 $22,168,105 20.5% Total Costs $974,420,341 $108,268,927 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6) $10,730,025 $1,192,225 1.4% Transportation Mitigation (7) $8,816,731 $979,637 1.1%
Tipping Fees $35,876,934 $3,986,326 4.6%
Other Revenues (8) $6,240,068 $693,341 0.8%
Total Selected Revenues $61,663,758 $6,851,529 8.0%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $912,756,583 $101,417,398 93.7%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development) Growth Projection:

Development 2020 - 2028 Annual
Residential Units 79,000 8,778
Residential Acres 14,026 1,558
Non-Residential Acres 6,239 693
Total Acres 20,265 2,252
Mitigation Fee $45,041 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost. (4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. (5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 th rough FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. (7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.

Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. % of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
Average
Annual
(6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues. (3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years. (2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 49 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 26 Recommended Fee Level—5-Year Extension
Total for
2020 - 2034
Item (Years 17 - 30) 14 yrs
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 4,056 acres na
(less) HANS Dedication 10,000
acres 714 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 3,342 acres na Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1) $701,931,902 $50,137,993 70.3%
Management & Monitoring $51,646,790 $3,689,056 5.2%
RCA Staff (2) $32,038,927 $2,288,495 3.2%
Professional Services and Supplies (2) $20,524,873 $1,466,062 2.1% Loan Repayment (3) $2,000,000 $142,857 0.2%
Other Costs (2) (4) $5,603,554 $400,254 0.6%
Net Endowment Funding Required $184,528,506 $13,180,608 18.5% Total Costs $998,274,552 $71,305,325 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6) $16,691,150 $1,192,225 2.1% Transportation Mitigation (7) $13,714,915 $979,637 1.7% Tipping Fees $55,808,564 $3,986,326 6.9%
Other Revenues (8) $9,706,772
$693,341 1.2%
Total Selected Revenues $95,921,402 $6,851,529 11.8%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $902,353,150 $64,453,796 90.4%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development) Growth Projection:

Development 2020 - 2033 Annual
Residential Units (4.2 DU/Acres) 122,456 8,747
Residential Acres 21,818 1,558
Non-Residential Acres 9,705 693
Total Acres 31,523 2,252
Mitigation Fee $28,625 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost. (4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. (5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 th rough FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. (7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.

Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. % of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
Average
Annual
(6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and ot her government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues. (3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years. (2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 50 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 27 Recommended Fee Level—10-Year Extension
Total for
2020 - 2039
Item (Years 17 - 35) 19 yrs
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 2,989 acres na
(less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 526 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 2,463 acres na Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1) $701,931,902 $36,943,784 68.6%
Management & Monitoring $69,711,387 $3,669,020 6.8%
RCA Staff (2) $43,481,401 $2,288,495 4.3%
Professional Services and Supplies (2) $27,855,185 $1,466,062 2.7% Loan Repayment (3) $2,000,000 $105,263 0.2%
Other Costs (2) (4) $7,604,824 $400,254 0.7%
Net Endowment Funding Required $170,361,785 $8,966,410 16.7% Total Costs $1,022,946,483 $53,839,289 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6) $22,652,275 $1,192,225 2.7% Transportation Mitigation (7) $18,613,099 $979,637 2.2% Tipping Fees $75,740,195 $3,986,326 8.9%
Other Revenues (8) $13,173,476
$693,341 1.5%
Total Selected Revenues $130,179,045 $6,851,529 15.3%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $892,767,438 $46,987,760 87.3%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development) Growth Projection:

Development 2020 - 2038 Annual
Residential Units (4.2 DU/Acres) 166,000 8,737
Residential Acres 29,611 1,558
Non-Residential Acres 13,171 693
Total Acres 42,782 2,252
Mitigation Fee $20,868 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost. (4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. (5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 th rough FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. (7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.

Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues.

Average
Annual
(2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
% of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
(3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 51 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 28 Recommended Fee Level—15-Year Extension
Total for
2020 - 2044
Item (Years 17 - 40) 24 yrs
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 2,366 acres na
(less) HANS Dedication 10,000
acres 417 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 1,950 acres na Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1) $701,931,902 $29,247,163 67.0%
Management & Monitoring $87,775,983 $3,657,333 8.4%
RCA Staff (2) $54,923,875 $2,288,495 5.2%
Professional Services and Supplies (2) $35,185,497 $1,466,062 3.4% Loan Repayment (3) $2,000,000 $83,333 0.2%
Other Costs (2) (4) $9,606,093 $400,254 0.9%
Net Endowment Funding Required $157,001,144 $6,541,714 15.0% Total Costs $1,048,424,494 $43,684,354 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6) $28,613,400 $1,192,225 3.2% Transportation Mitigation (7) $23,511,283 $979,637 2.6% Tipping Fees $95,671,825 $3,986,326 10.7%
Other Revenues (8) $16,640,181
$693,341 1.9%
Total Selected Revenues $164,436,689 $6,851,529 18.4%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $883,987,805 $36,832,825 84.3%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development) Growth Projection:

Development 2020 - 2043 Annual
Residential Units 210,000 8,750
Residential Acres 37,403 1,558
Non-Residential Acres 16,637 693
Total Acres 54,040 2,252
Mitigation Fee $16,358 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost. (4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. (5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. (7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.

Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and ot her government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues. (3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years. (2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.

Average
Annual
% of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 52 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx

8. M ITIGATION FEE ACT (NEXUS)F INDINGS
Mitigation fees are utilized in California to finance public facilities necessary to mitigate impacts stemming from new development. In 1987, the California Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act to provide a framework for the application and administration of such fees. Current prevailing practice among the majority of approved and permitted regional multiple-species Habitat Conservation Plans is that any habitat mitigation fees are to be adopted by the relevant jurisdictions (cities and Counties) consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act.29 As discussed further in Chapter 9, the adoption of fees under the Mitigation Fee Act includes a number of auditing and reporting requirements.

The Mitigation Fee Act, defined in California Government Code Sections 66000 to 66025, requires all public agencies to document five findings when establishing or increasing a fee as a condition for new development. These findings were made when the Western Riverside County MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees were first justified and established.30 This Chapter of the Western Riverside Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study was prepared to describe how the proposed increase in the Local Development Mitigation Fee satisfies the five statutory findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act and is based on the appropriate nexus between new development and the imposition of a mitigation fee. The five statutory findings required for the establishment of a mitigation fee are summarized in the sections below and supported by the technical analysis in the prior chapters of this Study.

Purpose of Fee
Identify the purpose of the fee. (66001(a)(1))
The purpose of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is to contribute to the funding required to implement the MSCHP and, as a result, help maintain the incidental take permits for new private and public development in Western Riverside County under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. Maintaining the incidental take permit is necessary to allow for future development, and without the development community paying for the cost of the MSHCP, individual applicants will need to apply independently for development approval under federal and State law if the project impacts a threaten or endangered species. The federal Endangered Species Act specifically requires that the applicant for incidental take permit “ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided.”31 In addition, the Local Development Mitigation Fee helps provide the regional benefit of streamlined economic development in Western Riverside County as well as 29 In addition to the current Western Riverside County habitat mitigation fee, see also the Coachella Valley habitat mitigation fee, the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Fee, and the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP mitigation fee. 30 See the Final Mitigation Nexus Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, published July 1, 2003.
31 See Section 1539(a)(2)Biii of the federal Endangered Species Act.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 53 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx the provision of contiguous open spaces that will serve as a community amenity to residents, workers, and visitors.

Use of Fee Revenues
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specific in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (66001(a)(2)).

The MSHCP is the public document that outlines the actions required as a whole and the particular set of actions required by the Local Permittees (and the Regional Conservation Agency as their agent) to obtain incidental take permits—associated with State and federal Endangered Species Act requirements—for new public and private development in Western Riverside County.

Failure to meet the requirements of the MSHCP will result in an inability to obtain or maintain incidental take permits through the MSHCP, which would require future development to secure individual take authorization if the project impacts a threaten or endangered species.

Revenues from the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be used, in conjunction with other local and regional funding sources, to fund the conservation actions identified as the responsibility of Local Permittees in the MSHCP. The revenue from the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be used to help fund the appropriate habitat acquisition (land acquisition and associated transaction costs), maintenance and monitoring of habitat land (preserve management, monitoring, and adaptive management), and program management, administration, and oversight activities and costs.32 Chapter 3 of this report describes the Local Permittee conservation requirements, progress to date, and the remaining actions required under the MSHCP.

Relationship
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (66001(a)(3)).

The implementation of the MSHCP, and the mitigation fee as a fundamental part of it, will benefit all new development by mitigating their collective impacts on covered species and associated habitat. All new public and private development in the Plan area will affect habitat and species either directly, indirectly, or as a cumulative effect. New infrastructure development, for example, in addition to its direct effects, will support new development on other parcels and other locations in the Plan Area. Similarly, new private development will require new infrastructure and also result in additional demand for new developments through linkages—for 32 Consistent with the interpretation applied to the majority of permitted and approved regional, multiple-species Habitat Conservation Plans in California and guidance from RCA Counsel, the Local Development Mitigation Fee is assumed to fund its proportionate share (as determined by the technical analysis and constrained by the statutory requirements) of applicable MSHCP implementation costs including, but also limited to, habitat acquisition costs (and associated transaction costs), the costs of managing and monitoring the habitat preserves in perpetuity, and the administrative and other costs of managing the overall program.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 54 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx example, the need for new housing to accommodate new workers at commercial developments or the need for new retail developments to serve new residents at residential developments.

In other words, all new development in Western Riverside County will benefit from the incidental take permits obtained through the MSHCP and via the use of the mitigation fee revenues.

In addition, the incidental take permits are necessary to permit any future development within the Plan Area, and in order to obtain or maintain such incidental take permits, the MSHCP must be fully funded. Because funding the MSHCP is required in order to allow for future development under the MSHCP, there is a direct relationship between the proposed use of the mitigation fee and development within the Plan Area.

Need
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (66001(a)(4)).

Without new development, no MSHCP would be necessary and no further habitat conservation would be required under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. To allow for any future development under the Plan, the MSHCP must be fully funded. New development in the Plan Area, as noted above, will directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect species and habitat in Western Riverside County. Because of this, development of the MSHCP was undertaken to provide a regional, streamlined approach to benefit future development of all types in Western Riverside County, including the development and improvements envisioned under the numerous General Plans and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The requirements of the MSHCP (habitat acquisition, management and monitoring, program administration) are a direct result of the regional approach to mitigation that is engendered by all new development in the Plan Area under the pertinent environmental regulations. Meeting the requirements of the MSHCP is necessary to obtain the necessary federal authorization to develop within the Plan Area.

Proportionality
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. (66001(b)).

The MSHCP includes detailed conservation requirements based on the scientific evaluations that form the basis of the MSHCP. Based on these evaluations, conservation responsibilities were allocated between the Local Permittees and other agencies, such as the State and federal governments. The Local Development Mitigation Fee appropriately provides funding towards the fulfillment of the Local Permittee conservation requirements. Furthermore, the Local Permittee obligations are not fully funded through the Local Development Mitigation Fee revenues. Other local and regional funding sources, such as the Measure A sales tax and tipping fees, provide additional mitigation and/or offsetting revenues that reduce the overall cost allocation to the Local Development Mitigation Fee Program. In addition, consistent with the relationship between new development in Western Riverside County and the need for the public facilities (conservation program) described above, proportional attribution between new development is ensured Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 55 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx through the determination of a consistent per gross acre Local Development Mitigation Fee.33 As a result, the Local Development Mitigation Fee level calculations are carefully determined to fund only the proportionate (or less than) conservation costs attributable to the new development on which the fee is imposed and to allocate the fee levels proportionally across all new development. It is this process of careful calculation based on the requirements of the MSHCP that is the subject of a substantial portion of this Nexus Study (see Chapters 2 through 7). 33 Determining habitat mitigation fees on a gross acre basis is the clearest way of ensuring proportionate cost allocations among new developments and is a common practice among adopted Habitat Conservation Plans. For purposes of implementation/administrative consistency, for residential uses, the per-gross-acre fee is translated into per unit fees for different density categories.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 56 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx

9. F EE IMPLEMENTATION
The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee must be implemented consistent with the MSHCP (and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement) as well as the California Mitigation Fee Act. A detailed set of guidance is included in the Fee Implementation Handbook to support clarity and specificity in the implementation of the updated fee program by Local Permittees. The sections below summarize some of the key implementation and administration actions to be consistent with the requirements.

Adoption of Revised LDMF
x Consistent with the MSHCP and associated documents, each Local Permittee (i.e., all participating jurisdictions) must adopt an updated LDMF ordinance and a fee resolution establishing the revised fee level as prescribed by the Mitigation Fee Act. x Consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act, the revised ordinance and associated fee resolution will become effective after a public hearing and 60 days. x RCA Legal Counsel will prepare a Fee Update Ordinance and Resolution to facilitate the consistent adoption of the updated LDMF by Local Permittees.

Securing Supplemental Funding
The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee is set at the level that would cover the Local Permittee cost obligations once expected non-fee revenues are subtracted out. To the extent any discounts/exemptions are provided to new Western Riverside County development below the updated fee level, additional funding will be required to backfill the fee revenue losses. To the extent, these revenues do not make up for any fee discounts provided, other sources of funding will need to be sought by the RCA and the Local Permittees to fulfill their Plan obligations. At the same time, if new substantial funding sources become available to the RCA for Local Permittee obligations, the funding required through fees may decrease, in turn reducing the required fee levels through a new update.

Annual Review
The Mitigation Fee Act (at Gov. C. §§ 66001(c), 66006(b)(1)) stipulates that each local agency that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. In this case, the RCA can play this role on behalf of the Local Permittees. This information includes the following:
x A description of the type of fee in the account.
x The amount of the fee (the mitigation fee schedule).
x The beginning and ending balance of the fund.
x The amount of fees collected and interest earned.
x Identification of the improvements constructed.
x The total cost of the improvements constructed.
x The fees expended to construct the improvement.
x The percentage of total costs funded by the fee.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 57 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx If sufficient fees have been collected to fund specific improvement cost, the agency must specify the approximate date for the cost of that improvement. Because of the dynamic nature of growth and MSHCP implementation costs and consistent with current practice, the RCA should continue to monitor progress towards MSHCP goals. The overall adequacy of the fee revenues and other available funding in meeting these goals should be reviewed annually.

Surplus Funds
The Mitigation Fee Act also requires that if any portion of a fee remains unexpended or uncommitted in an account for 5 years or more after deposit of the fee, the RCA, acting for the Local Permittees, shall make findings once each year (1) to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, (2) to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, (3) to identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements, and (4) to designate the approximate dates on which the funding identified in (3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate fund (§66001(d)).

If adequate funding has been collected for specific investments, an approximate date must be specified as to when the cost of the investment will be incurred. If the findings show no need for the unspent funds, or if the conditions discussed above are not met, and the administrative costs of the refund do not exceed the refund itself, the local agency that has collected the funds must refund them (Gov. C §66001(e)(f)).

Annual and Periodic Updates
Consistent with the current practice, the Fee Ordinance should allow an automatic annual adjustment to the fees based on the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Consumer Price Index (CPI) or a similar inflation factor. In addition, a more comprehensive update should be conducted required periodically. The Nexus Study and the technical information it contains should be reviewed periodically by the RCA (every five years is recommended) to identify any necessary refinements to the Local Development Mitigation Fees to ensure adequate funding to implement the MSHCP. Under certain circumstances, the RCA may wish to conduct a Nexus Study update sooner than after five years. For example, to the extent there are significant and unexpected changes in implementation costs, in the level of non-fee funding, and/ or the level of fee-paying private development over time, a more immediate fee update may be appropriate.

APPENDIX I:

Detailed Time Series of Implementation Costs
All Implementation Costs Over Time – No Extension

F a c t o r s 1 71 81 92 02 12 22 32 42 5
Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 (less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 Total Local 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 6,310 State/Fed 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 Total 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 10,131 Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1 45,272 50,332 55,391 60,451 65,511 70,571 75,630 80,690 87,000 State/Fed 25,429 29,251 33,072 36,893 40,715 44,536 48,357 52,179 56,000 Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 Total 71,951 82,082 92,213 102,344 112,476 122,607 132,738 142,869 153,000 Management and Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 ARL RCA State 25,429 29,251 33,072 36,893 40,715 44,536 48,357 52,179 56,000 Total 307,429 311,251 315,072 318,893 322,715 326,536 330,357 334,179 338,000 Local
PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 ARL RCA RCA 46,522 52,832 59,141 65,451 71,761 78,071 84,380 90,690 97,000 Total 111,522 117,832 124,141 130,451 136,761 143,071 149,380 155,690 162,000 Total Acres under RCA Management 46,522 52,832 59,141 65,451 71,761 78,071 84,380 90,690 97,000 Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 418,951 429,082 439,213 449,344 459,476 469,607 479,738 489,869 500,000 COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294, 065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $90,154, 055 Land Transaction Costs 5% of acquisition costs $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $4,507,703 Total, Land Acquisition Costs $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75, 908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $94,661,75 8 Local, ARL, Cumulative $75,908,768 $151,817,536 $227,726,304 $303,635 ,072 $379,543,840 $455,452,608 $531,361,376 $607,270,144 $701,931,9 02 Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,521,340 $1,727,681 $1,934,021 $2,140,361 $2,346,702 $2,553,042 $2,759,382 $2,965,723 $3,172,063 Management Cumulative $1,521,340 $3,249,021 $5,183,042 $7,323, 403 $9,670,105 $12,223,147 $14,982,530 $17,948,252 $21,120,315 Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,262,531 $1,293,061 $1,323, 592 $1,354,122 $1,384,653 $1,415,184 $1,445,714 $1,476,245 $1,506,776 Monitoring Cumulative $1,262,531 $2,555,592 $3,879,184 $5,233,306 $6,617,959 $8,033,143 $9,478,857 $10,955,102 $12,461,878 Endowment Costs
Net Endowment Funding, Annual $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22 ,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,10 5 Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $22,168,105 $44,336,210 $66,504, 316 $88,672,421 $110,840,526 $133,008,631 $155,176,736 $177,344,842 $1 99,512,947 Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 Total Annual $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154, 811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299

TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $106,015,555 $106,252,426 $105,489,297 $105,726,168 $105,963,039 $106,199,910 $106,436,781 $106,673,652 $125,663,513 TOTAL Cumulative $106,015,555 $212,267,981 $317,757,279 $423,483,447 $529,446,486 $635,646,396 $742,083,177 $848,756,829 $974,420,341

1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.

3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.

End of:

Reserve Summary Financial Responsibility
Habitat Lands/

2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 d ollars.

All Implementation Costs Over Time – 5 Year Extension

F a c t o r s 1 71 81 92 02 12 22 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 (less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Local 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 State/Fed 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 Total 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 6,513 6,513 6,513 6,513 6,513 6,513 Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1 43,018 45,825 48,631 51,437 54,243 57,050 59,856 62,662 66,719 70,775 74,831 78,887 82,944 87,000 State/Fed 24,065 26,521 28,978 31,434 33,891 36,347 38,804 41,261 43,717 46,174 48,630 51,087 53,543 56,000 Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250
2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total 68,333 74,846 81,359 87,871 94,384 100,897 107,410 113,923 120,436 126,949 133,461 139,974 146,487 153,000 Management and Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 ARL RCA State 24,065 26,521 28,978 31,434 33,891 36,347 38,804 41,261 43,717 46,174 48,630 51,087 53,543 56,000 Total 306,065 308,521 310,978 313,434 315,891 318,347 320,804 323,261 325,717 328,174 330,630 333,087 335,543 338,000 Local
PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 ARL RCA RCA 44,268 48,325 52,381 56,437 60,493 64,550 68,606 72,662 76,719 80,775 84,831 88,887 92,944 97,000 Total 109,268 113,325 117,381 121,437 125,493 129,550 133,606 137,662 141,719 145,775 149,831 153,887 157,944 162,000 Total Acres under RCA Management 44,268 48,325 52,381 56,437 60,493 64,550 68,606 72,662 76,719 80,775 84,831 88,887 92,944 97,000 Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 415,333 421,846 428,359 434,871 441,384 447,897 454,410 460,923 467,436 473,949 480,461 486,974 493,487 500 ,000 COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $57,956, 178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 Land Transaction Costs 5% of acquisition costs $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2, 004,809 $2,004,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897, 809 $2,897,809 Total, Land Acquisition Costs $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $60,853,98 7 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 Local, ARL, Cumulative $42,100,997 $84,201,995 $126,302,992 $168, 403,990 $210,504,987 $252,605,985 $294,706,982 $336,807,979 $397,661,96 7 $458,515,954 $519,369,941 $580,223,928 $641,077,915 $701,931,902 Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,447,647 $1,580,295 $1,712,942 $1,845, 589 $1,978,237 $2,110,884 $2,243,532 $2,376,179 $2,508,826 $2,641, 474 $2,774,121 $2,906,768 $3,039,416 $3,172,063 Management Cumulative $1,447,647 $3,027,942 $4,740,884 $6,586,474 $8 ,564,710 $10,675,595 $12,919,126 $15,295,305 $17,804,131 $20,445,605 $ 23,219,726 $26,126,494 $29,165,910 $32,337,973 Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,251,627 $1,271,254 $1,290,880 $1,310,5 07 $1,330,134 $1,349,761 $1,369,388 $1,389,015 $1,408,641 $1,428,2 68 $1,447,895 $1,467,522 $1,487,149 $1,506,776 Monitoring Cumulative $1,251,627 $2,522,880 $3,813,761 $5,124, 268 $6,454,402 $7,804,163 $9,173,551 $10,562,566 $11,971,207 $13,399,476 $1 4,847,371 $16,314,893 $17,802,041 $19,308,817 Endowment Costs
Net Endowment Funding, Annual $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13, 180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,60 8 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $13,180,608 $26,361,215 $39,541, 823 $52,722,430 $65,903,038 $79,083,645 $92,264,253 $105,444,860 $118, 625,468 $131,806,076 $144,986,683 $158,167,291 $171,347,898 $184,528,506 Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,49 5 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2 ,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466 ,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 Total Annual Costs $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154, 811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,81 1 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $2 2,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $4 7,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355

TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $63,135,690 $63,287,964 $62,440,239 $62,592,513 $62,74 4,787 $62,897,061 $63,049,335 $63,201,610 $82,106,873 $82,259,148 $82,4 11,422 $82,563,696 $82,715,970 $82,868,244 TOTAL Cumulative $63,135,690 $126,423,655 $188,863,893 $251,456, 406 $314,201,193 $377,098,254 $440,147,590 $503,349,199 $585,456,073 $667 ,715,220 $750,126,642 $832,690,338 $915,406,308 $998,274,552

1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedi cations to date, are captured in the year 17 number.

