Cities Index.
Agenda

Temecula City Council
February 11, 2025

Document
Agenda
Meeting
February 11, 2025
Body
Temecula City Council
Pages
13
Original file
2.0 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on laserfiche.temeculaca.gov. That file is the official record.

31.62 32.41

33.23 34.06

34.91 35.78

36.67 37.59

38.53 39.49

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 Monthly
5,480.80
5,617.73
5,759.87
5,903.73
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
Annually
65,769.60
67,412.80
69,118.40
70,844.80
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
IT Technician 1 1 709-001 Hourly

30.10 30.86

31.62 32.41

33.23 34.06

34.91 35.78

36.67 37.59

38.53 39.49

40.48 41.49

42.53 Monthly
5,217.33
5,349.07
5,480.80
5,617.73
5,759.87
5,903.73
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
Annually
62,608.00
64,188.80
65,769.60
67,412.80
69,118.40
70,844.80
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40

MEDIA/MARKETING
Multimedia Coordinator 3 921-004 Hourly

39.49 40.48

41.49 42.53

43.59 44.68

45.80 46.95

48.12 49.32

50.56 Monthly
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
Annually
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
Multimedia Specialist 11 2 922-003 Hourly

35.78 36.67

37.59 38.53

39.49 40.48

41.49 42.53

43.59 44.68

45.80 Monthly
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
Annually
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
Multimedia Specialist 1 2 923-002 Hourly

34.06 34.91

35.78 36.67

37.59 38.53

39.49 40.48

41.49 42.53

43.59 Monthly
5,903.73
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
Annually
70,844.80
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
Multimedia Assistant 1 924-001 Hourly

32.41 33.23

34.06 34.91

35.78 36.67

37.59 38.53

39.49 40.48

41.49 Monthly
5,617.73
5,759.87
5,903.73
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
Annually
67,412.80
69,118.40
70,844.80
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20

PUBLIC WORKS
Director of PW/City Engineer 8 400-008 Hourly

89.21 91.43

93.73 96.06

98.47 100.93
103.45
106.04
108.68
111.41
114.19
117.05
119.97
122.97
126.05
Monthly
15,463.07
15,847.87
16,246.53
16,650.40
17,068.13
17,494.53
17,931.33
18,380.27
18,837.87
19,311.07
19,792.93
20,288.67
20,794.80
21,314.80
21,848.67
Annually
185,556.80
190,174.40
194,958.40
199,804.80
204,817.60
209,934.40
215,176.00
220,563.20
226,054.40
231,732.80
237,515.20
243,464.00
249,537.60
255,777.60
262,184.00
Assistant Director of Public Works 7 480-007 Hourly

78.85 80.81

82.83 84.91

87.03 89.21

91.43 93.73

96.06 98.47
100.93
103.45
106.04
108.68
111.41
Monthly
13,667.33
14,007.07
14,357.20
14,717.73
15,085.20
15,463.07
15,847.87
16,246.53
16,650.40
17,068.13
17,494.53
17,931.33
18,380.27
18,837.87
19,311.07
Annually
164,008.00
168,084.80
172,286.40
176,612.80
181,022.40
185,556.80
190,174.40
194,958.40
199,804.80
204,817.60
209,934.40
215,176.00
220,563.20
226,054.40
231,732.80
Program Manager 7 402-007 Hourly

50.56 51.82

53.11 54.44

55.80 57.20

58.63 60.09

61.60 63.13

64.71 66.33

67.99 69.69

71.43 Monthly
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
10,162.53
10,415.60
10,677.33
10,942.53
11,216.40
11,497.20
11,784.93
12,079.60
12,381.20
Annually
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
121,950.40
124,987.20
128,128.00
131,310.40
134,596.80
137,966.40
141,419.20
144,955.20
148,574.40

PUBLIC WORKS - CUSTODIAL
Custodian 11 2 460-002 Hourly

21.83 22.38

22.93 23.51

24.10 24.71

25.32 25.95

26.60 27.27

27.95 Monthly
3,783.87
3,879.20
3,974.53
4,075.07
4,177.33
4,283.07
4,388.80
4,498.00
4,610.67
4,726.80
4,844.67
Annually
45,406.40
46,550.40
47,694.40
48,900.80
50,128.00
51,396.80
52,665.60
53,976.00
55,328.00
56,721.60
58,136.00
Custodian 1 1 461-001 Hourly

19.78 20.28

20.78 21.30

21.83 22.38

22.93 23.51

24.10 24.71

25.32 Monthly
3,428.53
3,515.20
3,601.87
3,692.00
3,783.87
3,879.20
3,974.53
4,075.07
4,177.33
4,283.07
4,388.80
Annually
41,142.40
42,182.40
43,222.40
44,304.00
45,406.40
46,550.40
47,694.40
48,900.80
50,128.00
51,396.80
52,665.60
PAGE 10 OF 13

CITY OF TEMECULA

SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE February 11, 2025
Adopted by City Council on February 11, 2025
Salary Step-,�� MCP Only M
Class Family / Title Level Class Code Time Base

PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
Principal Civil Engineer 6 402-006 Hourly

67.99 69.69

71.43 73.22

75.05 76.92

78.85 80.81

82.83 84.91

87.03 89.21

91.43 93.73

96.06 Monthly
11,784.93
12,079.60
12,381.20
12,691.47
13,008.67
13,332.80
13,667.33
14,007.07
14,357.20
14,717.73
15,085.20
15,463.07
15,847.87
16,246.53
16,650.40
Annually
141,419.20
144,955.20
148,574.40
152,297.60
156,104.00
159,993.60
164,008.00
168,084.80
172,286.40
176,612.80
181,022.40
185,556.80
190,174.40
194,958.40
199,804.80
Senior Civil Engineer 5 403-005 Hourly

61.60 63.13

64.71 66.33

67.99 69.69

71.43 73.22

75.05 76.92

78.85 80.81

82.83 84.91

87.03 Monthly
10,677.33
10,942.53
11,216.40
11,497.20
11,784.93
12,079.60
12,381.20
12,691.47
13,008.67
13,332.80
13,667.33
14,007.07
14,357.20
14,717.73
15,085.20
Annually
128,128.00
131,310.40
134,596.80
137,966.40
141,419.20
144,955.20
148,574.40
152,297.60
156,104.00
159,993.60
164,008.00
168,084.80
172,286.40
176,612.80
181,022.40
Associate Civil Engineer 4 404-004 Hourly

54.44 55.80

57.20 58.63

60.09 61.60

63.13 64.71

66.33 67.99

69.69 Monthly
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
10,162.53
10,415.60
10,677.33
10,942.53
11,216.40
11,497.20
11,784.93
12,079.60
Annually
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
121,950.40
124,987.20
128,128.00
131,310.40
134,596.80
137,966.40
141,419.20
144,955.20
Associate Engineer II 4 405-004 Hourly

51.82 53.11

54.44 55.80

57.20 58.63

60.09 61.60

63.13 64.71

66.33 Monthly
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
10,162.53
10,415.60
10,677.33
10,942.53
11,216.40
11,497.20
Annually
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
121,950.40
124,987.20
128,128.00
131,310.40
134,596.80
137,966.40
Associate Engineer 1 3 406-003 Hourly

46.95 48.12

49.32 50.56

51.82 53.11

54.44 55.80

57.20 58.63

60.09 Monthly
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
10,162.53
10,415.60
Annually
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
121,950.40
124,987.20
Assistant Engineer II 2 407-002 Hourly

42.53 43.59

44.68 45.80

46.95 48.12

49.32 50.56

51.82 53.11

54.44 Monthly
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
Annually
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
Assistant Engineer 1 2 408-002 Hourly

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 45.80

46.95 48.12

49.32 50.56

51.82 Monthly
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
Annually
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
Engineering Technician II 1 409-001 Hourly

36.67 37.59

38.53 39.49

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 45.80

46.95 Monthly
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
Annually
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
Engineering Technician 1 1 410-001 Hourly

34.91 35.78

36.67 37.59

38.53 39.49

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 Monthly
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
Annually
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40

PUBLIC WORKS - INSPECTIONS
Supervising PW Inspector 4 420-004 Hourly

49.32 50.56

51.82 53.11

54.44 55.80

57.20 58.63

60.09 61.60

63.13 Monthly
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
10,162.53
10,415.60
10,677.33
10,942.53
Annually
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
121,950.40
124,987.20
128,128.00
131,310.40
Senior PW Inspector 3 421-003 Hourly