3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.

End of:

Reserve Summary
Financial Responsibility
Habitat Lands/

2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 d ollars.

All Implementation Costs Over Time – 10 Year Extension

F a c t o r s 1 71 81 92 02 12 22 32 42 52 62 72 82 93 03 13 23 33 4 3 5 Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 ( l e s s ) A n h e u s e r B u s c h p u r c h a s e 000000000000000000 0 (less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Local 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 State/Fed 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 Total 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1 41,951 43,690 45,429 47,167 48,906 50,645 52,384 54,123 57,112 60,10 0 63,089 66,078 69,067 72,056 75,045 78,033 81,022 84,011 87,000 State/Fed 23,418 25,228 27,038 28,848 30,659 32,469 34,279 36,089 37,899 39,709 41,519 43,329 45,139 46,949 48,760 50,570 52,380 54,190 56,000 Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total 66,619 71,418 76,217 81,016 85,815 90,614 95,413 100,212 105,011 109,809 114,608 119,407 124,206 129,005 133,804 138,603 143,402 148,201 153 ,000 Management and Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 2 82,000 ARL RCA State 23,418 25,228 27,038 28,848 30,659 32,469 34,279 36,089 37,899 39,709 41,519 43,329 45,139 46,949 48,760 50,570 52,380 54,190 56,000 Total 305,418 307,228 309,038 310,848 312,659 314,469 316,279 318,089 319,899 321,709 323,519 325,329 327,139 328,949 330,760 332,570 334,380 336 ,190 338,000 Local
PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 ARL RCA RCA 43,201 46,190 49,179 52,167 55,156 58,145 61,134 64,123 67,112 70,100 73,089 76,078 79,067 82,056 85,045 88,033 91,022 94,011 97,000 Total 108,201 111,190 114,179 117,167 120,156 123,145 126,134 129,123 132,112 135,100 138,089 141,078 144,067 147,056 150,045 153,033 156,022 159 ,011 162,000 Total Acres under RCA Management 43,201 46,190 49,179 52,167 55,156 58,145 61,134 64,123 67,112 70,100 73,089 76,078 79,067 82,056 85,045 88,03 3 91,022 94,011 97,000 Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 413,619 418,418 423,217 428,016 432,815 437,614 442,413 447,212 452,011 456,809 461,608 466,407 471,206 476 ,005 480,804 485,603 490,402 495,201 500,000 COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,56 2 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $42,704, 552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $ 42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 Land Transaction Costs 5% of acquisition
costs $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,2 28 $1,242,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135, 228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 Total, Land Acquisition Costs $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $44,839,78 0 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $ 44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 Local, ARL, Cumulative $26,086,790 $52,173,581 $78,260,371 $1 04,347,161 $130,433,952 $156,520,742 $182,607,532 $208,694,323 $253,534,102 $298,373,882 $343,213,662 $388,053,442 $432,893,222 $477,733,002 $522,572,782 $567,412,562 $612,252,342 $657,092,122 $701,931,902 Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,412,740 $1,510,480 $1,608,220 $1, 705,961 $1,803,701 $1,901,441 $1,999,181 $2,096,921 $2,194,661 $2,292, 402 $2,390,142 $2,487,882 $2,585,622 $2,683,362 $2,781,102 $2,878,843 $2,976,583 $3,074,323 $3,172,063 Management Cumulative $1,412,740 $2,923,220 $4,531,441 $6,2 37,402 $8,041,102 $9,942,543 $11,941,725 $14,038,646 $16,233,307 $18,525,709 $2 0,915,851 $23,403,733 $25,989,355 $28,672,717 $31,453, 819 $34,332,662 $37,309,245 $40,383,568 $43,555,631 Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,246,462 $1,260,924 $1,275,386 $1, 289,847 $1,304,309 $1,318,771 $1,333,233 $1,347,695 $1,362,157 $1,376,6 19 $1,391,081 $1,405,542 $1,420,004 $1,434,466 $1,448,928 $1,463,390 $1,477,852 $1,492,314 $1,506,776 Monitoring Cumulative $1,246,462 $2,507,386 $3,782,771 $5,0 72,619 $6,376,928 $7,695,699 $9,028,932 $10,376,627 $11,738,784 $13,115,403 $1 4,506,484 $15,912,026 $17,332,030 $18,766,497 $20,215,425 $21,678,815 $23,156,667 $24,648,980 $26,155,756 Endowment Costs
Net Endowment Funding, Annual $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8 ,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,4 10 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,96 6,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $8,966,410 $17,932,819 $26,8 99,229 $35,865,639 $44,832,049 $53,798,458 $62,764,868 $71,731,278 $80,697 ,687 $89,664,097 $98,630,507 $107,596,917 $116,563,326 $125,529,736 $ 134,496,146 $143,462,556 $152,428,965 $161,395,375 $170,361,785 Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2 ,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466 ,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $ 400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 Total Annual Costs $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,81 1 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $4 7,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355 $64,322,166 $68,476,977 $72,631,788 $76,786,599 $80,941,410

TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $42,867,213 $42,979,415 $42,091,617 $42,203,819 $42,316 ,021 $42,428,223 $42,540,425 $42,652,627 $61,517,819 $61,630,021 $61,7 42,223 $61,854,425 $61,966,627 $62,078,829 $62,191,031 $62,303,233 $62,415,435 $62,527,637 $62,639,839 TOTAL Cumulative $42,867,213 $85,846,628 $127,938,245 $170,142,065 $21 2,458,086 $254,886,309 $297,426,735 $340,079,362 $401,597,181 $463, 227,202 $524,969,425 $586,823,850 $648,790,477 $710,869,307 $773,060, 338 $835,363,571 $897,779,006 $960,306,644 $1,022,946,483

1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS ded ications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.

3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.

Habitat Lands/
End of:

Reserve Summary Financial Responsibility

2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 d ollars.

All Implementation Costs Over Time – 15 Year Extension

F a c t o r s 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 02 12 22 3 2 4 2 52 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 03 13 2 3 33 4 3 53 6 3 73 8 3 9 4 0 Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2, 366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 (less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Local 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2 ,366 State/Fed 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 Total 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,79 9 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1 41,328 42,444 43,561 44,677 45,793 46,909 48,025 49,141 51,508 53,874 56, 240 58,606 60,972 63,338 65,705 68,071 70,437 72,803 75,169 77,535 79,902 8 2,268 84,634 87,000 State/Fed 23,041 24,474 25,907 27,340 28,773 30,206 31,639 33,072 34,505 35,93 8 37,371 38,804 40,237 41,670 43,103 44,536 45,969 47,402 48,835 50,2 68 51,701 53,134 54,567 56,000 Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total 65,619 69,418 73,218 77,017 80,816 84,615 88,414 92,213 96,013 99,812 103,611 107,410 111,209 115,008 118,808 122,607 126,406 130,205 134,00 4 137,803 141,603 145,402 149,201 153,000 Management and Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282, 000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 2 82,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 ARL RCA State 23,041 24,474 25,907 27,340 28,773 30,206 31,639 33,072 34,505 35,938 37,371 38,804 40,237 41,670 43,103 44,536 45,969 47,402 48,835 50,268 51,701 53,134 54,567 56,000 Total 305,041 306,474 307,907 309,340 310,773 312,206 313,639 315,072 316,505 317,938 319,371 320,804 322,237 323,670 325,103 326,536 327,969 329 ,402 330,835 332,268 333,701 335,134 336,567 338,000 Local
PQP RCA Non-RCA
Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65 ,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 6 5,000 65,000 65,000 ARL RCA RCA 42,578 44,944 47,311 49,677 52,043 54,409 56,775 59,141 61,508 63,874 66,240 68,606 70,972 73,338 75,705 78,071 80,437 82,803 85,169 87,535 89,902 92,268 94,634 97,000 Total 107,578 109,944 112,311 114,677 117,043 119,409 121,775 124,141 126,508 128,874 131,240 133,606 135,972 138,338 140,705 143,071 145,437 147 ,803 150,169 152,535 154,902 157,268 159,634 162,000 Total Acres under RCA Management 42,578 44,944 47,311 49,677 52,043 54,409 56,775 59,141 61,508 63,874 66,240 68,606 70,972 73,338 75,705 78,07 1 80,437 82,803 85,169 87,535 89,902 92,268 94,634 97,000 Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 412,619 416,418 420,218 424,017 427,816 431,615 435,414 439,213 443,013 446,812 450,611 454,410 458,209 462 ,008 465,808 469,607 473,406 477,205 481,004 484,803 488,603 492,402 496,201 500,000 COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL,
Annual $14,288 $/Acre $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33, 807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807 ,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,77 1 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 Land Transaction
Costs 5% of acquisition
costs $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $1, 690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1, 690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1, 690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 Total, Land Acquisition Costs $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16 ,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $35,498,15 9 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498, 159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,4 98,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 Local, ARL,
Cumulative $16,745,170 $33,490,339 $50,235,509 $66,980,678 $83,725,848 $100,471, 017 $117,216,187 $133,961,356 $169,459,515 $204,957,674 $240,455,833 $275,953,992 $311,452,152 $346,950,311 $382,448,470 $417,946,629 $453,444, 788 $488,942,947 $524,441,106 $559,939,265 $595,437,424 $630,93 5,583 $666,433,743 $701,931,902 Management and Monitoring Costs
Management,
Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,392,378 $1,469,755 $1,547,133 $1,624,511 $1,701,888 $1, 779,266 $1,856,643 $1,934,021 $2,011,399 $2,088,776 $2,166,154 $2,24 3,532 $2,320,909 $2,398,287 $2,475,664 $2,553,042 $2,630,420 $2,707,797 $2,785,175 $2,862,553 $2,939,930 $3,017,308 $3,094,685 $3,172,063 Management
Cumulative $1,392,378 $2,862,133 $4,409,266 $6,033,776 $7,735,664 $9,514,930 $11,371,57 4 $13,305,595 $15,316,993 $17,405,770 $19,571,923 $21,815,455 $ 24,136,364 $26,534,651 $29,010,315 $31,563,357 $34,193,777 $36,901,574 $ 39,686,749 $42,549,302 $45,489,232 $48,506,540 $51,601,225 $54,773 ,288 Monitoring,
Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,243,449 $1,254,898 $1,266,347 $1,277,796 $1,289,245 $1,300,694 $1,312,143 $1,323,592 $1,335,041 $1,346,490 $1,357,939 $1,369 ,388 $1,380,837 $1,392,286 $1,403,735 $1,415,184 $1,426,633 $1,438,082 $1,449,531 $1,460,980 $1,472,429 $1,483,878 $1,495,327 $1,506,776 Monitoring
Cumulative $1,243,449 $2,498,347 $3,764,694 $5,042,490 $6,331,735 $7,632,429 $8,944,572 $10,268,163 $11,603,204 $12,949,694 $14,307,633 $15,677,021 $1 7,057,857 $18,450,143 $19,853,878 $21,269,062 $22,695,694 $24,133,776 $25, 583,307 $27,044,286 $28,516,715 $30,000,593 $31,495,919 $33,002, 695 Endowment Costs
Net Endowment
Funding, Annual $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6, 541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541, 714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,71 4 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 Net Endowment
Funding,
Cumulative
$6,541,714 $13,083,429 $19,625,143 $26,166,857 $32,708,572 $39,250,286 $45, 792,000 $52,333,715 $58,875,429 $65,417,143 $71,958,858 $78,500 ,572 $85,042,286 $91,584,001 $98,125,715 $104,667,429 $111,209,144 $117,750, 858 $124,292,572 $130,834,286 $137,376,001 $143,917,715 $150,4 59,429 $157,001,144 Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2 ,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,49 5 Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466, 062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466 ,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1, 466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1, 466,062 Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $ 400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 Total Annual Costs $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4, 154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,81 1 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154, 811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154 ,811 Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619 ,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $4 7,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355 $64,322,166 $68,476, 977 $72,631,788 $76,786,599 $80,941,410 $85,096,221 $89,251,032 $93,405, 843 $97,560,654 $101,715,465

TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $31,077,521 $31,166,348 $30,255,175 $30,344,001 $30,432,828 $30,521,655 $30,610,481 $30,699,308 $49,541,124 $49,629,951 $49,7 18,777 $49,807,604 $49,896,430 $49,985,257 $50,074,084 $50,162,910 $50 ,251,737 $50,340,563 $50,429,390 $50,518,217 $50,607,043 $50,695,870 $50,784,697 $50,873,523 TOTAL Cumulative $31,077,521 $62,243,870 $92,499,044 $122,843,046 $153,275,874 $183,797,528 $214,408,009 $245,107,317 $294,648,441 $344,2 78,392 $393,997,169 $443,804,773 $493,701,203 $543,686,460 $593,760,544 $643,923,454 $694,175,191 $744,515,754 $794,945,144 $845,463,361 $ 896,070,404 $946,766,274 $997,550,971 $1,048,424,494

1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.

3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 d ue to assumption that loan repayment is completed.

Habitat Lands/
End of:

Reserve
Summary Financial Responsibility

2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 d ollars.

APPENDIX II:

Detailed Time Series of Endowment Funding
Annual Cost Estimate for Management and Monitoring, Constant 2019$

1. Adminsitration includes salaries and benefits, accounti ng, auditing and reporting, contracts, etc.. Assumes less administration is needed following the land acquisition peri od; ongoing adminsitrative needs include oversight, auditing and reporting, and board staffing.

Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conserva tion Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Annual Post-Land
Acquisition Cost
Endowment Funding – No Extension Scenario

I t e m 1 2 3456789 P o s t - P e r m i t
New Impact Acres (avg. annual) 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 Average Per Acre $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22, 168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 Endowment Balance $22,168,105 $44,336,210 $67,169,359 $90,687,502 $114,911,189 $139,861,586 $165,560,496 $192,030,373 $219,294,346 Annual Interest $0 $665,043 $1,350,038 $2,055,582 $2,782,293 $3,530,804 $4,301,772 $5,095,868 $5,913,787 Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $665,043 $2,015,081 $4,070,663 $6,852,955 $10,383,760 $14,685,531 $19,781,399 $25,695,187 Total Endowment $22,168,105 $45,001,254 $68,519,396 $92,743, 083 $117,693,481 $143,392,391 $169,862,268 $197,126,241 $225,208,133 Average Annual Post Permit Interest $6,756,244
Assumptions
20,265 impact acres developed
9 year plan
3% interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate
$9,845 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the perm it term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.

Endowment Funding – 5 Year Extension Scenario

I t e m 1 2345 6789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 P o s t - P e r m i t New Impact Acres (avg. annual) 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 Average Per Acre $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13 ,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13, 180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 Endowment Balance $13,180,608 $26,361,215 $39,937,241 $53,920, 547 $68,323,353 $83,158,243 $98,438,180 $114,176,514 $130,386,999 $147,083, 799 $164,281,502 $181,995,136 $200,240,180 $219,032,574 Annual Interest $0 $395,418 $802,699 $1,222,198 $1,654,282 $2,099, 329 $2,557,727 $3,029,877 $3,516,192 $4,017,096 $4,533,027 $5,064,436 $5,6 11,787 $6,175,559 Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $395,418 $1,198,117 $2,420,315 $4,074,598 $6,173,927 $8,731,654 $11,761,531 $15,277,723 $19,294,819 $23,82 7,846 $28,892,281 $34,504,069 $40,679,628 Total Endowment $13,180,608 $26,756,633 $40,739,940 $55,142,746 $69, 977,636 $85,257,572 $100,995,907 $117,206,392 $133,903,191 $151,100,8 94 $168,814,529 $187,059,572 $205,851,967 $225,208,133 Average Annual Post Permit Interest $6,756,244
Assumptions
31,523 impact acres developed
14 year plan
3% interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate
$5,854 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is as sumed to be 3 percent annually.

Endowment Funding – 10 Year Extension Scenario

I t e m 123456 7 8 91 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 9 P o s t - P e r m i t New Impact Acres (avg. annual) 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2, 252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 Average Per Acre $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3, 982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3, 982 Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8, 966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8, 966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 Endowment Balance $8,966,410 $17,932,819 $27,168,221 $36,680, 686 $46,478,524 $56,570,297 $66,964,823 $77,671,185 $88,698,738 $100,057,118 $111,756,249 $123,806,354 $136,217,962 $149,001,918 $162,169,393 $175,731,892 $189,701,266 $204,089,722 $218,909,831 Annual Interest $0 $268,992 $546,054 $831,428 $1,125,363 $1,428,117 $1, 739,952 $2,061,143 $2,391,970 $2,732,721 $3,083,695 $3,445,198 $3,817 ,547 $4,201,065 $4,596,089 $5,002,964 $5,422,046 $5,853,699 $6,298,303 Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $268,992 $815,047 $1,646,475 $2,771, 838 $4,199,955 $5,939,907 $8,001,051 $10,393,020 $13,125,742 $16,209,4 37 $19,654,635 $23,472,182 $27,673,247 $32,269,336 $37,272,301 $42,694,347 $48,548,046 $54,846,349 Total Endowment $8,966,410 $18,201,812 $27,714,276 $37,512,114 $47,60 3,887 $57,998,413 $68,704,775 $79,732,328 $91,090,708 $102,789,839 $1 14,839,944 $127,251,552 $140,035,508 $153,202,983 $166,765, 482 $180,734,856 $195,123,312 $209,943,421 $225,208,133 Average Annual Post Permit Interest $6,756,244
Assumptions
42,782 impact acres developed
19 year plan
3% interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate
$3,982 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is as sumed to be 3 percent annually.

Endowment Funding – 15 Year Extension Scenario

I t e m 12345 6789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5
New Impact Acres (avg. annual) 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 Average Per Acre $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6, 541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6, 541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 Endowment Balance $6,541,714 $13,083,429 $19,821,394 $26,761,499 $33 ,909,807 $41,272,564 $48,856,204 $56,667,353 $64,712,836 $72,999,684 $ 81,535,138 $90,326,655 $99,381,917 $108,708,838 $118,315,566 Annual Interest $0 $196,251 $398,390 $606,594 $821,043 $1,041,925 $1, 269,435 $1,503,769 $1,745,134 $1,993,739 $2,249,803 $2,513,548 $2,785,2 06 $3,065,014 $3,353,216 Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $196,251 $594,642 $1,201,235 $2, 022,278 $3,064,204 $4,333,638 $5,837,407 $7,582,541 $9,576,280 $11,826,083 $14,339,631 $17,124,837 $20,189,851 $23,543,067 Total Endowment $6,541,714 $13,279,680 $20,219,785 $27,368,093 $34,730, 850 $42,314,490 $50,125,639 $58,171,122 $66,457,970 $74,993,424 $83 ,784,941 $92,840,203 $102,167,123 $111,773,852 $121,668,781 Average Annual Post Permit Interest
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Post-Permit
2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252
$2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541, 714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $128,210,496 $138,402,273 $148,899,805 $159,712,262 $170, 849,092 $182,320,028 $194,135,092 $206,304,607 $218,839,209 $3,650,063 $3,955,817 $4,270,743 $4,595,116 $4,929, 221 $5,273,349 $5,627,801 $5,992,887 $6,368,925 $27,193,130 $31,148,947 $35,419,689 $40,014,806 $44,944,027 $50,217,377 $55,845,178 $61,838,065 $68,206,990 $131,860,559 $142,358,090 $153,170,547 $164,307,378 $175, 778,314 $187,593,377 $199,762,893 $212,297,494 $225,208,133 $6,756,244
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit te rm, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is as sumed to be 3 percent annually.

Assumptions
54,040 impact acres developed
24 year plan
3% interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate
$2,905 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 G-1
Appendix G - TUMF 2016 Program Update Disposition of Network Change Requests

As part of the 2024 update of the TUMF Nexus Study, the list of proposed improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development in the TUMF Network Cost Estimate table included in the previously adopted Nexus Study was reviewed for accuracy. In particular, the Network Cost table was reviewed to ensure the included projects were consistent with the mitigation needs identified by the RivCoM future year no-build traffic conditions.

To assist in the review of the Network Cost Estimate table, participating local jurisdictions, private developers and the Riverside County Transportation Commission were asked to submit requests for changes to the TUMF Network. The various requests for network changes were subsequently reviewed for consistency with the program guidelines for inclusion on the TUMF Network and to determine if future traffic impacts would be sufficient to require mitigation primarily utilizing the RivCoM future no-build scenario outputs to quantify impacts as well as screening the various qualitative measures that have guided the TUMF Network development since program inception.