44.68 45.80

46.95 48.12

49.32 50.56

51.82 53.11

54.44 55.80

57.20 Monthly
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
Annually
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
PW Inspector II 2 422-002 Hourly

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 45.80

46.95 48.12

49.32 50.56

51.82 Monthly
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
Annually
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
PW Inspector 1 1 423-001 Hourly

36.67 37.59

38.53 39.49

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 45.80

46.95 Monthly
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
Annually
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00

PUBLIC WORKS - MAINTENANCE
Maintenance Manager 7 430-007 Hourly

66.33 67.99

69.69 71.43

73.22 75.05

76.92 78.85

80.81 82.83

84.91 87.03

89.21 91.43

93.73 Monthly
11,497.20
11,784.93
12,079.60
12,381.20
12,691.47
13,008.67
13,332.80
13,667.33
14,007.07
14,357.20
14,717.73
15,085.20
15,463.07
15,847.87
16,246.53
Annually
137,966.40
141,419.20
144,955.20
148,574.40
152,297.60
156,104.00
159,993.60
164,008.00
168,084.80
172,286.40
176,612.80
181,022.40
185,556.80
190,174.40
194,958.40
Maintenance Superintendent 6 431-006 Hourly

60.09 61.60

63.13 64.71

66.33 67.99

69.69 71.43

73.22 75.05

76.92 78.85

80.81 82.83

84.91 Monthly
10,415.60
10,677.33
10,942.53
11,216.40
11,497.20
11,784.93
12,079.60
12,381.20
12,691.47
13,008.67
13,332.80
13,667.33
14,007.07
14,357.20
14,717.73
Annually
124,987.20
128,128.00
131,310.40
134,596.80
137,966.40
141,419.20
144,955.20
148,574.40
152,297.60
156,104.00
159,993.60
164,008.00
168,084.80
172,286.40
176,612.80
PAGE 11 OF 13

CITY OF TEMECULA

SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE February 11, 2025
Adopted by City Council on February 11, 2025
M Salary Step-,�� MCP Only
Class Family / Title Level Class Code Time Base

PUBLIC WORKS - LANDSCAPE
Maintenance Supervisor- Landscape 5 443-005 Hourly

49.32 50.56

51.82 53.11

54.44 55.80

57.20 58.63

60.09 61.60

63.13 64.71

66.33 67.99

69.69 Monthly
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
10,162.53
10,415.60
10,677.33
10,942.53
11,216.40
11,497.20
11,784.93
12,079.60
Annually
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
121,950.40
124,987.20
128,128.00
131,310.40
134,596.80
137,966.40
141,419.20
144,955.20
Field Supervisor - Landscape 4 444-004 Hourly

44.68 45.80

46.95 48.12

49.32 50.56

51.82 53.11

54.44 55.80

57.20 Monthly
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
Annually
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
Senior Landscape Inspector 3 440-003 Hourly

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 45.80

46.95 48.12

49.32 50.56

51.82 Monthly
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
Annually
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
Landscape Inspector II 2 441-002 Hourly

36.67 37.59

38.53 39.49

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 45.80

46.95 Monthly
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
Annually
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
Landscape Inspector 1 1 442-001 Hourly

33.23 34.06

34.91 35.78

36.67 37.59

38.53 39.49

40.48 41.49

42.53 Monthly
5,759.87
5,903.73
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
Annually
69,118.40
70,844.80
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40

PUBLIC WORKS - PARK ATTENDANT
Supervising Park Attendant 4 490-004 Hourly

42.53 43.59

44.68 45.80

46.95 48.12

49.32 50.56

51.82 53.11

54.44 Monthly
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
Annually
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
Park Attendant III 3 491-003 Hourly

38.53 39.49

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 45.80

46.95 48.12

49.32 Monthly
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
Annually
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
Park Attendant 11 2 492-002 Hourly

34.91 35.78

36.67 37.59

38.53 39.49

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 Monthly
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
Annually
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
Park Attendant 1 1 493-001 Hourly

31.62 32.41

33.23 34.06

34.91 35.78

36.67 37.59

38.53 39.49

40.48 Monthly
5,480.80
5,617.73
5,759.87
5,903.73
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
Annually
65,769.60
67,412.80
69,118.40
70,844.80
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40

PUBLIC WORKS - STREETS/PARKS
Maintenance Supervisor - Streets/Parks 5 432-005 Hourly

45.80 46.95

48.12 49.32

50.56 51.82

53.11 54.44

55.80 57.20

58.63 60.09

61.60 63.13

64.71 Monthly
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
10,162.53
10,415.60
10,677.33
10,942.53
11,216.40
Annually
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
121,950.40
124,987.20
128,128.00
131,310.40
134,596.80
Field Supervisor - Streets/Parks 4 433-004 Hourly

34.91 35.78

36.67 37.59

38.53 39.49

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 Monthly
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
Annually
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
Lead Maintenance Worker - Streets/Parks 3 434-003 Hourly

31.62 32.41

33.23 34.06

34.91 35.78

36.67 37.59

38.53 39.49

40.48 Monthly
5,480.80
5,617.73
5,759.87
5,903.73
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
Annually
65,769.60
67,412.80
69,118.40
70,844.80
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
Maintenance Worker 11 - Streets/Parks 2 435-002 Hourly

28.64 29.37

30.10 30.86

31.62 32.41

33.23 34.06

34.91 35.78

36.67 Monthly
4,964.27
5,090.80
5,217.33
5,349.07
5,480.80
5,617.73
5,759.87
5,903.73
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
Annually
59,571.20
61,089.60
62,608.00
64,188.80
65,769.60
67,412.80
69,118.40
70,844.80
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
Maintenance Worker I - Streets/Parks 1 436-001 Hourly

25.95 26.60

27.27 27.95

28.64 29.37

30.10 30.86

31.62 32.41

33.23 Monthly
4,498.00
4,610.67
4,726.80
4,844.67
4,964.27
5,090.80
5,217.33
5,349.07
5,480.80
5,617.73
5,759.87
Annually
53,976.00
55,328.00
56,721.60
58,136.00
59,571.20
61,089.60
62,608.00
64,188.80
65,769.60
67,412.80
69,118.40
PAGE 12OF13

CITY OF TEMECULA

SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE February 11, 2025
Adopted by City Council on February 11, 2025
Salary Step_,�� MCP Only
Class Family / Title Level Class Code Time Base

PUBLIC WORKS - FACILITIES
Maintenance Supervisor- Facilities 5 432-005 Hourly

45.80 46.95

48.12 49.32

50.56 51.82

53.11 54.44

55.80 57.20

58.63 60.09

61.60 63.13

64.71 Monthly
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
10,162.53
10,415.60
10,677.33
10,942.53
11,216.40
Annually
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
121,950.40
124,987.20
128,128.00
131,310.40
134,596.80
Field Supervisor - Facilities 4 472-004 Hourly

41.49 42.53

43.59 44.68

45.80 46.95

48.12 49.32

50.56 51.82

53.11 Monthly
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
Annually
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
Lead Maintenance Worker- Facilities 3 473-003 Hourly

37.59 38.53

39.49 40.48

41.49 42.53

43.59 44.68

45.80 46.95

48.12 Monthly
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
Annually
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
Maintenance Worker II - Facilities 2 474-002 Hourly

34.06 34.91

35.78 36.67

37.59 38.53

39.49 40.48

41.49 42.53

43.59 Monthly
5,903.73
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
Annually
70,844.80
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
Maintenance Worker I - Facilities 1 475-001 Hourly

30.86 31.62

32.41 33.23

34.06 34.91

35.78 36.67

37.59 38.53

39.49 Monthly
5,349.07
5,480.80
5,617.73
5,759.87
5,903.73
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
Annually
64,188.80
65,769.60
67,412.80
69,118.40
70,844.80
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20

PUBLIC WORKS - TRADES
Maintenance Supervisor - Trades 5 482-005 Hourly

48.12 49.32

50.56 51.82

53.11 54.44

55.80 57.20

58.63 60.09

61.60 63.13

64.71 66.33

67.99 Monthly
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
10,162.53
10,415.60
10,677.33
10,942.53
11,216.40
11,497.20
11,784.93
Annually
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
121,950.40
124,987.20
128,128.00
131,310.40
134,596.80
137,966.40
141,419.20
Field Supervisor - Trades 4 483-004 Hourly