Based on the findings of the review of the entire TUMF network, elements of specific projects were revised to reflect only nece ssary network corrections, modifications to project assumptions and to incorporate a limited number of additional improvements.

The preliminary results of the network review and the associated screening of specific requested projects was presented to the WRCOG Public Works Directors Committee (PWC) in August 2023. Updated screening results were presented to the PWC in February 2024 and the findings endorsed confirming the TUMF Network as the basis for the Draft 2024 Nexus Study that was subsequently presented to the PWC for review and comment in April 2024. A matrix summarizing the disposition of the specific project requests received as part of the 2024 TUMF Nexus Update is included as Exhibit G-1 in this Appendix.

With the release of the Draft 2024 Nexus Update Study Report for a formal review period commencing on May 14, 2024, and ending on June 10, 2024, additional comments were provided to WRCOG staff by thirteen participating jurisdictions or other stakeholders. These comments were reviewed by WRCOG staff and responses were provided to each of the parties that submitted comments. The responses included several changes to the TUMF network to remedy typographical errors contained in the draft report, including misreporting in the number of existing lanes, project percent complete and interchange project type for approximately 10 TUMF network segments.

The recommended network revisions were presented to the PWC on August 8, 2024, and are reflected in the TUMF network cost table included in Exhibit H-1.

EXHIBIT G-1
2024 TUMF Nexus Study Update - Network Addition Requests Northwest Zone
City/
County
Street
Name From To Recommendation
Eastvale Hellman River Road Walter Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Eastvale Hellman Schleisman Walter Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Eastvale Hellman Cucamonga Creek bridge Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Eastvale River Rd Archibald Hellman Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Eastvale Limonite ITS city wide Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase Eastvale Hamner ITS city wide Add to networks for deficient links with no capacity increase Eastvale Schliesman ITS city wide Add to networks for deficient links with no capacity increase Eastvale Archibald ITS city wide Add to networks for deficient links with no capacity increase Eastvale Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge Bridge length increased to 500' Riverside 3rd Chicago Iowa Do not add - no V/C deficiency and interchange overcrossing reconstructed to 4 lanes in 2006-2007 Riverside La Sierra ITS SR-91 Victoria Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase Riverside Madison ITS SR-91 Victoria Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase Riverside University ITS Market St Canyon Crest Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase Riverside Tyler ITS California Ave Indiana Ave Do not add - no V/C deficiency Riverside Alessandro Blvd ITS Fairview Ave Meridian Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase County Markham St Mockingbird Canyon Wood Rd Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency Central Zone
City/
County
Street
Name From To Recommendation
Menifee Garbani Haun Antelope Do not add - no future v/c deficiency Menifee Garbani I-215 interchange Add to network to mitigate future v/c deficiency Menifee Garbani I-215 Menifee Do not add - no future v/c deficiency Menifee Garbani Menifee Briggs Do not add - no future v/c deficiency Menifee Holland City Limits (West) Murrieta Do not add - no future v/c deficiency Menifee Holland Murrieta Bradley Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Menifee Holland Bradley Haun Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Menifee Holland Antelope Muenifee Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Menifee Scott Haun Menifee Already on TUMF Network
Menifee Scott Menifee Briggs Already on TUMF Network
Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta Already on TUMF Network
Menifee Briggs Simpson Angler Already on TUMF Network
Menifee Briggs Salt Creek bridge Already on TUMF Network Perris Ethanac Bridge San Jacinto River Already on TUMF Network Unincorporated Grand Ave Briggs Rd SR-79 Do not add - no future v/c deficiency San Jacinto Zone
City/
County
Street
Name From To Recommendation
Hemet Stetson Warren 0.85 Miles w/o Warren Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency San Jacinto 7th St Western Terminus Warren Rd Do not add - no future v/c deficiency San Jacinto 7st St Channel adjacent to Warren bridge Do not add - no future v/c deficiency Pass Zone
City/
County
Street
Name From To Recommendation
Banning Highland Springs Cherry Valley Oak Valley Already on TUMF Network - no v/c deficiency Banning Cottonwood I-10 interchange Do not add - no connectivity to regional network Banning Wilson Highland Springs Highland Home Already on TUMF Network - no v/c deficiency Banning Sun Lakes Smith Creek bridge Segment already on TUMF Network - Bridge added Southwest Zone
City/
County
Street
Name From To Recommendation
Lake Elsinore Camino del Norte Summerhill Main Do not add - no connectivity to regional network Lake Elsinore Summerhill Railroad Canyon Greenwald Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 Lake Already on TUMF Network Wildomar Inland Valley Dr I-15 bridge Do not add - no connectivity to regional network Wildomar Palomar Starbuck Washington Already on TUMF Network Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 City Limits (Sunset) Already on TUMF Network Murrieta Orange Springs Parkway Clinton Keith Scott Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency Murrieta Calle del Oso Oro Vineyard Pkwy Washington Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency Murrieta Calle del Oso Oro 1500 w/o Vineyard Pkwy bridge Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency Murrieta Adams Murrieta Hot Springs/Hawthorne Cherry Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency Temecula Ynez Road Rancho California Santiago Do not add - no connectivity to regional network Temecula Ynez Road/DePortola Road Santiago Margarita Do not add - no connectivity to regional network Temecula ITS Major Arterials (Winchester, Rancho California, Butterfield Stage, Temecula Pkwy, Margarita, Jefferson City limits Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 H-1
Appendix H - TUMF Network Cost Estimate and Evaluation

For the purpose of calculating the “fair share” fee to be applied to new development under the TUMF program, a planning level cost estimate was developed to reflect the cost to complete improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials to adequately accommodate future traffic growth. The planning level cost estimate was established by applying the unit cost values (presented in Table 4.1) to the proposed changes identified for the future Regional System of Highways and Arterials. The resultant cost value was tabulated for each unique segment of the network, by improvement type, based on the proposed list of improvements recommended following the review of the TUMF Network (as described in Section 4.3, Appendix E and Appendix G ). A separate cost estimate was generated for regional transit improvements based on information provided by RTA and added to the summary table. The TUMF Network cost estimate table is summarized in Table 4.4 of the Nexus Report. The detailed TUMF Network cost estimate table is included in this Appendix as Exhibit H-1. The detailed TUMF transit cost estimate table is included as Table 4.5 of the Nexus Report.

Where existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements to the TUMF Network, the cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds.

WRCOG staff, in consultation with RCTC staff, reviewed the current Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) to identify transportation projects on the TUMF network that had previously secured alternate sources of funding. Exhibit H-2 identifies those projects included on the TUMF Network having previously obligated funding.

To account for existing needs in the original TUMF Nexus Study, the cost for facilities identified as currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted by extracting the share of the cost to improve the portion of those facilities identified in the 2018 Baseline network scenario with a volume to capacity ratio of greater than 0.90, which is the threshold for LOS E. The adjustment to account for existing need as part of the TUMF Nexus Study provides for the mitigation of incremental traffic growth on those facilities with existing need.

The following approach was applied to account for incremental traffic growth associated with new development as part of the existing need methodology:

1. 1. Facilities with an existing need were identified by reviewing the RivCoM 2018 Baseline scenario assigned traffic on the 2021 existing network and delineating those facilities included on the TUMF Cost Fee Summary Table that have an average directional v/c exceeding 0.90.
a. Weighted directional v/c values were used to determine existing need for network segments, which was calculated by:

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 H-2
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.

3. Incremental growth in v/c was determined by comparing the average directional base year v/c for the TUMF facilities (delineated under step one) with the horizon year v/c for the corresponding segments and spot improvements calculated based on the RivCoM 2045 No-Build scenario assigned traffic on the 2021 existing network using the same methodology as the base year v/c.

4. The proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development was determined by dividing the result of step three with the total 2045 No-Build scenario v/c in excess of LOS E.

Exhibit H-2 includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment experiencing unacceptable LOS.

For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 H-3
projected daily bus transit ridership representing existing demand. Exhibit H-3 reflects the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost.

To validate the effectiveness of the TUMF Network improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development in Western Riverside County, the future TUMF Network was evaluated. The proposed improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials were coded on the 2021 existing network derived from RivCoM and the model was run to determine the relative impacts on traffic conditions. To quantify the impacts of the TUMF Network improvements, the various traffic measures of effectiveness described in Section 3.1 for the 2018 Baseline and 2045 No-Build scenarios were calculated for the 2045 TUMF Build network scenario.

The results for VMT, VHT, VHD, and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E) were then compared to the results presented in Table 3.1 for the no-build conditions. The consolidated results are provided in Table 4.6.