43.59 44.68

45.80 46.95

48.12 49.32

50.56 51.82

53.11 54.44

55.80 Monthly
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
Annually
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
Lead Maintenance Worker - Trades 3 484-003 Hourly

39.49 40.48

41.49 42.53

43.59 44.68

45.80 46.95

48.12 49.32

50.56 Monthly
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
Annually
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
Maintenance Worker 11 -Trades 2 485-002 Hourly

35.78 36.67

37.59 38.53

39.49 40.48

41.49 42.53

43.59 44.68

45.80 Monthly
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
Annually
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
Maintenance Worker I -Trades 1 486-001 Hourly

32.41 33.23

34.06 34.91

35.78 36.67

37.59 38.53

39.49 40.48

41.49 Monthly
5,617.73
5,759.87
5,903.73
6,051.07
6,201.87
6,356.13
6,515.60
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
Annually
67,412.80
69,118.40
70,844.80
72,612.80
74,422.40
76,273.60
78,187.20
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20

PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Maintenance Supervisor - Signals 5 453-005 Hourly

54.44 55.80

57.20 58.63

60.09 61.60

63.13 64.71

66.33 67.99

69.69 71.43

73.22 75.05

76.92 Monthly
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
10,162.53
10,415.60
10,677.33
10,942.53
11,216.40
11,497.20
11,784.93
12,079.60
12,381.20
12,691.47
13,008.67
13,332.80
Annually
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
121,950.40
124,987.20
128,128.00
131,310.40
134,596.80
137,966.40
141,419.20
144,955.20
148,574.40
152,297.60
156,104.00
159,993.60
Field Supervisor - Signals 4 454-004 Hourly

49.32 50.56

51.82 53.11

54.44 55.80

57.20 58.63

60.09 61.60

63.13 Monthly
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
10,162.53
10,415.60
10,677.33
10,942.53
Annually
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
121,950.40
124,987.20
128,128.00
131,310.40
Senior Signal Technician 3 450-003 Hourly

44.68 45.80

46.95 48.12

49.32 50.56

51.82 53.11

54.44 55.80

57.20 Monthly
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
9,205.73
9,436.27
9,672.00
9,914.67
Annually
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
110,468.80
113,235.20
116,064.00
118,976.00
Signal Technician II 2 451-002 Hourly

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 45.80

46.95 48.12

49.32 50.56

51.82 Monthly
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
8,763.73
8,982.13
Annually
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
105,164.80
107,785.60
Signal Technician 1 2 452-002 Hourly

38.53 39.49

40.48 41.49

42.53 43.59

44.68 45.80

46.95 48.12

49.32 Monthly
6,678.53
6,844.93
7,016.53
7,191.60
7,371.87
7,555.60
7,744.53
7,938.67
8,138.00
8,340.80
8,548.80
Annually
80,142.40
82,139.20
84,198.40
86,299.20
88,462.40
90,667.20
92,934.40
95,264.00
97,656.00
100,089.60
102,585.60
PAGE 13 OF 13

RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2025-

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE

CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR
2024-25 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position.

Section 2. That each year a Mid -Year review is conducted of all Temecula Community Services (TCSD) operating budgets.

Section 3. That the Mid -Year review has been completed and the recommended adjustments are reflected in the schedules attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Section 4. That the Fiscal Year 2024-25 TCSD operating budgets are amended in accordance with the attached schedules.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula this 1 lth day of February, 2025.

Zak Schwank, President
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 2025- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 1 Ph day of February, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:

NOES: BOARD MEMBERS:
:•::� a u:

ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, Secretary
N

EXHIBIT A
Temecula Community
Services District

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 190 - TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FUND
% Change
2024-25
Year to Date
2024-25 Q2
from
2023-24
Current
Actuals
Revised
Requested
Current
Description
Actuals
Budget
12-31-2024
Budget
Adjustments
Budget
Revenues by Source
Taxes and Franchises
Special Tax (Measure C)
1,908,085
1,926,088
25,985
1,926,088
0 0.0
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Contract Classes
1,021,502
1,200,000
710,660
1,200,000
0 0.0
Classes/Activities
119,859
67,640
38,868
68,239
599

0.9 %
Facility Rentals
426,489
373,650
228,043
382,579
8,929

2.4 %
Aquatics
245,054
237,966
191,437
238,966
1,000

0.4 Museum Admissions
103,604
94,335
55,441
97,435
3,100

3.3 Theater Admissions
270,541
295,000
159,061
297,000
2,000

0.7 Sports Leagues & Tournaments
301,153
231,993
123,894
224,193
(7,800)
-3.4 %
Day Camps
115,727
116,721
10,104
116,721
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
51,789
4,000
11,193
11,356
7,356
183.9 %
Other
3,117
0 0
0 0

0.0 Reimbursements
Other Reimbursements
18,077
93,077
195,630
106,510
13,433

14.4 Operating Transfers In
Contribution From Measure S
13,254,402
16,175,055
8,087,528
15,864,726
(310,329)
-1.9 %
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
102,984
87,851
29,171
93,277
5,426

6.2 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
17,942,382
20,903,376
9,867,016
20,627,090
(276,286)
-1.3 %
Expenditures by Category
Salaries & Benefits
10,594,330
12,630,487
6,220,371
12,580,493
(49,994)
-0.4
Operations & Maintenance
4,870,642
5,623,695
2,648,148
5,846,761
223,066

4.0 Internal Service Fund Allocations
2,694,441
2,724,332
1,928,562
2,724,332
0 0.0 %
Capital Outlay
37,765
0 0
0 0

0.0 Transfers
37,706
0 0
0 0

0.0 Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
18,234,885
20,978,514
10,797,081
21,151,586
173,072

0.8 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
(292,503)
(75,138)
(930,065)
(524,496)
(449,358)
598.0 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
916,999
624,497
624,497
Fund Balance, End of Year
624,497
549,359
100,000
Fund Description
Citywide Operations reflects the collection of the
Special Tax (Measure C) charged to households for recreation programs as well as fees for classes and activities. Accounts for facility operations, maintenance, and community
recreation
programs. Measure C was
approved by residents in 1997 at a rate of $74.44
per parcel for
the purpose of maintaining the City's parks, recreation facilities, arterial street lighting and traffic signals. The Special Tax revenue is allocated equally between TCSD and the General Fund to fund both recreation programs and parks maintenance.

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 191 - TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREETLIGHT REPLACEMENT FUND Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
54,595
8,000
33,928
43,442
35,442
443.0
Operating Transfers In
Operating Transfers In
200,000
200,000
100,000
200,000
0 0.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
254,595
208,000
133,928
243,442
35,442

17.0 Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
254,595
208,000
133,928
243,442
35,442

17.0 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
1,069,628
1,324,223
1,324,223
Fund Balance, End of Year
1,324,223
1,532,223
1,567,665
Fund Description
This fund was established to accumulate resources for the replacement of streetlight equipment, poles and lightbulbs, as the City has acquired street lights from Southern California Edison, and to install new street lights as needed throughout the City. Each year, $200,000 is transferred to this fund from the TCSD Service Level "B" Street Lights Fund (Fund 192).

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 192 - TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B"

STREET LIGHTS FUND
% Change
2024-25
Year to Date 2024-25 Q2
from
2023-24 Current
Actuals Revised Requested
Current
Description
Actuals Budget
12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments
Budget
Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
654,945 658,307
4,506 658,307 0

0.0 Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
18,319 3,000
11,976 15,399 12,399
413.3 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
673,264 661,307
16,482 673,706 12,399

1.9 %
Expenditures by Category
Transfers
200,000 200,000
100,000 200,000 0

0.0 Operations & Maintenance
341,632 484,000
136,395 484,000 0

0.0 %
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
541,632 684,000
236,395 684,000 0

0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
131,632 (22,693)
(219,913) (10,294) 12,399
-54.6
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
391,634 523,266
523,266
Fund Balance, End of Year
523,266 500,573
512,971
Fund Description
Service Level B reflects the collection of benefit assessments charged to property owners. Service Level B includes only those
parcels within residential subdivisions that receive residential street lighting services. This service level includes operational,
administrative, maintenance and utility costs of residential streetlights. Each year, $200,000 is transferred from this fund to the TCSD Service Level "B" Streetlight Replacement Fund (Fund 191) to accommodate these costs.