EXHIBIT H-1 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate Updated: July 23, 2024 AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORK MILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSE INTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING ITS NEW LNCOST ROWCOST INTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOST ITSCOST PLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central Menifee Ethanac Goetz Murrieta Backbone 0.99 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Ethanac Murrieta I-215 Backbone 0.90 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Ethanac I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Central Menifee Ethanac Sherman Matthews Backbone 0.61 2 4 0% 1.23 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,388,000 $601,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $139,000 $347,000 $199,000 $2,674,000 $2,674,000 Central Menifee Ethanac BNSF San Jacinto Branch railroad crossing Backbone 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,800,000 $0 $7,280,000 $18,200,000 $7,280,000 $105,560,000 $105,560,000 Central Menifee Menifee SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson Backbone 2.50 2 4 88% 0.60 1 3 0 0 0 0 $678,000 $294,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $68,000 $170,000 $97,000 $1,307,000 $1,307,000 Central Menifee Menifee Salt Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 315 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,024,000 $0 $0 $302,000 $756,000 $302,000 $4,384,000 $4,384,000 Central Menifee Menifee Simpson Aldergate Backbone 0.64 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Aldergate Newport Backbone 0.98 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Newport Holland Backbone 1.07 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Holland Garbani Backbone 1.03 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Garbani Scott Backbone 1.00 2 4 0% 2.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,260,000 $978,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $226,000 $565,000 $324,000 $4,353,000 $4,353,000 Central Menifee Menifee/Whitewood Scott Murrieta City Limit Backbone 0.53 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Goetz Murrieta Backbone 1.81 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Murrieta I-215 Backbone 1.99 4 6 87% 0.52 1 3 0 0 0 0 $586,000 $254,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $59,000 $147,000 $84,000 $1,130,000 $1,130,000 Central Menifee Newport I-215 Menifee Backbone 1.02 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Menifee Lindenberger Backbone 0.77 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Lindenberger SR-79 (Winchester) Backbone 3.58 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Scott I-215 Briggs Backbone 1.98 4 6 0% 3.96 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,483,000 $1,941,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $448,000 $1,121,000 $642,000 $8,635,000 $8,635,000 Central Menifee Scott I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta Backbone 1.01 2 4 0% 2.01 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,278,000 $986,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $228,000 $570,000 $326,000 $4,388,000 $4,388,000 Central Menifee Scott Murrieta I-215 Backbone 1.94 2 6 0% 7.77 1 3 0 0 0 0 $8,799,000 $3,809,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $880,000 $2,200,000 $1,261,000 $16,949,000 $12,949,000 Central Menifee SR-74 Matthews Briggs Backbone 1.89 4 6 0% 3.79 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,285,000 $1,855,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $429,000 $1,071,000 $614,000 $8,254,000 $8,254,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro I-215 Perris Backbone 3.52 4 6 75% 1.76 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,992,000 $9,574,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $199,000 $498,000 $1,157,000 $13,420,000 $13,420,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Perris Nason Backbone 2.00 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Nason Moreno Beach Backbone 0.99 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Moreno Beach Gilman Springs Backbone 4.13 2 4 0% 8.26 1 3 0 0 0 0 $9,355,000 $4,049,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $936,000 $2,339,000 $1,340,000 $18,019,000 $18,019,000 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 Alessandro Backbone 1.67 2 4 0% 3.34 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,785,000 $1,639,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $379,000 $946,000 $542,000 $7,291,000 $7,291,000 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Reche Vista Ironwood Backbone 2.09 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Ironwood Sunnymead Backbone 0.52 4 4 80% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris SR-60 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $11,192,000 Central Moreno Valley Perris Sunnymead Cactus Backbone 2.00 4 4 25% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Cactus Harley Knox Backbone 3.64 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Reche Vista Country Heacock Backbone 0.44 2 4 0% 0.88 2 2 0 0 0 0 $1,531,000 $4,787,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $153,000 $383,000 $632,000 $7,486,000 $3,799,000 Central Perris 11th/Case Perris Goetz Backbone 0.30 2 4 0% 0.60 1 2 0 0 0 0 $680,000 $3,269,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $68,000 $170,000 $395,000 $4,582,000 $4,582,000 Central Perris Case Goetz I-215 Backbone 2.36 2 4 42% 2.74 1 2 0 0 0 0 $3,099,000 $14,893,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $310,000 $775,000 $1,799,000 $20,876,000 $20,876,000 Central Perris Case San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 125 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $120,000 $300,000 $120,000 $1,740,000 $1,235,000 Central Perris Ethanac Keystone Goetz Backbone 2.24 0 2 38% 2.78 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,144,000 $1,361,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $314,000 $786,000 $451,000 $6,056,000 $6,056,000 Central Perris Ethanac San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 0 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 400 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,840,000 $0 $0 $384,000 $960,000 $384,000 $5,568,000 $5,568,000 Central Perris Ethanac I-215 Sherman Backbone 0.35 2 4 0% 0.70 1 2 0 0 0 0 $789,000 $3,793,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $79,000 $197,000 $458,000 $5,316,000 $5,316,000 Central Perris Goetz Case Ethanac Backbone 2.16 2 4 84% 0.69 1 3 0 0 0 0 $782,000 $339,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,000 $196,000 $112,000 $1,507,000 $999,000 Central Perris Goetz San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 400 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,840,000 $0 $0 $384,000 $960,000 $384,000 $5,568,000 $3,398,000 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) I-215 Perris Backbone 0.87 0 4 41% 2.05 1 2 0 0 0 0 $2,324,000 $11,169,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $232,000 $581,000 $1,349,000 $15,655,000 $15,655,000 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) Perris Evans Backbone 1.57 0 4 52% 3.01 1 2 0 0 0 0 $3,412,000 $16,398,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $341,000 $853,000 $1,981,000 $22,985,000 $22,985,000 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge Backbone 0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,760,000 $0 $0 $576,000 $1,440,000 $576,000 $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Central Perris Perris Harley Knox Ramona Backbone 1.00 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Perris Ramona Citrus Backbone 2.49 4 6 35% 3.24 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,667,000 $1,587,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $367,000 $917,000 $525,000 $7,063,000 $7,063,000 Central Perris Perris Citrus Nuevo Backbone 0.50 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Perris Nuevo 11th Backbone 1.75 2 4 74% 0.91 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,028,000 $4,942,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $103,000 $257,000 $597,000 $6,927,000 $6,927,000 Central Perris Perris I-215 overcrossing bridge Backbone 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Ramona I-215 Perris Backbone 1.44 4 6 77% 0.66 1 2 0 0 0 0 $748,000 $3,595,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $187,000 $434,000 $5,039,000 $5,039,000 Central Perris Ramona I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $7,725,000 Central Perris Ramona Perris Evans Backbone 1.00 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Ramona Evans Mid-County (2,800 ft E of Rider) Backbone 2.62 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74 (4th) Ellis I-215 Backbone 2.33 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Ethanac SR-74 Keystone Backbone 1.07 0 2 0% 2.14 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,422,000 $1,049,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $242,000 $606,000 $347,000 $4,666,000 $4,666,000 Central Unincorporated Gilman Springs Alessandro Bridge Road Backbone 5.00 2 4 0% 9.99 2 3 0 0 0 0 $17,389,000 $4,897,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,739,000 $4,347,000 $2,229,000 $30,601,000 $30,601,000 Central Unincorporated Menifee Nuevo SR-74 (Pinacate) Backbone 4.07 2 4 6% 7.65 1 3 0 0 0 0 $8,662,000 $3,749,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $866,000 $2,166,000 $1,241,000 $16,684,000 $16,684,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County Evans Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) Backbone 0.77 0 4 0% 3.08 3 3 0 0 0 0 $7,238,000 $1,509,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $724,000 $1,810,000 $875,000 $12,156,000 $12,156,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) Pico Avenue Backbone 0.44 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Pico Avenue Bridge Road Backbone 5.95 2 6 8% 21.91 1 3 0 0 0 0 $24,800,000 $10,735,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,480,000 $6,200,000 $3,554,000 $47,769,000 $47,769,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 2 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 1,300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $24,960,000 $0 $0 $2,496,000 $6,240,000 $2,496,000 $36,192,000 $36,192,000 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon San Bernardino County Reche Vista Backbone 3.35 2 2 0% 0.00 3 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Reche Vista Reche Canyon Country Backbone 1.22 2 2 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Scott Briggs SR-79 (Winchester) Backbone 3.04 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated SR-74 Ethanac Ellis Backbone 2.72 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 Temescal Canyon Backbone 0.50 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill Paseo Grande Lincoln Backbone 2.60 4 4 0% 0.00 3 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill Wardlow Wash bridge Backbone 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 3 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill Lincoln California Backbone 2.81 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill California I-15 Backbone 0.89 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Green River SR-91 Dominguez Ranch Backbone 0.52 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Green River Dominguez Ranch Palisades Backbone 0.56 6 6 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Green River Palisades Paseo Grande Backbone 2.01 4 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman San Bernardino County 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek Backbone 0.65 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $446,000 $45,000 $112,000 $45,000 $648,000 $648,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Cucamonga Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 200 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek Harrison Backbone 0.87 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $597,000 $60,000 $149,000 $60,000 $866,000 $866,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Harrison Sumner Backbone 0.49 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $336,000 $34,000 $84,000 $34,000 $488,000 $488,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Sumner Scholar Backbone 0.50 2 4 0% 1.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,132,000 $5,440,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 $283,000 $657,000 $7,625,000 $7,625,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Scholar A Street Backbone 0.31 5 6 95% 0.02 1 2 0 0 0 0 $18,000 $84,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $5,000 $10,000 $119,000 $119,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman A Street Hamner Backbone 0.27 4 6 95% 0.03 1 2 0 0 0 0 $31,000 $149,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $8,000 $18,000 $209,000 $209,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren SR-60 Bellegrave Backbone 1.57 4 6 0% 3.14 1 2 0 0 0 0 $3,552,000 $17,071,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $355,000 $888,000 $2,062,000 $23,928,000 $10,461,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren Bellegrave Santa Ana River Backbone 3.99 4 6 0% 7.99 1 2 0 0 0 0 $9,041,000 $43,446,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $904,000 $2,260,000 $5,249,000 $60,900,000 $0 Northwest Riverside Alessandro Arlington Trautwein Backbone 2.42 6 6 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,662,000 $166,000 $416,000 $166,000 $2,410,000 $2,410,000 Northwest Riverside Arlington La Sierra Magnolia Backbone 5.84 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Arlington Magnolia Alessandro Backbone 2.73 4 6 0% 5.46 2 2 0 0 0 0 $9,504,000 $29,713,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $950,000 $2,376,000 $3,922,000 $46,465,000 $46,465,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Santa Ana River SR-91 Backbone 3.81 4 6 91% 0.69 1 2 0 0 0 0 $776,000 $3,731,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,000 $194,000 $451,000 $5,230,000 $4,392,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren SR-91 Mockingbird Canyon Backbone 3.08 4 6 16% 5.18 1 2 0 0 0 0 $5,863,000 $28,174,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $586,000 $1,466,000 $3,404,000 $39,493,000 $21,292,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Wood Trautwein Backbone 0.43 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Trautwein Orange Terrace Backbone 1.27 5 6 22% 0.99 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,124,000 $5,404,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $112,000 $281,000 $653,000 $7,574,000 $7,574,000 Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Trautwein Vista Grande Backbone 1.22 6 6 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Vista Grande I-215 Backbone 1.26 6 6 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco El Sobrante Harley John Backbone 0.86 2 6 0% 3.46 2 3 0 0 0 0 $6,012,000 $1,693,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $601,000 $1,503,000 $771,000 $10,580,000 $9,817,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harley John Harvil Backbone 5.81 2 6 6% 21.83 1 2 0 0 0 0 $24,716,000 $118,776,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,472,000 $6,179,000 $14,349,000 $166,492,000 $166,492,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harvil I-215 Backbone 0.28 4 6 0% 0.57 1 3 0 0 0 0 $643,000 $278,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 $161,000 $92,000 $1,238,000 $1,238,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Canyon La Sierra Backbone 3.21 2 6 2% 12.57 3 3 0 0 0 0 $29,533,000 $6,158,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,953,000 $7,383,000 $3,569,000 $49,596,000 $35,953,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Wash bridge Backbone 0.00 2 6 0% 0.00 3 3 0 175 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,360,000 $0 $0 $336,000 $840,000 $336,000 $4,872,000 $1,907,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco La Sierra El Sobrante Backbone 6.11 2 6 0% 24.44 3 3 0 0 0 0 $57,434,000 $11,976,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,743,000 $14,359,000 $6,941,000 $96,453,000 $96,453,000 Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Mockingbird Canyon Wood Backbone 4.42 4 6 0% 8.84 1 2 0 0 0 0 $10,010,000 $48,104,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,001,000 $2,503,000 $5,811,000 $67,429,000 $67,429,000 Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Orange Terrace I-215 Backbone 1.89 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EXHIBIT H-1 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate Updated: July 23, 2024 AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORK MILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSE INTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING ITS NEW LNCOST ROWCOST INTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOST ITSCOST PLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Pass Banning Highland Springs Wilson (8th) Sun Lakes Backbone 0.76 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Highland Springs I-10 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $32,516,000 Pass Banning Highland Springs Oak Valley (14th) Wilson (8th) Backbone 0.73 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Highland Springs Cherry Valley Oak Valley (14th) Backbone 1.53 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 Morongo Trail (Apache Trail) Backbone 3.29 0 2 0% 6.57 1 2 0 0 0 0 $7,439,000 $35,748,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $744,000 $1,860,000 $4,319,000 $50,110,000 $50,110,000 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $63,061,000 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South San Gorgonio bridge Backbone 0.00 0 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $4,176,000 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South UP/Hargrave railroad crossing Backbone 0.00 0 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,400,000 $0 $3,640,000 $9,100,000 $3,640,000 $52,780,000 $52,780,000 Pass Beaumont Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) I-10 Backbone 1.37 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Potrero Oak Valley (San Timoteo CanySR-60 Backbone 0.72 2 4 65% 0.50 1 3 0 0 0 0 $571,000 $247,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $143,000 $82,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $29,561,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero UP railroad crossing Backbone 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,600,000 $0 $2,760,000 $6,900,000 $2,760,000 $40,020,000 $40,020,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero Noble Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 500 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 4th Backbone 0.45 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont) I-10 California Backbone 1.15 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont) I-10 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $7,408,000 Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley I-10 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $59,773,000 Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley Roberts St Roberts Rd Backbone 0.70 2 4 0% 1.40 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,585,000 $686,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $159,000 $396,000 $227,000 $3,053,000 $3,053,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Bellflower Noble Backbone 1.47 0 2 0% 2.94 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,328,000 $1,441,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $333,000 $832,000 $477,000 $6,411,000 $6,411,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Highland Springs Bellflower Backbone 0.44 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Noble Roberts St Backbone 3.25 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley San Timoteo Wash bridge Backbone 0.00 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated SR-79 (Lamb Canyon) California Gilman Springs Backbone 5.23 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Warren Sanderson Backbone 1.77 4 6 0% 3.54 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,011,000 $1,736,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $401,000 $1,003,000 $575,000 $7,726,000 $7,726,000 San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Sanderson State Backbone 2.14 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 Winchester Warren Backbone 2.59 4 6 11% 4.62 1 2 0 0 0 0 $5,227,000 $25,117,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $523,000 $1,307,000 $3,034,000 $35,208,000 $35,208,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona) Warren Sanderson Backbone 1.73 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona) Sanderson/SR-79 (Hemet Bypainterchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Sanderson State Backbone 2.39 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona State Main Backbone 2.66 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Main Cedar Backbone 2.40 0 4 57% 4.13 1 2 0 0 0 0 $4,679,000 $22,485,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $468,000 $1,170,000 $2,716,000 $31,518,000 $26,928,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Cedar SR-74 Backbone 1.10 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni SR-79 (Winchester) Warren Backbone 3.10 4 6 0% 6.20 1 3 0 0 0 0 $7,013,000 $3,036,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $701,000 $1,753,000 $1,005,000 $13,508,000 $13,508,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni San Diego Aqueduct bridge Backbone 0.00 4 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $4,176,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Bridge Sanderson Backbone 2.95 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Bridge Warren Backbone 2.35 2 4 10% 4.23 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,787,000 $2,072,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $479,000 $1,197,000 $686,000 $9,221,000 $9,221,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-74 Briggs SR-79 (Winchester) Backbone 3.54 4 6 0% 7.07 1 3 0 0 0 0 $8,004,000 $3,465,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 $2,001,000 $1,147,000 $15,417,000 $15,417,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) SR-74 (Florida) Domenigoni Backbone 3.22 0 2 1% 6.38 1 3 0 0 0 0 $7,217,000 $3,124,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $722,000 $1,804,000 $1,034,000 $13,901,000 $13,901,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) San Diego Aqueduct bridge Backbone 0.00 0 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $4,176,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) Domenigoni Winchester Backbone 1.50 0 2 0% 3.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,396,000 $1,470,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $340,000 $849,000 $487,000 $6,542,000 $6,542,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (San Jacinto Bypass) Mid-County (Ramona) SR-74 (Florida) Backbone 6.50 0 4 0% 26.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $29,432,000 $12,740,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,943,000 $7,358,000 $4,217,000 $56,690,000 $56,690,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson) Gilman Springs Ramona Backbone 1.58 4 6 0% 3.16 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,582,000 $1,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $358,000 $896,000 $513,000 $6,899,000 $2,555,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson) San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 4 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 1,400 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $13,440,000 $0 $0 $1,344,000 $3,360,000 $1,344,000 $19,488,000 $7,651,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Domenigoni Keller Backbone 4.90 4 6 13% 8.53 1 2 0 0 0 0 $9,653,000 $46,387,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $965,000 $2,413,000 $5,604,000 $65,022,000 $65,022,000 Southwest Canyon Lake Goetz Railroad Canyon Newport Backbone 0.50 4 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Canyon Lake Railroad Canyon Canyon Hills Goetz Backbone 1.95 6 6 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 Canyon Hills Backbone 2.36 6 6 50% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $24,162,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Copper Craft Toulon Backbone 1.31 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Toulon I-215 Backbone 0.90 4 6 47% 0.95 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,078,000 $466,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $108,000 $270,000 $154,000 $2,076,000 $2,076,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith I-215 Whitewood Backbone 0.75 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Murrieta Hot Springs Winchester Creek Backbone 0.24 0 4 0% 0.96 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,087,000 $5,222,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $109,000 $272,000 $631,000 $7,321,000 $7,321,000 Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Winchester Creek Margarita Backbone 0.61 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Menifee City Limit Keller Backbone 0.55 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Keller Clinton Keith Backbone 2.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Jefferson Diaz Backbone 0.56 0 2 54% 0.52 1 2 0 0 0 0 $583,000 $2,803,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,000 $146,000 $339,000 $3,929,000 $3,929,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Murrieta Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 0 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 420 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $4,032,000 $0 $0 $403,000 $1,008,000 $403,000 $5,846,000 $5,846,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Margarita Ynez Backbone 0.91 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Ynez Jefferson Backbone 0.73 0 2 55% 0.66 1 2 0 0 0 0 $744,000 $3,574,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,000 $186,000 $432,000 $5,010,000 $5,010,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $84,190,000 $0 $0 $0 $8,419,000 $21,048,000 $8,419,000 $122,076,000 $122,076,000 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester) Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson Backbone 2.71 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,860,000 $186,000 $465,000 $186,000 $2,697,000 $2,697,000 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester) I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Diaz) Cherry Rancho California Backbone 2.14 0 2 93% 0.30 1 2 0 0 0 0 $339,000 $1,630,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,000 $85,000 $197,000 $2,285,000 $2,285,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent MoroRancho California SR-79 (Front) Backbone 1.48 0 2 15% 2.52 3 2 0 0 0 0 $5,913,000 $13,687,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $591,000 $1,478,000 $1,960,000 $23,629,000 $23,629,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent MoroI-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 3 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent MoroMurrieta Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 0 2 0% 0.00 3 2 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $4,176,000 Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR-79 Eastern Bypass Backbone 2.40 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Whitewood SR-79 Backbone 2.54 0 4 75% 2.54 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,875,000 $1,245,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $719,000 $412,000 $5,539,000 $5,539,000 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Warm Springs Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 1,200 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated SR-74 I-15 Ethanac Backbone 4.97 4 6 9% 9.05 2 3 0 0 0 0 $15,740,000 $4,433,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,574,000 $3,935,000 $2,017,000 $27,699,000 $26,347,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Keller Thompson Backbone 2.47 4 6 9% 4.49 1 2 0 0 0 0 $5,079,000 $24,407,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $508,000 $1,270,000 $2,949,000 $34,213,000 $34,213,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Thompson La Alba Backbone 1.82 4 6 0% 3.63 1 2 0 0 0 0 $4,112,000 $19,761,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $411,000 $1,028,000 $2,387,000 $27,699,000 $27,699,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) La Alba Hunter Backbone 0.51 4 6 0% 1.03 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,166,000 $5,602,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,000 $292,000 $677,000 $7,854,000 $3,042,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Hunter Murrieta Hot Springs Backbone 1.14 4 6 88% 0.27 1 3 0 0 0 0 $309,000 $134,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,000 $77,000 $44,000 $595,000 $442,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 Monte Vista Backbone 0.22 4 6 0% 0.44 2 3 0 0 0 0 $774,000 $218,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,000 $194,000 $99,000 $1,362,000 $1,362,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Monte Vista Sunset Backbone 3.14 2 4 0% 6.29 3 3 0 0 0 0 $14,778,000 $3,081,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,478,000 $3,695,000 $1,786,000 $24,818,000 $24,818,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 2 3 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $24,613,000 Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith Palomar I-15 Backbone 0.55 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith I-15 Copper Craft Backbone 1.96 2 4 58% 1.64 2 3 0 0 0 0 $2,858,000 $805,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $286,000 $715,000 $366,000 $5,030,000 $0 Subtotal Backbone 269.95 318.02 11 8,835 3 7.14 $438,352,000 $682,621,000 $435,330,000 $74,976,000 $136,800,000 $4,901,000 $109,037,000 $272,606,000 $177,298,000 $2,331,921,000 $1,961,707,000 EXHIBIT H-1 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate Updated: July 23, 2024 AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORK MILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSE INTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING ITS NEW LNCOST ROWCOST INTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOST ITSCOST PLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central Menifee Briggs Newport Scott Secondary 3.05 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Briggs SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson Secondary 2.54 2 4 73% 1.37 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,553,000 $672,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $155,000 $388,000 $223,000 $2,991,000 $2,991,000 Central Menifee Briggs Simpson Old Newport Secondary 1.50 0 2 17% 2.49 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,819,000 $1,220,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $282,000 $705,000 $404,000 $5,430,000 $5,430,000 Central Menifee Briggs Salt Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 0 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 600 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,760,000 $0 $0 $576,000 $1,440,000 $576,000 $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Central Menifee Garbani I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $42,483,000 Central Menifee Goetz Juanita Lesser Lane Secondary 2.61 2 4 0% 5.22 1 3 0 0 0 0 $5,907,000 $2,557,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $591,000 $1,477,000 $846,000 $11,378,000 $11,378,000 Central Menifee Goetz Newport Juanita Secondary 1.36 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Holland Murrieta Bradley Secondary 1.03 2 4 0% 2.06 1 2 0 0 0 0 $2,332,000 $11,206,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $233,000 $583,000 $1,354,000 $15,708,000 $15,708,000 Central Menifee Holland Bradley Haun Secondary 0.75 2 4 0% 1.50 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,698,000 $8,160,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $170,000 $425,000 $986,000 $11,439,000 $11,439,000 Central Menifee Holland Haun Antelope Secondary 0.31 0 4 0% 1.24 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,404,000 $6,746,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $351,000 $815,000 $9,456,000 $9,456,000 Central Menifee Holland I-215 overcrossing bridge Secondary 0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 350 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $6,720,000 $0 $0 $672,000 $1,680,000 $672,000 $9,744,000 $9,744,000 Central Menifee Holland Antelope Menifee Secondary 0.70 2 4 64% 0.50 1 2 0 0 0 0 $571,000 $2,742,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $143,000 $331,000 $3,844,000 $3,844,000 Central Menifee McCall I-215 Aspel Secondary 1.23 4 6 0% 2.46 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,780,000 $1,203,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $278,000 $695,000 $398,000 $5,354,000 $5,354,000 Central Menifee McCall I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee Secondary 0.95 2 4 45% 1.05 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,188,000 $514,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $119,000 $297,000 $170,000 $2,288,000 $2,288,000 Central Menifee Murrieta Ethanac McCall Secondary 1.95 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Murrieta McCall Newport Secondary 2.03 2 4 10% 3.65 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,136,000 $1,790,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $414,000 $1,034,000 $593,000 $7,967,000 $7,967,000 Central Menifee Murrieta Newport Bundy Canyon Secondary 3.00 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 Heacock Secondary 2.17 4 6 83% 0.74 1 2 0 0 0 0 $834,000 $4,007,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $83,000 $209,000 $484,000 $5,617,000 $5,617,000 Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Day Ironwood SR-60 Secondary 0.28 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 Eucalyptus Secondary 0.77 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus I-215 Towngate Secondary 1.00 4 6 42% 1.16 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,313,000 $6,309,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $131,000 $328,000 $762,000 $8,843,000 $8,843,000 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Towngate Frederick Secondary 0.67 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Frederick Heacock Secondary 1.01 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Heacock Kitching Secondary 1.01 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Kitching Moreno Beach Secondary 2.42 4 4 98% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Moreno Beach Theodore Secondary 2.28 4 4 47% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Frederick SR-60 Alessandro Secondary 1.63 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Heacock Cactus San Michele Secondary 2.79 4 4 77% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Heacock Reche Vista Cactus Secondary 4.73 4 4 92% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Heacock San Michele Harley Knox Secondary 0.74 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Ironwood SR-60 Day Secondary 1.33 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Ironwood Day Heacock Secondary 2.01 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle Alessandro John F Kennedy Secondary 1.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle John F Kennedy Oleander Secondary 3.16 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach Reche Canyon SR-60 Secondary 1.23 2 4 0% 2.47 1 2 0 0 0 0 $2,790,000 $13,410,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $279,000 $698,000 $1,620,000 $18,797,000 $18,797,000 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach SR-60 overcrossing bridge Secondary 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 250 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Nason SR-60 Alessandro Secondary 1.51 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass Ironwood SR-60 Secondary 0.40 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Ironwood Secondary 2.66 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Locust Secondary 0.35 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Redlands Locust Alessandro Secondary 2.75 2 4 5% 5.22 1 2 0 0 0 0 $5,907,000 $28,385,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $591,000 $1,477,000 $3,429,000 $39,789,000 $39,789,000 Central Moreno Valley Redlands SR-60 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 Eucalyptus Secondary 0.26 2 4 0% 0.52 1 2 0 0 0 0 $589,000 $2,829,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $59,000 $147,000 $342,000 $3,966,000 $3,966,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Central Perris Ellis Goetz Evans Secondary 1.27 0 4 14% 4.37 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,945,000 $2,141,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $495,000 $1,236,000 $709,000 $9,526,000 $9,526,000 Central Perris Evans Oleander Ramona Secondary 1.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Ramona Morgan Secondary 0.59 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Morgan Rider Secondary 0.50 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Rider Placentia Secondary 0.56 2 2 79% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Placentia Nuevo Secondary 1.52 0 4 51% 2.98 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,370,000 $1,459,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $337,000 $843,000 $483,000 $6,492,000 $6,492,000 Central Perris Evans Nuevo Ellis Secondary 2.03 0 4 0% 8.12 1 3 0 0 0 0 $9,192,000 $3,979,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $919,000 $2,298,000 $1,317,000 $17,705,000 $17,705,000 Central Perris Evans San Jacinto River bridge Secondary 0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 400 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $7,680,000 $0 $0 $768,000 $1,920,000 $768,000 $11,136,000 $11,136,000 Central Perris Evans I-215 bridge Secondary 0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,760,000 $0 $0 $576,000 $1,440,000 $576,000 $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Central Perris Goetz Lesser Ethanac Secondary 2.04 2 4 12% 3.60 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,073,000 $1,763,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $407,000 $1,018,000 $584,000 $7,845,000 $7,845,000 Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 Indian Secondary 1.53 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Perris Secondary 0.50 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Harley Knox Perris Redlands Secondary 0.50 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Nuevo I-215 Murrieta Secondary 1.36 4 6 18% 2.23 1 2 0 0 0 0 $2,519,000 $12,107,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $252,000 $630,000 $1,463,000 $16,971,000 $16,971,000 Central Perris Nuevo I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $19,736,000 Central Perris Nuevo Murrieta Dunlap Secondary 1.00 2 4 0% 2.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,267,000 $981,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $227,000 $567,000 $325,000 $4,367,000 $4,367,000 Central Perris Nuevo Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge Secondary 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 Ethanac Secondary 1.25 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $21,835,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 Mt Vernon Secondary 1.66 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $11,912,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) BNSF railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,800,000 $0 $1,380,000 $3,450,000 $1,380,000 $20,010,000 $20,010,000 Central Unincorporated Ellis Post SR-74 Secondary 2.65 2 4 0% 5.30 1 3 0 0 0 0 $5,996,000 $2,596,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $1,499,000 $859,000 $11,550,000 $11,550,000 Central Unincorporated Mount Vernon/CETAP CorridorCenter Pigeon Pass Secondary 0.61 2 4 46% 0.65 3 3 0 0 0 0 $1,537,000 $321,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,000 $384,000 $186,000 $2,582,000 $2,582,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo Dunlap Menifee Secondary 2.00 2 4 0% 4.01 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,536,000 $1,963,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $454,000 $1,134,000 $650,000 $8,737,000 $2,505,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo San Jacinto River bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 400 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,840,000 $0 $0 $384,000 $960,000 $384,000 $5,568,000 $5,568,000 Central Unincorporated Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Mount Vernon Secondary 3.95 0 2 74% 2.05 3 3 0 0 0 0 $4,827,000 $1,006,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $483,000 $1,207,000 $583,000 $8,106,000 $8,106,000 Central Unincorporated Post Santa Rosa Mine Ellis Secondary 0.44 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit Secondary 3.20 0 0 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Redlands San Timoteo Canyon Locust Secondary 2.54 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona 6th SR-91 Magnolia Secondary 4.50 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Auto Center Railroad SR-91 Secondary 0.48 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Cajalco Bedford Canyon I-15 Secondary 0.15 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Hidden Valley Norco Hills McKinley Secondary 0.59 4 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Lincoln Parkridge Ontario Secondary 3.20 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Magnolia 6th Sherborn Secondary 0.46 4 6 0% 0.92 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,047,000 $5,032,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105,000 $262,000 $608,000 $7,054,000 $6,419,000 Northwest Corona Magnolia Temescal Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 4 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $3,580,000 Northwest Corona Magnolia Sherborn Rimpau Secondary 0.53 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Magnolia Rimpau Ontario Secondary 1.17 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main Grand Ontario Secondary 0.88 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main Ontario Foothill Secondary 0.89 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main Hidden Valley Parkridge Secondary 0.35 4 6 0% 0.70 1 2 0 0 0 0 $789,000 $3,791,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $79,000 $197,000 $458,000 $5,314,000 $4,389,000 Northwest Corona Main Parkridge SR-91 Secondary 0.91 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main SR-91 S. Grand Secondary 0.81 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley Hidden Valley Promenade Secondary 0.40 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley Promenade SR-91 Secondary 0.33 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley SR-91 Magnolia Secondary 0.31 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley Arlington Channel bridge Secondary 0.00 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 100 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley BNSF railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,800,000 $0 $7,280,000 $18,200,000 $7,280,000 $105,560,000 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario I-15 El Cerrito Secondary 0.88 4 6 0% 1.76 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,997,000 $9,596,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $499,000 $1,159,000 $13,451,000 $13,451,000 Northwest Corona Ontario Lincoln Buena Vista Secondary 0.32 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Buena Vista Main Secondary 0.65 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Main Kellogg Secondary 0.78 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Kellogg Fullerton Secondary 0.32 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Fullerton Rimpau Secondary 0.42 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Rimpau I-15 Secondary 0.67 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Railroad Auto Club Buena Vista Secondary 2.45 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Railroad BNSF railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,600,000 $0 $2,760,000 $6,900,000 $2,760,000 $40,020,000 $40,020,000 Northwest Corona Railroad Buena Vista Main (at Grand) Secondary 0.58 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona River Corydon Main Secondary 2.28 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Serfas Club SR-91 Green River Secondary 0.96 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EXHIBIT H-1 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate Updated: July 23, 2024 AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORK MILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSE INTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING ITS NEW LNCOST ROWCOST INTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOST ITSCOST PLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest Eastvale Archibald Remington River Secondary 3.40 4 4 82% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,333,000 $233,000 $583,000 $233,000 $3,382,000 $3,382,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Mission Bellegrave Secondary 3.03 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Bellegrave Amberhill Secondary 0.20 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $137,000 $14,000 $34,000 $14,000 $199,000 $199,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Amberhill Limonite Secondary 0.71 2 6 55% 1.28 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,447,000 $626,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $145,000 $362,000 $207,000 $2,787,000 $2,787,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Limonite Schleisman Secondary 1.00 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $684,000 $68,000 $171,000 $68,000 $991,000 $991,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Schleisman Santa Ana River Secondary 0.82 2 6 23% 2.54 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,873,000 $1,243,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $287,000 $718,000 $412,000 $5,533,000 $3,675,000 Northwest Eastvale Hellman Schleisman Walters Secondary 0.55 2 4 90% 0.06 1 2 0 0 0 0 $62,000 $299,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $16,000 $36,000 $419,000 $419,000 Northwest Eastvale Hellman Walters River Secondary 1.41 2 4 0% 2.82 1 2 0 0 0 0 $3,192,000 $15,341,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $319,000 $798,000 $1,853,000 $21,503,000 $21,503,000 Northwest Eastvale Hellman Cucamonga Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 275 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,640,000 $0 $0 $264,000 $660,000 $264,000 $3,828,000 $3,828,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 Eastvale Gateway Secondary 0.29 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $199,000 $20,000 $50,000 $20,000 $289,000 $289,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Eastvale Gateway Hamner Secondary 0.26 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $18,000 $44,000 $18,000 $255,000 $255,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Hamner Sumner Secondary 1.00 4 6 75% 0.50 1 3 0 0 0 0 $568,000 $246,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $142,000 $81,000 $1,094,000 $1,094,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Sumner Harrison Secondary 0.50 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $343,000 $34,000 $86,000 $34,000 $497,000 $497,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Harrison Archibald Secondary 0.49 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Archibald Hellman (Keller SBD Co.) Secondary 1.15 0 4 78% 1.01 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,146,000 $496,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $115,000 $287,000 $164,000 $2,208,000 $2,208,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 500 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $9,600,000 $0 $0 $960,000 $2,400,000 $960,000 $13,920,000 $0 Northwest Eastvale River Hellman Archibald Secondary 0.75 2 4 48% 0.78 1 2 0 0 0 0 $883,000 $4,243,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $88,000 $221,000 $513,000 $5,948,000 $5,948,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Armstrong San Bernardino County Valley Secondary 1.53 2 4 34% 2.02 2 3 0 0 0 0 $3,518,000 $991,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $352,000 $880,000 $451,000 $6,192,000 $6,192,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Bellegrave Cantu-Galleano Ranch Van Buren Secondary 0.29 2 4 63% 0.21 1 3 0 0 0 0 $241,000 $104,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $60,000 $35,000 $464,000 $464,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Cantu-Galleano Ranch Wineville Bellegrave Secondary 1.82 0 2 90% 0.36 1 3 0 0 0 0 $412,000 $178,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,000 $103,000 $59,000 $793,000 $793,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda Philadelphia SR-60 Secondary 1.05 4 6 67% 0.69 1 3 0 0 0 0 $786,000 $340,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $79,000 $197,000 $113,000 $1,515,000 $989,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda SR-60 Limonite Secondary 2.95 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite I-15 Wineville Secondary 0.47 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Wineville Etiwanda Secondary 0.99 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Etiwanda Van Buren Secondary 2.73 2 4 75% 1.37 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,547,000 $670,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $155,000 $387,000 $222,000 $2,981,000 $2,981,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Van Buren Clay Secondary 0.79 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Clay Riverview Secondary 2.45 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Rubidoux Santa Ana River Secondary 1.19 2 4 0% 2.38 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,690,000 $1,164,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $269,000 $673,000 $385,000 $5,181,000 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Santa Ana River bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 1,000 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $9,600,000 $0 $0 $960,000 $2,400,000 $960,000 $13,920,000 $6,204,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission Milliken SR-60 Secondary 2.10 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission SR-60 Santa Ana River Secondary 7.24 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Riverview Limonite Mission Secondary 0.95 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux Pine Mission Secondary 2.90 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux SR-60 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 2 3 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $9,051,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Valley Armstrong Mission Secondary 0.48 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 1st Parkridge Mountain Secondary 0.26 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 1st Mountain Hamner Secondary 0.26 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 2nd River I-15 Secondary 1.39 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 6th Hamner California Secondary 1.71 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 6th I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $3,489,000 Northwest Norco Arlington Crestview Fairhaven Secondary 1.00 2 4 0% 1.99 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,254,000 $976,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $564,000 $323,000 $4,342,000 $4,342,000 Northwest Norco California Arlington 6th Secondary 1.05 2 4 5% 2.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $2,262,000 $10,870,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $226,000 $566,000 $1,313,000 $15,237,000 $12,525,000 Northwest Norco Corydon River 5th Secondary 1.46 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River bridge Secondary 0.00 2 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 1,200 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $23,040,000 $0 $0 $2,304,000 $5,760,000 $2,304,000 $33,408,000 $11,455,000 Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River Hidden Valley Secondary 3.25 4 6 0% 6.50 1 2 0 0 0 0 $7,362,000 $35,378,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $736,000 $1,841,000 $4,274,000 $49,591,000 $49,591,000 Northwest Norco Hidden Valley I-15 Norco Hills Secondary 1.46 4 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Hidden Valley Hamner I-15 Secondary 0.19 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Norco Corydon Hamner Secondary 1.20 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco North California Crestview Secondary 0.25 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco River Archibald Corydon Secondary 1.14 2 4 90% 0.23 1 2 0 0 0 0 $259,000 $1,243,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,000 $65,000 $150,000 $1,743,000 $1,109,000 Northwest Riverside 14th Market Martin Luther King Secondary 0.89 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside 1st Market Main Secondary 0.08 2 2 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside 3rd SR-91 I-215 Secondary 1.34 3 4 81% 0.25 1 2 0 0 0 0 $288,000 $1,385,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $72,000 $167,000 $1,941,000 $1,941,000 Northwest Riverside 3rd BNSF railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,800,000 $0 $7,280,000 $18,200,000 $7,280,000 $105,560,000 $30,560,000 Northwest Riverside Adams Arlington SR-91 Secondary 1.56 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 Lincoln Secondary 0.54 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $3,262,000 Northwest Riverside Arlington Fairhaven La Sierra Secondary 0.61 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Buena Vista Santa Ana River Redwood Secondary 0.30 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Martin Luther King Central Secondary 0.95 4 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Central Country Club Secondary 0.59 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Country Club Via Vista Secondary 0.93 2 4 12% 1.63 2 3 0 0 0 0 $2,839,000 $799,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $284,000 $710,000 $364,000 $4,996,000 $1,593,000 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Via Vista Alessandro Secondary 0.68 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Chicago I-215/SR-60 Secondary 2.22 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central SR-91 Magnolia Secondary 0.73 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Alessandro SR-91 Secondary 2.09 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Van Buren Magnolia Secondary 3.53 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Chicago Alessandro Spruce Secondary 3.43 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Chicago Spruce Columbia Secondary 0.75 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Columbia Main Iowa Secondary 1.09 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Columbia I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $9,050,000 Northwest Riverside Iowa Center 3rd Secondary 2.26 4 6 12% 3.97 1 2 0 0 0 0 $4,494,000 $21,596,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $449,000 $1,124,000 $2,609,000 $30,272,000 $30,272,000 Northwest Riverside Iowa 3rd University Secondary 0.51 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Iowa University Martin Luther King Secondary 0.51 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside JFK Trautwein Wood Secondary 0.48 2 4 10% 0.86 1 3 0 0 0 0 $976,000 $422,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $98,000 $244,000 $140,000 $1,880,000 $1,880,000 Northwest Riverside La Sierra Arlington SR-91 Secondary 3.56 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside La Sierra SR-91 Indiana Secondary 0.19 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $133,000 $13,000 $33,000 $13,000 $192,000 $192,000 Northwest Riverside La Sierra Indiana Victoria Secondary 0.78 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $536,000 $54,000 $134,000 $54,000 $778,000 $778,000 Northwest Riverside Lemon (NB One way) Mission Inn University Secondary 0.08 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Van Buren Jefferson Secondary 2.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Jefferson Washington Secondary 1.00 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Washington Victoria Secondary 1.43 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Madison SR-91 Victoria Secondary 0.86 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $588,000 $59,000 $147,000 $59,000 $853,000 $853,000 Northwest Riverside Madison BNSF railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,800,000 $0 $1,380,000 $3,450,000 $1,380,000 $20,010,000 $20,010,000 Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF Railroad Tyler Secondary 2.70 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia Tyler Harrison Secondary 0.65 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia Harrison 14th Secondary 5.98 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Main 1st San Bernardino County Secondary 2.19 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Market 14th Santa Ana River Secondary 2.59 2 4 76% 1.24 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,409,000 $6,771,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $141,000 $352,000 $818,000 $9,491,000 $9,491,000 Northwest Riverside Martin Luther King 14th I-215/SR-60 Secondary 2.22 4 6 29% 3.15 1 2 0 0 0 0 $3,567,000 $17,144,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $357,000 $892,000 $2,071,000 $24,031,000 $24,031,000 Northwest Riverside Mission Inn Redwood Lemon Secondary 0.79 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Redwood (SB One way) Mission Inn University Secondary 0.08 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Trautwein Alessandro Van Buren Secondary 2.19 4 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 Magnolia Secondary 0.43 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $21,814,000 Northwest Riverside Tyler Magnolia Hole Secondary 0.27 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler Hole Wells Secondary 1.06 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler Wells Arlington Secondary 1.35 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside University Redwood SR-91 Secondary 0.86 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $593,000 $59,000 $148,000 $59,000 $859,000 $859,000 Northwest Riverside University SR-91 I-215/SR-60 Secondary 2.08 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,425,000 $143,000 $356,000 $143,000 $2,067,000 $2,067,000 Northwest Riverside Victoria Lincoln Arlington Secondary 0.16 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Victoria Madison Washington Secondary 0.52 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Washington Victoria Hermosa Secondary 2.06 2 4 14% 3.54 1 2 0 0 0 0 $4,011,000 $19,274,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $401,000 $1,003,000 $2,329,000 $27,018,000 $27,018,000 Northwest Riverside Wood JFK Van Buren Secondary 0.70 2 4 0% 1.40 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,585,000 $686,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $159,000 $396,000 $227,000 $3,053,000 $3,053,000 Northwest Riverside Wood Van Buren Bergamont Secondary 0.11 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Wood Bergamont Krameria Secondary 0.39 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EXHIBIT H-1 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate Updated: July 23, 2024 AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORK MILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSE INTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING ITS NEW LNCOST ROWCOST INTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOST ITSCOST PLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest Unincorporated Cantu-Galleano Ranch Hamner Wineville Secondary 0.94 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Dos Lagos (Weirick) Temescal Canyon I-15 Secondary 0.17 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated El Cerrito I-15 Ontario Secondary 0.56 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated El Sobrante Mockingbird Canyon Cajalco Secondary 1.05 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Washington Scottsdale Secondary 0.12 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Scottsdale Cajalco Secondary 1.19 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra Victoria El Sobrante Secondary 2.23 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra El Sobrante Cajalco Secondary 2.36 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Mockingbird Canyon Van Buren El Sobrante Secondary 3.41 2 4 0% 6.82 2 3 0 0 0 0 $11,860,000 $3,340,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,186,000 $2,965,000 $1,520,000 $20,871,000 $20,871,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon El Cerrito Tuscany Secondary 0.65 2 4 20% 1.03 2 3 0 0 0 0 $1,800,000 $507,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 $450,000 $231,000 $3,168,000 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Tuscany Dos Lagos Secondary 0.91 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dos Lagos Leroy Secondary 1.10 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Leroy Dawson Canyon Secondary 1.89 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dawson Canyon I-15 Secondary 0.49 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 2 3 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 Park Canyon Secondary 2.02 2 4 10% 3.63 3 3 0 0 0 0 $8,533,000 $1,779,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $853,000 $2,133,000 $1,031,000 $14,329,000 $14,329,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail Secondary 2.55 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Washington Hermosa Harley John Secondary 3.96 2 4 26% 5.86 1 3 0 0 0 0 $6,638,000 $2,874,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $664,000 $1,660,000 $951,000 $12,787,000 $12,787,000 Northwest Unincorporated Wood Krameria Cajalco Secondary 2.99 2 4 4% 5.75 1 3 0 0 0 0 $6,509,000 $2,817,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $651,000 $1,627,000 $933,000 $12,537,000 $12,537,000 Pass Banning 8th Wilson I-10 Secondary 0.54 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Lincoln Sunset SR-243 Secondary 2.01 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Ramsey I-10 8th Secondary 1.70 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Ramsey 8th Highland Springs Secondary 3.55 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning SR-243 I-10 Wesley Secondary 0.62 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Home Sunset Secondary 1.00 0 4 0% 4.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $4,528,000 $21,760,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $453,000 $1,132,000 $2,629,000 $30,502,000 $30,502,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Smith Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,760,000 $0 $0 $576,000 $1,440,000 $576,000 $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Montgomery Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 200 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,840,000 $0 $0 $384,000 $960,000 $384,000 $5,568,000 $5,568,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Springs Highland Home Secondary 1.33 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sunset Ramsey Lincoln Secondary 0.28 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sunset I-10 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Pass Banning Wilson Highland Home 8th Secondary 2.51 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Wilson Highland Springs Highland Home Secondary 1.01 4 4 100% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 1st Viele Pennsylvania Secondary 1.28 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 1st Pennsylvania Highland Springs Secondary 1.10 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 6th I-10 Highland Springs Secondary 2.24 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Desert Lawn Champions Oak Valley (STC) Secondary 0.99 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Highland Springs Pennsylvania Secondary 1.13 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Pennsylvania Oak View Secondary 1.40 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Oak View I-10 Secondary 0.65 4 4 50% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) I-10 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $62,401,000 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC) UP Railroad Tukwet Canyon Secondary 2.94 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC) Tukwet Canyon I-10 Secondary 2.58 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania 6th 1st Secondary 0.53 2 4 18% 0.86 1 2 0 0 0 0 $978,000 $4,699,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $98,000 $245,000 $568,000 $6,588,000 $6,588,000 Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania I-10 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Bryant County Line Avenue L Secondary 0.38 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Calimesa County Line I-10 Secondary 0.80 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Calimesa I-10 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $63,061,000 Pass Calimesa County Line 7th Bryant Secondary 1.83 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa County Line I-10 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Pass Calimesa Desert Lawn Palmer Champions Secondary 1.42 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Singleton Avenue L Condit Secondary 1.86 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Singleton Condit Roberts Secondary 0.85 2 4 0% 1.70 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,926,000 $9,253,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $193,000 $482,000 $1,118,000 $12,972,000 $12,972,000 Pass Calimesa Singleton I-10 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $0 Pass Calimesa Tukwet Canyon Roberts Rd Palmer Secondary 0.25 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Live Oak Canyon Oak Valley (STC) San Bernardino County Secondary 2.81 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon San Bernardino County UP Railroad Secondary 5.65 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon UP Railroad railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,400,000 $0 $3,640,000 $9,100,000 $3,640,000 $52,780,000 $52,780,000 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Acacia Menlo Secondary 0.98 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Domenigoni Stetson Secondary 1.09 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson RR Crossing Acacia Secondary 0.42 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Stetson RR Crossing Secondary 0.58 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Menlo Esplanade Secondary 1.