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 194 - TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING FUND % Change
2024-25
Year to Date
2024-25 Q2
from
2023-24
Current
Actuals
Revised
Requested
Current
Description
Actuals
Budget
12-31-2024
Budget
Adjustments
Budget
Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
10,437,416
10,588,128
74,814
10,588,128
0 0.0
Recycling Program
63,832
27,553
0 27,553
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
61,480
8,000
32,119
30,067
22,067
275.8
Intergovernmental Revenues
Grants
290,059
127,037
0 127,037
0 0.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
10,852,787
10,750,718
106,933
10,772,785
22,067

0.2 %
Expenditures by Category
Salaries & Benefits
80,543
84,022
37,205
79,522
(4,500)
-5.4 %
Operations & Maintenance
10,407,408
11,122,080
146,389
11,122,080
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
10,487,951
11,206,103
183,594
11,201,603
(4,500)

0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
364,835
(455,385)
(76,661)
(428,818)
26,567
-5.8 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
580,363
945,198
945,198
Fund Balance, End of Year
945,198
489,814
516,380
Fund Description
Service Level D Fund is used to collect benefit assessments charged to property owners for the purpose of providing refuse collection, recycling, and street sweeping throughout the City, which is provided
by CR&R.

In addition, Service
Level D has received
grants to increase recycling efforts Citywide.

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 195 - TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREET/ROAD MAINT FUND % Change
2024-25 Year to Date
2024-25 Q2
from
2023-24
Current Actuals
Revised Requested
Current
Description
Actuals
Budget 12-31-2024
Budget Adjustments
Budget
Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
5,504
5,532 259
5,532 0

0.0 Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
1,671
0 1,017
1,303 1,303
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
7,175
5,532 1,276
6,835 1,303

23.5 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
107
10,425 0
10,425 0

0.0 Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
107
10,425 0
10,425 0

0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
7,068
(4,893) 1,276
(3,590) 1,303
-26.6 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
33,055
40,123
40,123
Fund Balance, End of Year
40,123
35,230
36,532
Fund Description
Service Level R Fund reflects the operational, administrative, construction and maintenance costs for certain unpaved roads that
become inaccessible after inclement weather. Zone
R-1 provides service in the Nicolas/Liefer Road area. The maximum rate that can be charged for Zone R-1 for an improved parcel is $115.26 and for an unimproved parcel is $57.62.

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 196 - TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. FUND % Change
2024-25
Year to Date
2024-25 Q2
from
2023-24
Current
Actuals
Revised
Requested
Current
Description
Actuals
Budget
12-31-2024
Budget
Adjustments
Budget
Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
254,788
256,750
0 256,750
0 0.0 %
Harveston Lake Boat Revenue
2,325
0 0
0 0

0.0 %
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
16,275
4,450
9,131
11,702
7,252
163.0 %
Other
176
0 0
0 0

0.0 %
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
6,405
0 3,998
5,000
5,000
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
279,969
261,200
13,129
273,452
12,252

4.7 %
Expenditures by Category
Salaries & Benefits
12,750
14,601
7,246
14,601
0 0.0 %
Operations & Maintenance
255,195
305,400
115,935
305,400
0 0.0 %
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
267,945
320,001
123,180
320,001
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
12,024
(58,801)
(110,052)
(46,548)
12,252
-20.8 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
360,756
372,780
372,780
Fund Balance, End of Year
372,780
313,979
326,232
Fund Description
Service Level L Fund reflects the benefit assessments
charged to property owners for the purpose of maintaining the Harveston Lake
Park. Expenditures include operational, administrative
and maintenance
costs.

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 197 - TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND
% Change
2024-25
Year to Date
2024-25 Q2
from
2023-24
Current
Actuals
Revised
Requested
Current
Description
Actuals
Budget
12-31-2024
Budget
Adjustments
Budget
Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Printing & Copies
10,349
8,919
5,422
8,919
0 0.0 %
Fines and Forfeitures
Fines & Forfeitures
33,807
28,446
6,364
28,446
0 0.0 %
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
18,978
0 6,313
7,650
7,650
100.0 %
Lease/Rental Income
14,754
14,620
7,111
14,620
0 0.0 %
Operating Transfers In
Contribution From Measure S
818,085
1,293,125
646,563
1,127,563
(165,562)
-12.8 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
895,973
1,345,110
671,772
1,187,198
(157,912)
-11.7 %
Expenditures by Category
Salaries & Benefits
226,676
251,675
141,524
262,954
11,279