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida) Warren Cawston Secondary 1.02 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida) Columbia Ramona Secondary 2.58 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74/SR-79 (Florida) Cawston Columbia Secondary 4.03 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Domenigoni Chambers Secondary 1.31 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Chambers Stetson Secondary 0.51 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Florida Esplanade Secondary 1.74 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Stetson Florida Secondary 1.25 2 2 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Cawston State Secondary 2.52 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Warren Cawston Secondary 1.00 2 4 0% 2.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,262,000 $979,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $226,000 $566,000 $324,000 $4,357,000 $4,357,000 San Jacinto Hemet Warren Esplanade Domenigoni Secondary 5.02 2 4 9% 9.14 1 3 0 0 0 0 $10,345,000 $4,478,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,035,000 $2,586,000 $1,482,000 $19,926,000 $19,926,000 San Jacinto Hemet Warren Salt Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $4,176,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Mountain State Secondary 2.55 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade State Warren Secondary 3.53 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Sanderson Ramona Esplanade Secondary 3.55 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (North Ramona) State San Jacinto Secondary 1.02 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto) North Ramona Blvd 7th Secondary 0.25 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto) 7th SR-74 Secondary 2.25 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Ramona Esplanade Secondary 1.99 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Gilman Springs Quandt Ranch Secondary 0.76 2 4 0% 1.52 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,722,000 $745,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $431,000 $247,000 $3,317,000 $3,317,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto State San Jacinto River bridge Secondary 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 500 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Quandt Ranch Ramona Secondary 0.70 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Warren Ramona Esplanade Secondary 3.47 2 4 11% 6.18 1 3 0 0 0 0 $6,993,000 $3,027,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $699,000 $1,748,000 $1,002,000 $13,469,000 $13,469,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Sanderson State Secondary 2.54 2 4 0% 5.09 1 3 0 0 0 0 $5,761,000 $2,494,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $576,000 $1,440,000 $826,000 $11,097,000 $11,097,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Massacre Canyon Wash bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 100 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $960,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $240,000 $96,000 $1,392,000 $1,392,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) SR-74 (Florida) Domenigoni Secondary 3.23 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EXHIBIT H-1 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate Updated: July 23, 2024 AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORK MILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSE INTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING ITS NEW LNCOST ROWCOST INTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOST ITSCOST PLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Southwest Lake Elsinore Corydon Mission Grand Secondary 1.53 2 4 50% 1.53 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,732,000 $750,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $173,000 $433,000 $248,000 $3,336,000 $3,336,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Diamond Mission I-15 Secondary 0.24 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Franklin (integral to Railroad CI-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Lincoln Toft Secondary 1.29 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Toft SR-74 (Riverside) Secondary 0.86 2 4 6% 1.61 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,824,000 $789,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $182,000 $456,000 $261,000 $3,512,000 $3,512,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 Lincoln Secondary 3.25 2 4 28% 4.68 2 2 0 0 0 0 $8,144,000 $25,462,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $814,000 $2,036,000 $3,361,000 $39,817,000 $32,726,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 2 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $15,771,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake Temescal Wash bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 180 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,728,000 $0 $0 $173,000 $432,000 $173,000 $2,506,000 $1,150,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Mission Railroad Canyon Bundy Canyon Secondary 2.39 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 Lake Secondary 1.80 2 4 0% 3.60 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,075,000 $1,764,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $408,000 $1,019,000 $584,000 $7,850,000 $7,850,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols Temescal Wash bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $4,176,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $63,061,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Collier/Riverside) I-15 Lakeshore Secondary 2.15 2 4 26% 3.19 1 2 0 0 0 0 $3,608,000 $17,337,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $361,000 $902,000 $2,095,000 $24,303,000 $24,303,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Grand) Riverside SR-74 (Ortega) Secondary 0.64 2 4 0% 1.28 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,445,000 $6,943,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $145,000 $361,000 $839,000 $9,733,000 $3,691,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Riverside) Lakeshore Grand Secondary 1.74 2 4 24% 2.65 1 2 0 0 0 0 $2,995,000 $14,392,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $749,000 $1,739,000 $20,175,000 $20,175,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon I-15 Lake Secondary 1.21 2 4 0% 2.42 2 3 0 0 0 0 $4,211,000 $1,186,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $421,000 $1,053,000 $540,000 $7,411,000 $7,411,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon Temescal Wash bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 250 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000 $0 $0 $240,000 $600,000 $240,000 $3,480,000 $3,480,000 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jefferson I-15 Secondary 0.32 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks I-15 Jackson Secondary 0.50 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jackson Clinton Keith Secondary 1.76 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jackson Whitewood Ynez Secondary 0.53 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Palomar Nutmeg Secondary 1.02 0 2 75% 0.51 2 3 0 0 0 0 $887,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $89,000 $222,000 $114,000 $1,562,000 $1,562,000 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Nutmeg Murrieta Hot Springs Secondary 2.37 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Murrieta Hot Springs Cherry Secondary 2.26 4 6 11% 4.02 1 2 0 0 0 0 $4,548,000 $21,854,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $455,000 $1,137,000 $2,640,000 $30,634,000 $30,634,000 Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 Whitewood Backbone 0.75 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Los Alamos Jefferson I-215 Secondary 1.77 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson I-215 Secondary 1.16 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs I-215 Margarita Secondary 1.45 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Margarita SR-79 (Winchester) Secondary 1.01 4 6 8% 1.86 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,106,000 $911,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $211,000 $527,000 $302,000 $4,057,000 $3,899,000 Southwest Murrieta Nutmeg Jefferson Clinton Keith Secondary 1.97 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Clinton Keith Los Alamos Secondary 2.01 3 4 56% 0.88 2 3 0 0 0 0 $1,539,000 $433,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,000 $385,000 $197,000 $2,708,000 $2,708,000 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Los Alamos Murrieta Hot Springs Secondary 1.93 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Murrieta Hot Springs Jackson Secondary 0.80 0 2 66% 0.54 2 2 0 0 0 0 $947,000 $2,959,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,000 $237,000 $391,000 $4,629,000 $4,629,000 Southwest Murrieta Ynez Jackson SR-79 (Winchester) Secondary 1.22 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Murrieta Hot Springs Calle Chapos Secondary 0.82 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $563,000 $56,000 $141,000 $56,000 $816,000 $816,000 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Calle Chapos La Serena Secondary 0.70 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $480,000 $48,000 $120,000 $48,000 $696,000 $696,000 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage La Serena Rancho California Secondary 0.91 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $624,000 $62,000 $156,000 $62,000 $904,000 $904,000 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Rancho California Pauba Secondary 0.85 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $584,000 $58,000 $146,000 $58,000 $846,000 $846,000 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Pauba SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Secondary 1.69 2 4 93% 0.24 2 3 0 0 0 0 $412,000 $116,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,000 $103,000 $53,000 $725,000 $725,000 Southwest Temecula Jefferson Cherry Rancho California Secondary 2.29 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,575,000 $158,000 $394,000 $158,000 $2,285,000 $2,285,000 Southwest Temecula Margarita Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Secondary 7.68 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,272,000 $527,000 $1,318,000 $527,000 $7,644,000 $7,644,000 Southwest Temecula Old Town Front Rancho California I-15/SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Secondary 1.45 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Via Gilberto Secondary 1.32 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy Via Gilberto Pechanga Pkwy Secondary 1.44 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Jefferson Margarita Secondary 1.89 4 6 53% 1.78 1 1 0 0 0 0 $2,015,000 $13,938,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $202,000 $504,000 $1,595,000 $18,254,000 $18,181,000 Southwest Temecula Rancho California I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Margarita Butterfield Stage Secondary 1.96 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) I-15 Pechanga Pkwy Secondary 0.90 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Pechanga Pkwy Butterfield Stage Secondary 3.08 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,114,000 $211,000 $529,000 $211,000 $3,065,000 $3,065,000 Southwest Unincorporated Briggs Scott SR-79 (Winchester) Secondary 3.39 2 4 56% 2.98 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,379,000 $1,463,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $338,000 $845,000 $484,000 $6,509,000 $6,509,000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Tucalota Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 200 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage (Pourroy) Auld Murrieta Hot Springs Secondary 2.27 0 4 17% 7.54 2 3 0 0 0 0 $13,113,000 $3,693,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,311,000 $3,278,000 $1,681,000 $23,076,000 $23,076,000 Southwest Unincorporated Grand Ortega Corydon Secondary 4.96 2 4 10% 8.92 1 2 0 0 0 0 $10,098,000 $48,529,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,010,000 $2,525,000 $5,863,000 $68,025,000 $68,025,000 Southwest Unincorporated Horsethief Canyon Temescal Canyon I-15 Secondary 0.17 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Indian Truck Trail Temescal Canyon I-15 Secondary 0.18 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Winchester) Pourroy Secondary 1.75 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Pala Pechanga San Diego County Secondary 1.39 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Pourroy SR-79 (Winchester) Auld Secondary 2.28 2 4 84% 0.73 2 3 0 0 0 0 $1,270,000 $358,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $127,000 $318,000 $163,000 $2,236,000 $2,236,000 Southwest Unincorporated Rancho California Butterfield Stage Glen Oaks Secondary 4.26 2 4 0% 8.52 1 1 0 0 0 0 $9,645,000 $66,712,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $965,000 $2,411,000 $7,636,000 $87,369,000 $87,369,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Horsethief Canyon Wash bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 240 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,304,000 $0 $0 $230,000 $576,000 $230,000 $3,340,000 $3,340,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Truck Trail I-15 Secondary 2.57 2 4 0% 5.14 2 3 0 0 0 0 $8,944,000 $2,519,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $894,000 $2,236,000 $1,146,000 $15,739,000 $15,739,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Wash bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 105 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,008,000 $0 $0 $101,000 $252,000 $101,000 $1,462,000 $1,462,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Mission I-15 Secondary 0.94 2 4 32% 1.27 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,441,000 $6,923,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $360,000 $836,000 $9,704,000 $9,704,000 Southwest Wildomar Grand Corydon Wildomar Trail Secondary 2.02 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Mission Bundy Canyon Palomar Secondary 0.84 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Palomar Clinton Keith Washington Secondary 0.74 2 4 0% 1.48 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,675,000 $725,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $168,000 $419,000 $240,000 $3,227,000 $3,227,000 Southwest Wildomar Palomar Mission Clinton Keith Secondary 2.79 2 4 21% 4.41 2 3 0 0 0 0 $7,667,000 $2,159,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $767,000 $1,917,000 $983,000 $13,493,000 $13,493,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 Baxter Secondary 0.29 2 4 0% 0.59 1 3 0 0 0 0 $665,000 $288,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,000 $166,000 $95,000 $1,281,000 $1,281,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $27,858,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Baxter Palomar Secondary 0.74 2 4 0% 1.48 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,680,000 $8,073,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $168,000 $420,000 $975,000 $11,316,000 $11,316,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Palomar Grand Secondary 0.51 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Secondary 469.28 240.56 22 8,650 6 26.75 $303,507,000 $590,248,000 $621,740,000 $101,280,000 $237,200,000 $18,358,000 $128,215,000 $320,544,000 $187,237,000 $2,508,329,000 $1,913,028,000 Totals Network 739.22 558.58 33 17,485 9 33.89 741,859,000$ 1,272,869,000$ 1,057,070,000$ 176,256,000$ 374,000,000$ 23,259,000$ 237,252,000$ 593,150,000$ 364,535,000$ 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$
EXHIBIT H-2 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate - Existing Need and Obligated Funding Updated: July 23, 2024 AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE MAX TUMF MSHCP SHARE EXIST NEED LOS E&F SEGMENT DESCRIPTION % EXIST NEED >2 LANE ADJST EXIST V/C FUTURE V/C TUMF V/C SHARE EXIST NEED OBLIGATED UNFUND EXIST NEED MSHCP MSHCP EXIST NEED MSHCP UNFUND EXIST NEED COMBINED UNFUND EXIST NEED Central Menifee Ethanac Goetz Murrieta $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.27 0.87 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Ethanac Murrieta I-215 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.29 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Ethanac I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0% 0% 0.62 1.21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Ethanac Sherman Matthews $2,674,000 $2,674,000 $69,000 0% 0% 0.32 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $69,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Ethanac BNSF San Jacinto Branch railroad crossing $105,560,000 $105,560,000 $3,640,000 0% 0% 0.32 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $3,640,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson $1,307,000 $1,307,000 $34,000 Between Rouse and Matthews 11% 11% 0.70 0.98 $0 $0 $0 $34,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Salt Creek bridge $4,384,000 $4,384,000 $151,000 0% 0% 0.36 0.55 $0 $0 $0 $151,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Simpson Aldergate $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.39 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Aldergate Newport $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.45 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Newport Holland $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.44 0.72 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Holland Garbani $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.41 0.54 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Garbani Scott $4,353,000 $4,353,000 $113,000 0% 0% 0.64 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee/Whitewood Scott Murrieta City Limit $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.44 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Goetz Murrieta $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.59 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Murrieta I-215 $1,130,000 $1,130,000 $29,000 Between Pacific Channel and Winter Hawk, and SB I-215 Exit Ramp and SB I-215 On Ramp 27% 27% 0.84 1.08 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport I-215 Menifee $0 $0 $0 Between Menifee Lakes to Menifee, and I-215 SB On Ramp to Antelope 36% 36% 0.93 1.08 85% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Menifee Lindenberger $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.66 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Lindenberger SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.51 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Scott I-215 Briggs $8,635,000 $8,635,000 $224,000 Between SB I-215 On Ramp and Antelope 5% 5% 0.45 0.82 $0 $0 $0 $224,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Scott I-215 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 1.17 1.54 57% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta $4,388,000 $4,388,000 $114,000 0% 0% 0.94 1.32 91% $0 $0 $0 $114,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Scott Murrieta I-215 $16,949,000 $12,949,000 $336,000 0% 0% 0.72 1.03 $0 $4,000,000 $0 $440,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee SR-74 Matthews Briggs $8,254,000 $8,254,000 $214,000 0% 0% 0.72 0.98 $0 $0 $0 $214,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro I-215 Perris $13,420,000 $13,420,000 $100,000 0% 0% 0.61 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Perris Nason $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.55 0.75 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Nason Moreno Beach $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.22 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Moreno Beach Gilman Springs $18,019,000 $18,019,000 $468,000 0% 0% 0.24 0.66 $0 $0 $0 $468,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 Alessandro $7,291,000 $7,291,000 $189,000 0% 0% 0.65 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $189,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.60 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Reche Vista Ironwood $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.34 0.46 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Ironwood Sunnymead $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.74 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $11,192,000 $0 0% 0% 2.03 2.62 34% $21,506,000 $0 $21,506,000 $0 $0 $0 $21,506,000 Central Moreno Valley Perris Sunnymead Cactus $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.62 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Cactus Harley Knox $0 $0 $0 Between Nandina and Harley Knox 18% 18% 0.69 1.01 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Reche Vista Country Heacock $7,486,000 $3,799,000 $39,000 Moreno Valley City Limit to Heacock 100% 100% 0.92 0.95 51% $3,687,000 $0 $3,687,000 $77,000 $38,000 $38,000 $3,725,000 Central Perris 11th/Case Perris Goetz $4,582,000 $4,582,000 $34,000 0% 0% 0.76 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $34,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Case Goetz I-215 $20,876,000 $20,876,000 $155,000 Between Ellis and Murrietta 40% 40% 0.80 1.18 $0 $0 $0 $155,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Case San Jacinto River bridge $1,740,000 $1,235,000 $43,000 0% 0% 1.18 1.88 71% $505,000 $0 $505,000 $60,000 $0 $0 $505,000 Central Perris Ethanac Keystone Goetz $6,056,000 $6,056,000 $157,000 0% 0% 0.07 0.30 $0 $0 $0 $157,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Ethanac San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 $192,000 0% 0% 0.07 0.30 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Ethanac I-215 Sherman $5,316,000 $5,316,000 $39,000 0% 0% 0.53 1.15 $0 $0 $0 $39,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Goetz Case Ethanac $1,507,000 $999,000 $26,000 Between Case and Ethanac 100% 100% 1.06 1.38 66% $508,000 $0 $508,000 $39,000 $13,000 $13,000 $521,000 Central Perris Goetz San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $3,398,000 $117,000 0% 0% 1.13 1.50 61% $2,170,000 $0 $2,170,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $2,170,000 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) I-215 Perris $15,655,000 $15,655,000 $116,000 0% 0% 0.05 0.21 $0 $0 $0 $116,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) I-215 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.46 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) Perris Evans $22,985,000 $22,985,000 $171,000 0% 0% 0.03 0.11 $0 $0 $0 $171,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 $288,000 0% 0% 0.03 0.11 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Perris Harley Knox Ramona $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.86 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Perris Ramona Citrus $7,063,000 $7,063,000 $183,000 Between Ramona and Dawes, and Rider and Water 39% 39% 0.83 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $183,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Perris Citrus Nuevo $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.66 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Perris Nuevo 11th $6,927,000 $6,927,000 $51,000 0% 0% 0.72 0.99 $0 $0 $0 $51,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Perris I-215 overcrossing bridge $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.78 1.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Ramona I-215 Perris $5,039,000 $5,039,000 $37,000 Between NB I-215 On Ramp and Webster 26% 26% 0.77 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $37,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Ramona I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $7,725,000 $0 0% 0% 1.80 2.08 24% $24,973,000 $0 $24,973,000 $0 $0 $0 $24,973,000 Central Perris Ramona Perris Evans $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.67 0.82 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Ramona Evans Mid-County (2,800 ft E of Rider) $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.62 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74 (4th) Ellis I-215 $0 $0 $0 Between Navajo and S A St 22% 22% 0.78 1.03 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Ethanac SR-74 Keystone $4,666,000 $4,666,000 $121,000 0% 0% 0.04 0.19 $0 $0 $0 $121,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Gilman Springs Alessandro Bridge Road $30,601,000 $30,601,000 $869,000 Between Olive and Jackrabbit 41% 41% 0.87 1.43 $0 $0 $0 $869,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Menifee Nuevo SR-74 (Pinacate) $16,684,000 $16,684,000 $433,000 0% 0% 0.69 0.98 $0 $0 $0 $433,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Mid-County Evans Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) $12,156,000 $12,156,000 $362,000 0% 0% 0.08 0.45 $0 $0 $0 $362,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) Pico Avenue $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.37 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Pico Avenue Bridge Road $47,769,000 $47,769,000 $1,240,000 0% 0% 0.82 1.43 $0 $0 $0 $1,240,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) San Jacinto River bridge $36,192,000 $36,192,000 $1,248,000 0% 0% 0.78 1.33 $0 $0 $0 $1,248,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon San Bernardino County Reche Vista $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.84 0.91 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Reche Vista Reche Canyon Country $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.81 0.83 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Scott Briggs SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.12 0.53 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated SR-74 Ethanac Ellis $0 $0 $0 Between Ethanac and Theda, and Mountain and Sofie 34% 34% 0.87 1.17 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 Temescal Canyon $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.47 0.62 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 1.59 2.08 42% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill Paseo Grande Lincoln $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.45 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill Wardlow Wash bridge $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.47 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill Lincoln California $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.30 0.42 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill California I-15 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.29 0.42 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Green River SR-91 Dominguez Ranch $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.53 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Green River Dominguez Ranch Palisades $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.53 0.60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Green River Palisades Paseo Grande $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.66 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman San Bernardino County 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek $648,000 $648,000 $0 0% 0% 0.65 1.23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Cucamonga Creek bridge $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.72 1.27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek Harrison $866,000 $866,000 $0 0% 0% 0.69 1.17 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Harrison Sumner $488,000 $488,000 $0 Between Spicewood and Sumner 18% 18% 0.62 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Sumner Scholar $7,625,000 $7,625,000 $57,000 0% 0% 0.85 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Scholar A Street $119,000 $119,000 $1,000 0% 0% 0.50 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman A Street Hamner $209,000 $209,000 $2,000 0% 0% 0.50 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren SR-60 Bellegrave $23,928,000 $10,461,000 $78,000 Between SR-60 and Bellegrave 100% 100% 1.02 1.10 44% $13,467,000 $0 $13,467,000 $178,000 $100,000 $100,000 $13,567,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren Bellegrave Santa Ana River $60,900,000 $0 $0 Between Limonite and Santa Ana River, and Rutile and Bellegrave 59% 59% 1.03 1.13 44% $19,851,000 $60,900,000 $0 $452,000 $147,000 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Alessandro Arlington Trautwein $2,410,000 $2,410,000 $0 Between Arlington and Via Vista, and Canyon Crest and Trautwein 73% 73% 1.03 1.16 48% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Arlington La Sierra Magnolia $0 $0 $0 Between Ben Lomond and 300 ft East of Pegasus 13% 13% 0.68 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Arlington Magnolia Alessandro $46,465,000 $46,465,000 $475,000 Between Victoria and Alessandro 36% 36% 0.80 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $475,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Santa Ana River SR-91 $5,230,000 $4,392,000 $33,000 Between Santa Ana River and Cypress 58% 58% 0.94 1.05 72% $838,000 $0 $838,000 $39,000 $6,000 $6,000 $844,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren SR-91 Mockingbird Canyon $39,493,000 $21,292,000 $158,000 Between Mockingbird Canyon and Rudicill, and Indiana to SR-91 95% 95% 1.00 1.10 51% $18,201,000 $0 $18,201,000 $293,000 $135,000 $135,000 $18,336,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Wood Trautwein $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.79 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Trautwein Orange Terrace $7,574,000 $7,574,000 $56,000 0% 0% 0.69 0.89 $0 $0 $0 $56,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Trautwein Vista Grande $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.79 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Vista Grande I-215 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.85 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco El Sobrante Harley John $10,580,000 $9,817,000 $279,000 Between El Sobrante and Gavilan 40% 20% 0.95 1.04 64% $763,000 $0 $763,000 $301,000 $22,000 $22,000 $785,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harley John Harvil $166,492,000 $166,492,000 $1,236,000 Between Harley John and Wood, and Cole and Alexander, and Carroll and Seaton 63% 31% 0.87 1.05 $0 $0 $0 $1,236,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harvil I-215 $1,238,000 $1,238,000 $32,000 0% 0% 0.78 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $32,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Canyon La Sierra $49,596,000 $35,953,000 $1,071,000 Between Temesacal Canyon and Sierra 100% 50% 1.06 1.19 45% $13,643,000 $0 $13,643,000 $1,477,000 $406,000 $406,000 $14,049,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Wash bridge $4,872,000 $1,907,000 $66,000 0% 0% 1.13 1.27 39% $2,965,000 $0 $2,965,000 $168,000 $0 $0 $2,965,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco La Sierra El Sobrante $96,453,000 $96,453,000 $2,872,000 0% 0% 0.78 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $2,872,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Mockingbird Canyon Wood $67,429,000 $67,429,000 $501,000 Between Washington and Wood 47% 47% 0.89 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $501,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Orange Terrace I-215 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.71 0.99 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EXHIBIT H-2 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate - Existing Need and Obligated Funding Updated: July 23, 2024 AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE MAX TUMF MSHCP SHARE EXIST NEED LOS E&F SEGMENT DESCRIPTION % EXIST NEED >2 LANE ADJST EXIST V/C FUTURE V/C TUMF V/C SHARE EXIST NEED OBLIGATED UNFUND EXIST NEED MSHCP MSHCP EXIST NEED MSHCP UNFUND EXIST NEED COMBINED UNFUND EXIST NEED Pass Banning Highland Springs Wilson (8th) Sun Lakes $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.46 0.68 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Highland Springs I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $32,516,000 $0 0% 0% 1.16 1.43 52% $30,545,000 $14,698,000 $15,847,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,847,000 Pass Banning Highland Springs Oak Valley (14th) Wilson (8th) $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.29 0.49 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Highland Springs Cherry Valley Oak Valley (14th) $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.28 0.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 Morongo Trail (Apache Trail) $50,110,000 $50,110,000 $372,000 0% 0% 0.04 0.05 $0 $0 $0 $372,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000 $0 0% 0% 0.73 0.86 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South San Gorgonio bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 $144,000 0% 0% 0.26 0.31 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South UP/Hargrave railroad crossing $52,780,000 $52,780,000 $1,820,000 0% 0% 0.26 0.31 $0 $0 $0 $1,820,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) I-10 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.31 0.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Potrero Oak Valley (San Timoteo Can SR-60 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $29,000 0% 0% 0.01 0.37 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 interchange $63,061,000 $29,561,000 $0 0% 0% 0.39 0.84 $0 $33,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Potrero UP railroad crossing $40,020,000 $40,020,000 $1,380,000 0% 0% 0.01 0.37 $0 $0 $0 $1,380,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Potrero Noble Creek bridge $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.01 0.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 4th $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.01 0.25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont) I-10 California $0 $0 $0 Between I-10 WB On Ramp and California 100% 100% 1.05 1.18 46% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont) I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $7,408,000 $0 0% 0% 2.20 2.37 12% $55,653,000 $0 $55,653,000 $0 $0 $0 $55,653,000 Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $59,773,000 $0 0% 0% 0.93 1.51 95% $3,288,000 $443,000 $2,845,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,845,000 Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley Roberts St Roberts Rd $3,053,000 $3,053,000 $79,000 0% 0% 0.54 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $79,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Bellflower Noble $6,411,000 $6,411,000 $166,000 0% 0% 0.08 0.23 $0 $0 $0 $166,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Highland Springs Bellflower $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.03 0.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Noble Roberts St $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.41 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley San Timoteo Wash bridge $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.26 0.41 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated SR-79 (Lamb Canyon) California Gilman Springs $0 $0 $0 Between California and Gilman Springs 100% 100% 1.21 1.43 42% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Warren Sanderson $7,726,000 $7,726,000 $201,000 0% 0% 0.82 1.13 $0 $0 $0 $201,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Sanderson State $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.41 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 Winchester Warren $35,208,000 $35,208,000 $261,000 Between Warren and 650 ft East of Cordoba 25% 25% 0.83 1.05 $0 $0 $0 $261,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona) Warren Sanderson $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.57 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona) Sanderson/SR-79 (Hemet Bypainterchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.61 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Sanderson State $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.48 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona State Main $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.58 0.67 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Main Cedar $31,518,000 $26,928,000 $200,000 Between 7th and Rue Pinot Blanc, and Hemet and Mountain 68% 34% 0.93 0.97 57% $4,590,000 $0 $4,590,000 $234,000 $34,000 $34,000 $4,624,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Cedar SR-74 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.29 0.35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni SR-79 (Winchester) Warren $13,508,000 $13,508,000 $351,000 0% 0% 0.88 1.13 $0 $0 $0 $351,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni San Diego Aqueduct bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 $144,000 0% 0% 0.88 1.12 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Bridge Sanderson $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.62 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Bridge Warren $9,221,000 $9,221,000 $239,000 0% 0% 0.78 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $239,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-74 Briggs SR-79 (Winchester) $15,417,000 $15,417,000 $400,000 Between Briggs and Sultanas 14% 14% 0.63 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) SR-74 (Florida) Domenigoni $13,901,000 $13,901,000 $361,000 0% 0% 0.62 0.86 $0 $0 $0 $361,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) San Diego Aqueduct bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 $144,000 0% 0% 0.62 0.86 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) Domenigoni Winchester $6,542,000 $6,542,000 $170,000 0% 0% 0.59 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $170,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (San Jacinto Bypass) Mid-County (Ramona) SR-74 (Florida) $56,690,000 $56,690,000 $1,472,000 0% 0% 0.55 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $1,472,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson) Gilman Springs Ramona $6,899,000 $2,555,000 $66,000 Between Ramona and Gilman Springs 100% 100% 1.18 1.34 37% $4,344,000 $0 $4,344,000 $179,000 $113,000 $113,000 $4,457,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson) San Jacinto River bridge $19,488,000 $7,651,000 $264,000 0% 0% 1.21 1.41 39% $11,837,000 $0 $11,837,000 $672,000 $0 $0 $11,837,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Domenigoni Keller $65,022,000 $65,022,000 $483,000 0% 0% 0.55 0.82 $0 $0 $0 $483,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Canyon Lake Goetz Railroad Canyon Newport $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.35 0.53 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Canyon Lake Railroad Canyon Canyon Hills Goetz $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.71 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 Canyon Hills $0 $0 $0 Between NB I-5 On Ramp and Summerhill 2% 2% 0.86 1.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 2.48 3.04 26% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 I-15 interchange $63,061,000 $24,162,000 $0 0% 0% 1.60 2.03 38% $38,899,000 $0 $38,899,000 $0 $0 $0 $38,899,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Copper Craft Toulon $0 $0 $0 Between California Oaks and Toulon 35% 35% 0.76 0.95 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Toulon I-215 $2,076,000 $2,076,000 $54,000 Between Toulon and Thousand Oaks, and Duster and McElwain 52% 52% 0.88 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $54,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith I-215 Whitewood $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.67 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Murrieta Hot Springs Winchester Creek $7,321,000 $7,321,000 $54,000 0% 0% 0.77 1.21 $0 $0 $0 $54,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Winchester Creek Margarita $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.04 0.08 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Menifee City Limit Keller $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.39 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Keller Clinton Keith $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.54 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Jefferson Diaz $3,929,000 $3,929,000 $29,000 0% 0% 0.00 0.58 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Murrieta Creek bridge $5,846,000 $5,846,000 $202,000 0% 0% 0.00 0.58 $0 $0 $0 $202,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Margarita Ynez $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.20 0.34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Ynez Jefferson $5,010,000 $5,010,000 $37,000 0% 0% 0.07 0.15 $0 $0 $0 $37,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) I-15 interchange $122,076,000 $122,076,000 $0 0% 0% 0.19 0.29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester) Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson $2,697,000 $2,697,000 $0 Between Promenade Mall West and Murrieta Hot Springs, and I-15 NB On Ramp to 250 ft East of Jefferson Ave 84% 84% 0.96 1.24 81% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester) I-15 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 1.58 1.80 24% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Diaz) Cherry Rancho California $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $17,000 0% 0% 0.18 0.45 $0 $0 $0 $17,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent MoroRancho California SR-79 (Front) $23,629,000 $23,629,000 $296,000 0% 0% 0.01 0.05 $0 $0 $0 $296,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent MoroI-15 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 2.30 3.07 36% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent MoroMurrieta Creek bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 $144,000 0% 0% 0.01 0.05 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR-79 Eastern Bypass $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.26 0.35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Whitewood SR-79 $5,539,000 $5,539,000 $144,000 0% 0% 0.62 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Warm Springs Creek bridge $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.62 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated SR-74 I-15 Ethanac $27,699,000 $26,347,000 $749,000 Between I-15 nd Dexter, and Conard and Riverside, and Steele Valley and Peach, and Meadowbrook and Eth 64% 64% 0.93 1.23 92% $1,352,000 $0 $1,352,000 $787,000 $38,000 $38,000 $1,390,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Keller Thompson $34,213,000 $34,213,000 $254,000 0% 0% 0.56 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $254,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Thompson La Alba $27,699,000 $27,699,000 $206,000 Between La Alba and Via Mira Mosa 25% 25% 0.82 0.99 $0 $0 $0 $206,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) La Alba Hunter $7,854,000 $3,042,000 $22,000 Between La Alba and Hunter 100% 100% 1.10 1.22 39% $4,812,000 $0 $4,812,000 $58,000 $36,000 $36,000 $4,848,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Hunter Murrieta Hot Springs $595,000 $442,000 $11,000 Between Murrieta Hot Springs and Robert Jones, and Borel 75% 75% 0.95 1.04 66% $153,000 $0 $153,000 $15,000 $4,000 $4,000 $157,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 Monte Vista $1,362,000 $1,362,000 $39,000 Between I-15 NB On Ramp and Monte Vista 75% 75% 0.84 1.16 $0 $0 $0 $39,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Monte Vista Sunset $24,818,000 $24,818,000 $739,000 Between Monte Vista and Oak Circle 37% 37% 0.89 1.18 $0 $0 $0 $739,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $24,613,000 $0 0% 0% 1.12 1.77 75% $8,085,000 $0 $8,085,000 $0 $0 $0 $8,085,000 Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith Palomar I-15 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.69 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith I-15 Copper Craft $5,030,000 $0 $0 Between Inland Valley and Smith Ranch, and Covington and Copper Craft 60% 60% 0.89 1.01 $0 $5,030,000 $0 $143,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $2,331,921,000 $1,961,707,000 $30,262,000 10.8% $286,635,000 $118,571,000 $251,643,000 $32,508,000 $1,092,000 945,000 252,588,000 EXHIBIT H-2 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate - Existing Need and Obligated Funding Updated: July 23, 2024 AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE MAX TUMF MSHCP SHARE EXIST NEED LOS E&F SEGMENT DESCRIPTION % EXIST NEED >2 LANE ADJST EXIST V/C FUTURE V/C TUMF V/C SHARE EXIST NEED OBLIGATED UNFUND EXIST NEED MSHCP MSHCP EXIST NEED MSHCP UNFUND EXIST NEED COMBINED UNFUND EXIST NEED Central Menifee Briggs Newport Scott $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.18 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Briggs SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson $2,991,000 $2,991,000 $78,000 0% 0% 0.05 0.23 $0 $0 $0 $78,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Briggs Simpson Old Newport $5,430,000 $5,430,000 $141,000 0% 0% 0.35 0.78 $0 $0 $0 $141,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Briggs Salt Creek bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 $288,000 0% 0% 0.41 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Garbani I-215 interchange $63,061,000 $42,483,000 $0 0% 0% 1.21 1.85 67% $20,578,000 $0 $20,578,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,578,000 Central Menifee Goetz Juanita Lesser Lane $11,378,000 $11,378,000 $295,000 0% 0% 0.70 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $295,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Goetz Newport Juanita $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.65 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Holland Murrieta Bradley $15,708,000 $15,708,000 $117,000 0% 0% 0.52 0.87 $0 $0 $0 $117,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Holland Bradley Haun $11,439,000 $11,439,000 $85,000 0% 0% 0.62 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Holland Haun Antelope $9,456,000 $9,456,000 $70,000 0% 0% 0.74 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Holland I-215 overcrossing bridge $9,744,000 $9,744,000 $336,000 0% 0% 0.76 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $336,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Holland Antelope Menifee $3,844,000 $3,844,000 $29,000 0% 0% 0.17 0.50 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee McCall I-215 Aspel $5,354,000 $5,354,000 $139,000 0% 0% 0.34 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $139,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee McCall I-215 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 1.58 2.02 39% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee $2,288,000 $2,288,000 $59,000 0% 0% 0.38 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $59,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Murrieta Ethanac McCall $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.52 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Murrieta McCall Newport $7,967,000 $7,967,000 $207,000 0% 0% 0.60 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $207,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Murrieta Newport Bundy Canyon $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.43 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 Heacock $5,617,000 $5,617,000 $42,000 Between Goldencrest and Arial, and Frontage Road and 250 ft East 7% 7% 0.66 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $42,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 1.22 1.43 40% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Day Ironwood SR-60 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.53 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 1.03 1.21 60% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 Eucalyptus $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.45 0.58 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus I-215 Towngate $8,843,000 $8,843,000 $66,000 0% 0% 0.52 0.72 $0 $0 $0 $66,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Towngate Frederick $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.43 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Frederick Heacock $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.51 0.67 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Heacock Kitching $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.53 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Kitching Moreno Beach $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.19 0.28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Moreno Beach Theodore $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.01 0.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Frederick SR-60 Alessandro $0 $0 $0 Between SR-60 and Sunnymead 5% 5% 0.42 0.59 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Heacock Cactus San Michele $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.56 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Heacock Reche Vista Cactus $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.47 0.66 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Heacock San Michele Harley Knox $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.11 0.22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Ironwood SR-60 Day $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.82 1.02 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Ironwood Day Heacock $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.69 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle Alessandro John F Kennedy $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.68 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle John F Kennedy Oleander $0 $0 $0 Between Via Xavier and Krameria 13% 13% 0.72 1.01 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach Reche Canyon SR-60 $18,797,000 $18,797,000 $140,000 Between SR-60 and SR-60 WB Exit Ramp 5% 5% 0.32 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach SR-60 overcrossing bridge $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.95 1.27 87% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Nason SR-60 Alessandro $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.66 0.83 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass Ironwood SR-60 $0 $0 $0 Between SR-60 and SR-60 WB On Ramp, and Hemlock and Ironwood 87% 87% 0.94 1.07 74% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Ironwood $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.40 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Locust $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.02 0.19 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Redlands Locust Alessandro $39,789,000 $39,789,000 $295,000 Between Locust and Ironwood 27% 27% 0.80 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $295,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Redlands SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0% 0% 0.47 0.51 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 Eucalyptus $3,966,000 $3,966,000 $29,000 0% 0% 0.46 0.99 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0% 0% 0.44 0.75 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Ellis Goetz Evans $9,526,000 $9,526,000 $247,000 0% 0% 0.08 0.14 $0 $0 $0 $247,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Oleander Ramona $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.71 1.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Ramona Morgan $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.80 1.15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Morgan Rider $0 $0 $0 Between Morgan and Sinclair 50% 50% 0.83 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Rider Placentia $0 $0 $0 Between Placentia and 350 ft North 11% 11% 0.55 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Placentia Nuevo $6,492,000 $6,492,000 $169,000 Between Placentia and 220 ft South, and Moraga and Sunset 9% 4% 0.54 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $169,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Nuevo Ellis $17,705,000 $17,705,000 $460,000 0% 0% 0.00 0.33 $0 $0 $0 $460,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans San Jacinto River bridge $11,136,000 $11,136,000 $384,000 0% 0% 0.00 0.13 $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans I-215 bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 $288,000 0% 0% 0.00 0.13 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Goetz Lesser Ethanac $7,845,000 $7,845,000 $204,000 Between Ethanac and Ruffian 7% 7% 0.79 1.13 $0 $0 $0 $204,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 Indian $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.31 0.38 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.99 1.62 88% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Perris $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.12 0.15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Harley Knox Perris Redlands $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.25 0.47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Nuevo I-215 Murrieta $16,971,000 $16,971,000 $126,000 0% 0% 0.51 0.83 $0 $0 $0 $126,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Nuevo I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $19,736,000 $0 0% 0% 1.53 2.50 60% $12,962,000 $0 $12,962,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,962,000 Central Perris Nuevo Murrieta Dunlap $4,367,000 $4,367,000 $113,000 0% 0% 0.35 0.68 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris Nuevo Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.35 0.67 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 Ethanac $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.69 0.98 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $21,835,000 $0 0% 0% 1.41 2.42 67% $10,863,000 $0 $10,863,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,863,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 Mt Vernon $0 $0 $0 Between I-215 and Highgrove 4% 4% 0.39 0.67 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $11,912,000 $0 0% 0% 2.38 3.22 36% $20,786,000 $0 $20,786,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,786,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) BNSF railroad crossing $20,010,000 $20,010,000 $690,000 0% 0% 0.46 0.82 $0 $0 $0 $690,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Ellis Post SR-74 $11,550,000 $11,550,000 $300,000 0% 0% 0.20 0.46 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Mount Vernon/CETAP Corrido Center Pigeon Pass $2,582,000 $2,582,000 $77,000 0% 0% 0.58 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $77,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Nuevo Dunlap Menifee $8,737,000 $2,505,000 $65,000 Between Dunlap and Menifee 100% 100% 0.76 1.30 $0 $6,232,000 $0 $227,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Nuevo San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 $192,000 0% 0% 0.77 1.36 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Mount Vernon $8,106,000 $8,106,000 $241,000 0% 0% 1.16 1.33 40% $0 $0 $0 $241,000 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Post Santa Rosa Mine Ellis $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.58 1.07 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.02 0.19 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Redlands San Timoteo Canyon Locust $0 $0 $0 Between Locust and San Timoteo 100% 100% 1.32 1.51 31% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona 6th SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.43 0.55 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Auto Center Railroad SR-91 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.31 0.32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Cajalco Bedford Canyon I-15 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.51 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Hidden Valley Norco Hills McKinley $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.52 0.72 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Lincoln Parkridge Ontario $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.58 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Magnolia 6th Sherborn $7,054,000 $6,419,000 $47,000 Between 6th and Sherborn 100% 100% 0.91 1.07 91% $635,000 $0 $635,000 $52,000 $5,000 $5,000 $640,000 Northwest Corona Magnolia Temescal Creek bridge $4,176,000 $3,580,000 $123,000 0% 0% 0.93 1.08 86% $596,000 $0 $596,000 $144,000 $0 $0 $596,000 Northwest Corona Magnolia Sherborn Rimpau $0 $0 $0 Between Rimpau and I-15 SB On Ramp, and Montecito and Sherborn 60% 60% 0.93 1.04 77% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Magnolia Rimpau Ontario $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.71 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main Grand Ontario $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.78 0.81 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main Ontario Foothill $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.40 0.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main Hidden Valley Parkridge $5,314,000 $4,389,000 $32,000 Between Hidden Valley and Parkridge 100% 100% 0.94 1.12 83% $925,000 $0 $925,000 $39,000 $7,000 $7,000 $932,000 Northwest Corona Main Parkridge SR-91 $0 $0 $0 Between SR-91 WB On Ramp and Grand 8% 8% 0.62 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main SR-91 S. Grand $0 $0 $0 Between 3rd and 4th 8% 8% 0.66 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley Hidden Valley Promenade $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.70 0.86 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley Promenade SR-91 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.61 0.66 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.76 0.81 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley Arlington Channel bridge $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.81 0.89 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley BNSF railroad crossing $105,560,000 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.81 0.89 $0 $105,560,000 $0 $3,640,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario I-15 El Cerrito $13,451,000 $13,451,000 $100,000 Between State and Rising Sun 32% 32% 0.69 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Lincoln Buena Vista $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.67 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Buena Vista Main $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.47 0.47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Main Kellogg $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.39 0.41 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Kellogg Fullerton $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.36 0.42 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Fullerton Rimpau $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.36 0.49 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Rimpau I-15 $0 $0 $0 Between Compton and I-15 SB On Ramp 7% 7% 0.45 0.57 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Railroad Auto Club Buena Vista $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.26 0.30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Railroad BNSF railroad crossing $40,020,000 $40,020,000 $1,380,000 0% 0% 0.31 0.34 $0 $0 $0 $1,380,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Railroad Buena Vista Main (at Grand) $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.69 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona River Corydon Main $0 $0 $0 Between Corydon and 2nd St 25% 25% 0.71 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Serfas Club SR-91 Green River $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.58 0.59 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EXHIBIT H-2 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate - Existing Need and Obligated Funding Updated: July 23, 2024 AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE MAX TUMF MSHCP SHARE EXIST NEED LOS E&F SEGMENT DESCRIPTION % EXIST NEED >2 LANE ADJST EXIST V/C FUTURE V/C TUMF V/C SHARE EXIST NEED OBLIGATED UNFUND EXIST NEED MSHCP MSHCP EXIST NEED MSHCP UNFUND EXIST NEED COMBINED UNFUND EXIST NEED Northwest Eastvale Archibald Remington River $3,382,000 $3,382,000 $0 Between Whispering Hills and Cadenza, and Providence and San Bernardino County 24% 24% 0.62 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Mission Bellegrave $0 $0 $0 Between Ontario Ranch and Micro, and Riverside and Mission 44% 44% 0.86 1.30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Bellegrave Amberhill $199,000 $199,000 $0 0% 0% 0.57 1.16 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Amberhill Limonite $2,787,000 $2,787,000 $72,000 0% 0% 0.68 1.08 $0 $0 $0 $72,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Limonite Schleisman $991,000 $991,000 $0 0% 0% 0.38 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Schleisman Santa Ana River $5,533,000 $3,675,000 $96,000 Between Schleisman and Santa Ana River 100% 50% 1.24 1.41 33% $1,858,000 $0 $1,858,000 $144,000 $48,000 $48,000 $1,906,000 Northwest Eastvale Hellman Schleisman Walters $419,000 $419,000 $3,000 0% 0% 0.86 1.69 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Hellman Walters River $21,503,000 $21,503,000 $160,000 0% 0% 0.69 1.44 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Hellman Cucamonga Creek bridge $3,828,000 $3,828,000 $132,000 0% 0% 0.69 1.44 $0 $0 $0 $132,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 Eastvale Gateway $289,000 $289,000 $0 Between I-15 and Eastvale Gateway 100% 100% 0.93 1.32 92% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.67 1.07 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Eastvale Gateway Hamner $255,000 $255,000 $0 Between Eastvale Gateway and Hamner 100% 100% 0.95 1.36 90% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Hamner Sumner $1,094,000 $1,094,000 $28,000 Between Hamner and Scholar 50% 50% 0.80 1.16 $0 $0 $0 $28,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Sumner Harrison $497,000 $497,000 $0 0% 0% 0.77 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Harrison Archibald $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.55 0.70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Archibald Hellman (Keller SBD Co.) $2,208,000 $2,208,000 $57,000 0% 0% 0.00 0.35 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge $13,920,000 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.64 0.75 $0 $13,920,000 $0 $480,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale River Hellman Archibald $5,948,000 $5,948,000 $44,000 0% 0% 0.67 1.01 $0 $0 $0 $44,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Armstrong San Bernardino County Valley $6,192,000 $6,192,000 $176,000 Between Sierra and Valley 33% 33% 0.83 1.14 $0 $0 $0 $176,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Bellegrave Cantu-Galleano Ranch Van Buren $464,000 $464,000 $12,000 0% 0% 0.43 0.78 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Cantu-Galleano Ranch Wineville Bellegrave $793,000 $793,000 $21,000 0% 0% 0.14 0.27 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda Philadelphia SR-60 $1,515,000 $989,000 $25,000 Between San Bernardino County and SR-60 100% 100% 1.11 1.49 65% $526,000 $0 $526,000 $39,000 $14,000 $14,000 $540,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda SR-60 Limonite $0 $0 $0 Between SR-60 and Riverside, and Cantu Galleano Ranch and Coral 12% 12% 0.61 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite I-15 Wineville $0 $0 $0 Between I-15 and I-15 NB On Ramp 15% 15% 0.82 0.90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Wineville Etiwanda $0 $0 $0 Between Etiwanda and Lorena 9% 9% 0.76 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Etiwanda Van Buren $2,981,000 $2,981,000 $77,000 Between Bain and Beach 23% 23% 0.80 0.91 $0 $0 $0 $77,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Van Buren Clay $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.67 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Clay Riverview $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.64 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Rubidoux Santa Ana River $5,181,000 $0 $0 Between Rubidoux and Aqua Mansa, and Via Cerro and Santa Ana River 40% 40% 0.86 1.06 $0 $5,181,000 $0 $135,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Santa Ana River bridge $13,920,000 $6,204,000 $214,000 0% 0% 1.13 1.32 45% $7,716,000 $0 $7,716,000 $480,000 $0 $0 $7,716,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission Milliken SR-60 $0 $0 $0 Between Mi lliken and Wineville, and SR-60 to SR-60 EB Off Ramp 58% 58% 0.90 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission SR-60 Santa Ana River $0 $0 $0 Between Jurupa and Canal, Riverview and Rubidoux, and Crestmore and Santa Ana River 13% 13% 0.57 0.78 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Riverview Limonite Mission $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.55 0.56 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux Pine Mission $0 $0 $0 Between SR-60 WB and 30th, and 24th and Market 9% 9% 0.86 1.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $9,051,000 $0 0% 0% 1.61 1.88 28% $23,647,000 $0 $23,647,000 $0 $0 $0 $23,647,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Valley Armstrong Mission $0 $0 $0 Between Armstrong and Mission 100% 100% 1.22 1.47 44% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 1st Parkridge Mountain $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.75 0.89 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 1st Mountain Hamner $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.38 0.51 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 2nd River I-15 $0 $0 $0 Between Hamner and I-15 SB On Ramp 7% 7% 0.74 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 6th Hamner California $0 $0 $0 Between Hamner and I-15 NB On Ramp 9% 9% 0.68 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 6th I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $3,489,000 $0 0% 0% 2.57 2.77 11% $29,209,000 $0 $29,209,000 $0 $0 $0 $29,209,000 Northwest Norco Arlington Crestview Fairhaven $4,342,000 $4,342,000 $113,000 Between Crestview and Fairhaven 100% 100% 0.79 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco California Arlington 6th $15,237,000 $12,525,000 $93,000 Between Arlington and 7th, and Green Tree ans 6th 78% 78% 0.96 1.14 77% $2,712,000 $0 $2,712,000 $113,000 $20,000 $20,000 $2,732,000 Northwest Norco Corydon River 5th $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.52 0.78 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River bridge $33,408,000 $11,455,000 $395,000 0% 0% 1.41 1.67 34% $21,953,000 $21,621,000 $332,000 $1,152,000 $0 $0 $332,000 Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River Hidden Valley $49,591,000 $49,591,000 $368,000 Between Detroit and Santa Ana River 6% 6% 0.65 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $368,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Hidden Valley I-15 Norco Hills $0 $0 $0 Between I-15 to I-15 NB On Ramp 3% 3% 0.55 0.70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Hidden Valley Hamner I-15 $0 $0 $0 Between Hamner and I-15 100% 100% 1.14 1.23 27% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Norco Corydon Hamner $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.33 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco North California Crestview $0 $0 $0 Between California and Crestview 100% 100% 0.96 1.19 80% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Norco River Archibald Corydon $1,743,000 $1,109,000 $8,000 Between Archibald and Sundance 79% 79% 1.20 1.56 54% $634,000 $0 $634,000 $13,000 $5,000 $5,000 $639,000 Northwest Riverside 14th Market Martin Luther King $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.66 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside 1st Market Main $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.24 0.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside 3rd SR-91 I-215 $1,941,000 $1,941,000 $14,000 0% 0% 0.49 0.59 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside 3rd BNSF railroad crossing $105,560,000 $30,560,000 $1,054,000 0% 0% 0.77 0.90 $0 $75,000,000 $0 $3,640,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Adams Arlington SR-91 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.49 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 Lincoln $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.44 0.64 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 interchange $32,698,000 $3,262,000 $0 0% 0% 1.46 1.52 10% $29,436,000 $935,000 $28,501,000 $0 $0 $0 $28,501,000 Northwest Riverside Arlington Fairhaven La Sierra $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.68 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Buena Vista Santa Ana River Redwood $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.83 1.17 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Martin Luther King Central $0 $0 $0 Between Martin Luther King and El Cerrito 71% 71% 1.02 1.16 55% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Central Country Club $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.70 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Country Club Via Vista $4,996,000 $1,593,000 $45,000 Between Country Club and Via Vista 100% 100% 1.30 1.48 32% $3,403,000 $0 $3,403,000 $142,000 $97,000 $97,000 $3,500,000 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Via Vista Alessandro $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.59 0.72 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Chicago I-215/SR-60 $0 $0 $0 Between Chicago and Chapala, and Canyon Crest and Quail Run 32% 32% 0.80 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0 $0 Between SR-91 and SR-91 SB On Ramp 6% 6% 0.64 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Alessandro SR-91 $0 $0 $0 Between SR-91 and SR-91 NB On Ramp, and Nottingham and 420 ft West 5% 5% 0.75 0.87 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Van Buren Magnolia $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.43 0.53 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Chicago Alessandro Spruce $0 $0 $0 Between Martin Luther King and Ransom 43% 43% 0.85 0.99 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Chicago Spruce Columbia $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.72 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Columbia Main Iowa $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.62 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Columbia I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $9,050,000 $0 0% 0% 2.96 3.74 28% $23,648,000 $0 $23,648,000 $0 $0 $0 $23,648,000 Northwest Riverside Iowa Center 3rd $30,272,000 $30,272,000 $225,000 Between Palmyrita and Columbia 11% 11% 0.82 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Iowa 3rd University $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.65 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Iowa University Martin Luther King $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.24 0.36 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside JFK Trautwein Wood $1,880,000 $1,880,000 $49,000 0% 0% 0.54 0.68 $0 $0 $0 $49,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside La Sierra Arlington SR-91 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.43 0.51 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside La Sierra SR-91 Indiana $192,000 $192,000 $0 0% 0% 0.77 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside La Sierra Indiana Victoria $778,000 $778,000 $0 0% 0% 0.71 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lemon (NB One way) Mission Inn University $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.11 0.15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Van Buren Jefferson $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.23 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Jefferson Washington $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.26 0.49 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Washington Victoria $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.39 0.56 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Madison SR-91 Victoria $853,000 $853,000 $0 0% 0% 0.65 0.66 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Madison BNSF railroad crossing $20,010,000 $20,010,000 $690,000 0% 0% 0.81 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $690,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF Railroad Tyler $0 $0 $0 Between Buchanan and SR-91 EB On Ramp, and SR-91 to La Sierra 53% 53% 0.82 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF railroad crossing $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.90 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia Tyler Harrison $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.52 0.66 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia Harrison 14th $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.62 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Main 1st San Bernardino County $0 $0 $0 Between Columbia and San Bernardino County, and SR-60 WB On Ramp to SR-60 EB On Ramp 43% 43% 0.76 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Market 14th Santa Ana River $9,491,000 $9,491,000 $70,000 Between Rivera and Santa Ana River 21% 21% 0.72 0.92 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Martin Luther King 14th I-215/SR-60 $24,031,000 $24,031,000 $178,000 Between Victoria and Sedgwick, and Iowa and I-215 SB On Ramp 41% 41% 0.78 0.87 $0 $0 $0 $178,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Mission Inn Redwood Lemon $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.26 0.47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Redwood (SB One way) Mission Inn University $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.59 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Trautwein Alessandro Van Buren $0 $0 $0 Between Mission Grove and Orange Terrace 43% 43% 0.88 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.31 0.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 interchange $63,061,000 $21,814,000 $0 0% 0% 1.56 1.90 35% $41,247,000 $0 $41,247,000 $0 $0 $0 $41,247,000 Northwest Riverside Tyler Magnolia Hole $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.30 0.30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler Hole Wells $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.52 0.53 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler Wells Arlington $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.59 0.62 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside University Redwood SR-91 $859,000 $859,000 $0 0% 0% 0.60 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside University SR-91 I-215/SR-60 $2,067,000 $2,067,000 $0 Between SR-60 and SR-60 SB On Ramp 2% 2% 0.52 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Victoria Lincoln Arlington $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.86 1.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Victoria Madison Washington $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.36 0.55 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Washington Victoria Hermosa $27,018,000 $27,018,000 $201,000 Between Dufferin and Overlook, and Bradley and Hermosa 34% 34% 0.83 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $201,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Wood JFK Van Buren $3,053,000 $3,053,000 $79,000 0% 0% 0.81 1.03 $0 $0 $0 $79,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Wood Van Buren Bergamont $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.50 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Wood Bergamont Krameria $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.55 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EXHIBIT H-2 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate - Existing Need and Obligated Funding Updated: July 23, 2024 AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE MAX TUMF MSHCP SHARE EXIST NEED LOS E&F SEGMENT DESCRIPTION % EXIST NEED >2 LANE ADJST EXIST V/C FUTURE V/C TUMF V/C SHARE EXIST NEED OBLIGATED UNFUND EXIST NEED MSHCP MSHCP EXIST NEED MSHCP UNFUND EXIST NEED COMBINED UNFUND EXIST NEED Northwest Unincorporated Cantu-Galleano Ranch Hamner Wineville $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.47 0.95 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Dos Lagos (Weirick) Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0 $0 Between I-15 and I-15 NB On Ramp 22% 22% 0.52 0.72 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated El Cerrito I-15 Ontario $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.15 0.26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated El Sobrante Mockingbird Canyon Cajalco $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.62 0.78 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Washington Scottsdale $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.38 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Scottsdale Cajalco $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.38 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra Victoria El Sobrante $0 $0 $0 Between Victoria and Orchard View 40% 40% 0.85 1.03 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra El Sobrante Cajalco $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.50 0.83 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Mockingbird Canyon Van Buren El Sobrante $20,871,000 $20,871,000 $593,000 Between Van Buren and Lindina 31% 31% 0.76 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $593,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon El Cerrito Tuscany $3,168,000 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.68 1.07 $0 $3,168,000 $0 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Tuscany Dos Lagos $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.72 1.08 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dos Lagos Leroy $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.48 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Leroy Dawson Canyon $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.46 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dawson Canyon I-15 $0 $0 $0 Between I-15 NB On Ramp and 1000 ft North 43% 43% 0.66 1.01 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0% 0% 0.85 1.35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 Park Canyon $14,329,000 $14,329,000 $427,000 Between I-15 SB On Ramp and Squaw Mountain 27% 27% 0.69 1.02 $0 $0 $0 $427,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.02 0.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Washington Hermosa Harley John $12,787,000 $12,787,000 $332,000 0% 0% 0.73 0.92 $0 $0 $0 $332,000 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Wood Krameria Cajalco $12,537,000 $12,537,000 $325,000 Between Krameria and Mariposa 17% 17% 0.56 0.83 $0 $0 $0 $325,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning 8th Wilson I-10 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.25 0.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Lincoln Sunset SR-243 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.14 0.16 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Ramsey I-10 8th $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.10 0.13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Ramsey 8th Highland Springs $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.24 0.33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning SR-243 I-10 Wesley $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.31 0.46 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Home Sunset $30,502,000 $30,502,000 $226,000 0% 0% 0.10 0.11 $0 $0 $0 $226,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Smith Creek bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 $288,000 0% 0% 0.10 0.11 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Montgomery Creek bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 $192,000 0% 0% 0.10 0.11 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Springs Highland Home $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.04 0.05 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sunset Ramsey Lincoln $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.13 0.23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sunset I-10 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0% 0% 0.53 0.91 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Wilson Highland Home 8th $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.06 0.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Wilson Highland Springs Highland Home $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.14 0.24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 1st Viele Pennsylvania $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.48 0.57 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 1st Pennsylvania Highland Springs $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.51 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 6th I-10 Highland Springs $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.23 0.47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Desert Lawn Champions Oak Valley (STC) $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.45 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Highland Springs Pennsylvania $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.05 0.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Pennsylvania Oak View $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.14 0.26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Oak View I-10 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.69 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $62,401,000 $0 0% 0% 0.90 1.14 99% $660,000 $0 $660,000 $0 $0 $0 $660,000 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC) UP Railroad Tukwet Canyon $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.01 0.23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC) Tukwet Canyon I-10 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.09 0.38 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania 6th 1st $6,588,000 $6,588,000 $49,000 0% 0% 0.52 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $49,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania I-10 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.51 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Bryant County Line Avenue L $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.38 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Calimesa County Line I-10 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.13 0.38 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Calimesa I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000 $0 0% 0% 0.54 1.59 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa County Line 7th Bryant $0 $0 $0 Between I-10 WB On Ramp and Calimesa, and Park and 5th 13% 13% 0.54 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa County Line I-10 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0% 0% 0.88 1.26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Desert Lawn Palmer Champions $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.04 0.44 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Singleton Avenue L Condit $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.43 0.64 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Singleton Condit Roberts $12,972,000 $12,972,000 $96,000 0% 0% 0.74 1.14 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $0 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Singleton I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $0 $0 0% 0% 1.04 0.99 0% $63,061,000 $0 $63,061,000 $0 $0 $0 $63,061,000 Pass Calimesa Tukwet Canyon Roberts Rd Palmer $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.71 1.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Live Oak Canyon Oak Valley (STC) San Bernardino County $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.36 0.47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon San Bernardino County UP Railroad $0 $0 $0 Between San Bernardino County and Redlands 22% 22% 0.31 0.66 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon UP Railroad railroad crossing $52,780,000 $52,780,000 $1,820,000 0% 0% 0.08 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $1,820,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Acacia Menlo $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.74 0.92 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Domenigoni Stetson $0 $0 $0 Between Stetson and Thornton 26% 26% 0.79 1.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson RR Crossing Acacia $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.82 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Stetson RR Crossing $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.77 1.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Menlo Esplanade $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.72 0.95 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida) Warren Cawston $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.62 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida) Columbia Ramona $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.47 0.57 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74/SR-79 (Florida) Cawston Columbia $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.38 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Domenigoni Chambers $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.44 0.92 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Chambers Stetson $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.51 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Florida Esplanade $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.33 0.53 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Stetson Florida $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.57 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Cawston State $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.49 0.68 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Warren Cawston $4,357,000 $4,357,000 $113,000 0% 0% 0.59 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Warren Esplanade Domenigoni $19,926,000 $19,926,000 $517,000 Between Devonshire and Stetson 31% 31% 0.79 1.10 $0 $0 $0 $517,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Warren Salt Creek bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 $144,000 0% 0% 0.64 1.05 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Mountain State $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.33 0.39 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade State Warren $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.37 0.55 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Sanderson Ramona Esplanade $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.53 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (North Ramona) State San Jacinto $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.55 0.70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto) North Ramona Blvd 7th $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.70 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto) 7th SR-74 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.32 0.46 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Ramona Esplanade $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.60 0.78 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Gilman Springs Quandt Ranch $3,317,000 $3,317,000 $86,000 0% 0% 0.82 1.01 $0 $0 $0 $86,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State San Jacinto River bridge $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.86 1.03 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Quandt Ranch Ramona $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.39 0.46 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Warren Ramona Esplanade $13,469,000 $13,469,000 $350,000 0% 0% 0.67 0.89 $0 $0 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Sanderson State $11,097,000 $11,097,000 $288,000 0% 0% 0.83 1.07 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Massacre Canyon Wash bridge $1,392,000 $1,392,000 $48,000 0% 0% 0.85 1.11 $0 $0 $0 $48,000 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) SR-74 (Florida) Domenigoni $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.66 1.05 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EXHIBIT H-2 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate - Existing Need and Obligated Funding Updated: July 23, 2024 AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE MAX TUMF MSHCP SHARE EXIST NEED LOS E&F SEGMENT DESCRIPTION % EXIST NEED >2 LANE ADJST EXIST V/C FUTURE V/C TUMF V/C SHARE EXIST NEED OBLIGATED UNFUND EXIST NEED MSHCP MSHCP EXIST NEED MSHCP UNFUND EXIST NEED COMBINED UNFUND EXIST NEED Southwest Lake Elsinore Corydon Mission Grand $3,336,000 $3,336,000 $87,000 0% 0% 0.73 1.02 $0 $0 $0 $87,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Diamond Mission I-15 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.73 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Franklin (integral to Railroad CI-15 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0% 0% 0.66 1.25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Lincoln Toft $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.47 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Toft SR-74 (Riverside) $3,512,000 $3,512,000 $91,000 0% 0% 0.68 0.92 $0 $0 $0 $91,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 Lincoln $39,817,000 $32,726,000 $335,000 Between Orange Grove and the I-15 SB On Ramp 76% 76% 0.99 1.28 77% $7,091,000 $0 $7,091,000 $407,000 $73,000 $73,000 $7,164,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $15,771,000 $0 0% 0% 1.08 1.25 48% $16,927,000 $0 $16,927,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,927,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake Temescal Wash bridge $2,506,000 $1,150,000 $39,000 0% 0% 1.12 1.31 46% $1,356,000 $0 $1,356,000 $86,000 $0 $0 $1,356,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Mission Railroad Canyon Bundy Canyon $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.48 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 Lake $7,850,000 $7,850,000 $204,000 0% 0% 0.59 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $204,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols Temescal Wash bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 $144,000 0% 0% 0.63 1.12 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000 $0 0% 0% 0.63 1.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Collier/Riverside) I-15 Lakeshore $24,303,000 $24,303,000 $180,000 Between Strickland and Co llier 31% 31% 0.86 1.05 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Grand) Riverside SR-74 (Ortega) $9,733,000 $3,691,000 $27,000 Between Riverside and Ortega 100% 100% 1.19 1.37 38% $6,042,000 $0 $6,042,000 $72,000 $45,000 $45,000 $6,087,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Riverside) Lakeshore Grand $20,175,000 $20,175,000 $150,000 Between Lakeshore and Raven 31% 31% 0.78 0.91 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon I-15 Lake $7,411,000 $7,411,000 $211,000 0% 0% 0.64 1.17 $0 $0 $0 $211,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon Temescal Wash bridge $3,480,000 $3,480,000 $120,000 0% 0% 0.85 1.28 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jefferson I-15 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.47 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks I-15 Jackson $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.76 0.89 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jackson Clinton Keith $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.65 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jackson Whitewood Ynez $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.32 0.62 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Palomar Nutmeg $1,562,000 $1,562,000 $44,000 0% 0% 0.07 0.10 $0 $0 $0 $44,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Nutmeg Murrieta Hot Springs $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.46 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Murrieta Hot Springs Cherry $30,634,000 $30,634,000 $227,000 0% 0% 0.47 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $227,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 Whitewood $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.20 0.45 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 interchange $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.09 0.06 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Los Alamos Jefferson I-215 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.24 0.38 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson I-215 $0 $0 $0 Between Hancock and I-215 17% 17% 0.62 0.90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs I-215 Margarita $0 $0 $0 Between I-215 and I-215 NB On Ramp, and Alta Murrieta and St. Maria 11% 11% 0.82 1.08 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Margarita SR-79 (Winchester) $4,057,000 $3,899,000 $101,000 Between Margarita and Calle del Lago 57% 57% 0.93 1.33 93% $158,000 $0 $158,000 $105,000 $4,000 $4,000 $162,000 Southwest Murrieta Nutmeg Jefferson Clinton Keith $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.45 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Clinton Keith Los Alamos $2,708,000 $2,708,000 $77,000 0% 0% 0.45 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $77,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Los Alamos Murrieta Hot Springs $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.45 0.75 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Murrieta Hot Springs Jackson $4,629,000 $4,629,000 $47,000 0% 0% 0.15 0.16 $0 $0 $0 $47,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Ynez Jackson SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.62 1.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Murrieta Hot Springs Calle Chapos $816,000 $816,000 $0 0% 0% 0.61 1.15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Calle Chapos La Serena $696,000 $696,000 $0 0% 0% 0.58 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage La Serena Rancho California $904,000 $904,000 $0 Between La Serena and Rancho California 100% 100% 0.95 1.21 85% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Rancho California Pauba $846,000 $846,000 $0 Between Rancho California and Creek 5% 5% 0.55 0.88 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Pauba SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) $725,000 $725,000 $21,000 0% 0% 0.49 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Jefferson Cherry Rancho California $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $0 0% 0% 0.34 0.92 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Margarita Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) $7,644,000 $7,644,000 $0 Between Winchester and Campos Verdes, and Solana and 250 ft North of Ramsey 5% 5% 0.65 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Old Town Front Rancho California I-15/SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.68 1.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Via Gilberto $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.72 1.02 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy Via Gilberto Pechanga Pkwy $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.42 0.52 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Jefferson Margarita $18,254,000 $18,181,000 $101,000 Between I-15 SB On Ramp and I-15, and Moraga and Cosmic 40% 40% 0.90 1.37 99% $73,000 $0 $73,000 $101,000 $0 $0 $73,000 Southwest Temecula Rancho California I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $0 $0 0% 0% 1.55 2.67 63% $12,098,000 $32,698,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Margarita Butterfield Stage $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.63 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) I-15 Pechanga Pkwy $0 $0 $0 Between I-15 and Pechanga 100% 100% 1.08 1.42 65% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Pechanga Pkwy Butterfield Stage $3,065,000 $3,065,000 $0 0% 0% 0.65 0.88 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Briggs Scott SR-79 (Winchester) $6,509,000 $6,509,000 $169,000 0% 0% 0.41 0.70 $0 $0 $0 $169,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Tucalota Creek bridge $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.41 0.70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage (Pourroy) Auld Murrieta Hot Springs $23,076,000 $23,076,000 $656,000 Between Auld and Honey Pine 23% 12% 0.88 0.99 $0 $0 $0 $656,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Grand Ortega Corydon $68,025,000 $68,025,000 $505,000 Between Zinck and Stoneman, and Ontario and Corydon 16% 16% 0.80 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $505,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Horsethief Canyon Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.81 0.64 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Indian Truck Trail Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.15 0.21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Winchester) Pourroy $0 $0 $0 Between Winchester and Vons 4% 4% 0.46 0.86 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Pala Pechanga San Diego County $0 $0 $0 Between Pechango and Rainbow Oaks 48% 48% 0.88 1.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Pourroy SR-79 (Winchester) Auld $2,236,000 $2,236,000 $64,000 0% 0% 0.42 0.57 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Rancho California Butterfield Stage Glen Oaks $87,369,000 $87,369,000 $482,000 0% 0% 0.65 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $482,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Horsethief Canyon Wash bridge $3,340,000 $3,340,000 $115,000 0% 0% 0.66 0.86 $0 $0 $0 $115,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Truck Trail I-15 $15,739,000 $15,739,000 $447,000 0% 0% 0.64 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $447,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Wash bridge $1,462,000 $1,462,000 $50,000 0% 0% 0.61 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Mission I-15 $9,704,000 $9,704,000 $72,000 0% 0% 0.60 0.90 $0 $0 $0 $72,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Grand Corydon Wildomar Trail $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.72 0.89 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Mission Bundy Canyon Palomar $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.20 0.43 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Palomar Clinton Keith Washington $3,227,000 $3,227,000 $84,000 0% 0% 0.59 0.88 $0 $0 $0 $84,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Palomar Mission Clinton Keith $13,493,000 $13,493,000 $383,000 0% 0% 0.60 0.88 $0 $0 $0 $383,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 Baxter $1,281,000 $1,281,000 $33,000 Between I-15 SB On Ramp to Baxter 73% 73% 0.87 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $33,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $27,858,000 $0 0% 0% 0.94 1.15 85% $4,840,000 $0 $4,840,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,840,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Baxter Palomar $11,316,000 $11,316,000 $84,000 Between Baxter and Cervera 35% 35% 0.82 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $84,000 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Palomar Grand $0 $0 $0 0% 0% 0.87 1.03 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $2,508,329,000 $1,913,028,000 $23,597,000 13.2% $365,640,000 $264,315,000 $330,986,000 $32,098,000 $318,000 $318,000 $331,304,000 Totals Network 4,840,250,000$ 3,874,735,000$ 53,859,000$ 12.0% Network Unfunded Existing Need Adjustment 652,275,000$ 382,886,000$ 582,629,000$ 64,606,000$ 1,410,000$ 1,263,000$ 583,892,000$ Transit 217,870,000$ 154,831,000$ 28.9% Transit Existing Need Adjustment 63,039,000$ Administration 161,183,000$ 161,183,000$
MSHCP 64,606,000$ 53,859,000$ 1,263,000$ TOTAL 5,283,909,000$ 4,244,608,000$ 12.2% Total Unfunded Existing Need Adjustment 646,931,000$ EXHIBIT H-3 Regional Transit Existing Need Share
Summary of Transit Trip Change
Year Western Riverside
Daily Transit Trips
2023* 16,575
2045** 57,282
Growth 2023 - 2045 40,707
Existing Need Share: 28.9%
Future Growth Share: 71.1%
Notes:

Riverside City CouncilFebruary 25, 2025

Riverside City Council
February 25, 2025