4.5 %
Operations & Maintenance
528,862
657,337
172,175
625,058
(32,279)
-4.9 %
Internal Service Fund Allocations
388,609
446,566
231,122
446,566
0 0.0 %
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
1,144,148
1,355,578
544,822
1,334,578
(21,000)
-1.5 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
(248,174)
(10,468)
126,951
(147,380)
(136,912)
1,307.9 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
503,501
255,327
255,327
Fund Balance, End of Year
255,327
244,859
107,947
Fund Description
The Library Fund is used to account for the maintenance and operations
of the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library on Pauba Road.

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 198 - PUBLIC ART FUND
Change
2024-25 Year to Date
2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals
Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024
Budget Adjustments Budget
Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Public Art 50,383 3,500 5,924
3,500 0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest 12,134 2,000 7,128
9,136 7,136 356.8
Total Revenues and Other Sources 62,517 5,500 13,051
12,636 7,136 129.7
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance 8,460 113,226 6,316
113,226 0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses 8,460 113,226 6,316
113,226 0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 54,057 (107,726) 6,735 (100,590) 7,136 -6.6
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 226,427 280,483
280,483
Fund Balance, End of Year 280,483 172,758
179,893
Fund Description
This fund was established pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 5.08.040, whereby the fund serves a a depository for the
fees paid in lieu of art as well as monetary donations for public art. The Public Art In Lieu fee is one -tenth of one percent of an eligible development project in excess of $100,000. Eligible uses of this fund include the design, acquisition, installation,
improvement, maintenance and insurance of public artwork; offering of performing arts programs on City property for the community; and art education programs on City property for the community.

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 501 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD FUND
Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments 38,282 37,932 0 37,932 0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest 688 0 503 652 652 100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources 38,970 37,932 503 38,584 652 1.7 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance 32,714 37,766 13,822 37,766 0 0.0 Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses 32,714 37,766 13,822 37,766 0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 6,256 166 (13,318) 818 652 392.7 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 18,201 24,456 24,456
Fund Balance, End of Year 24,456 24,622 25,274
Fund Description
Service Level C Fund reflects the collection of benefit assessments charged to property owners for the purpose of providing perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance throughout the City. Service Level C assesses only those parcels within residential subdivisions receiving TCSD perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance and are separated into 32 zones. The rate levels for Zones 6 and 29, are subject to a Consumer Price Index -Urban Consumers (CPI-U) annual inflator while all other rate levels will not increase. Zones 30-32 will not be assessed, as the property owners have elected to have the landscaping maintained by the respective Homeowner's Associations (HOAs).

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 502 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK FUND Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
42,696
42,542
0 42,542
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
5,808
0 3,414
4,367
4,367
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
48,503
42,542
3,414
46,909
4,367

10.3 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
31,146
40,646
13,109
40,646
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
31,146
40,646
13,109
40,646
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
17,357
1,896
(9,694)
6,263
4,367
230.3
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
121,517
138,874
138,874
Fund Balance, End of Year
138,874
140,770
145,137
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 503 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS FUND Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
Total Revenues and Other Sources
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year
Fund Description
47,111
2,976
47,328
0 0
1,694
47,328
2,188
0 2,188

0.0 100.0
50,087
47,328
1,694
49,516
2,188

4.6 41,869
46,914
25,165
46,914
0 0.0
41,869
46,914
25,165
46,914
0 0.0
8,218
414
(23,471)
2,602
2,188
528.4
66,278
74,496
74,496
74,496
74,910
77,098

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 504 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS FUND
Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
Total Revenues and Other Sources
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year
Fund Description
6,445
315
6,394
0 0
151
6,394
186
0 186

0.0 100.0
6,760
6,394
151
6,580
186

2.9 6,348
6,796
3,833
8,296
1,500

22.1 6,348
6,796
3,833
8,296
1,500

22.1 413
(402)
(3,683)
(1,716)
(1,314)
326.9
7,084
7,497
7,497
7,497
7,095
5,780

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 505 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES FUND
Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
39,025
39,025
0 39,025
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
1,399
0 879
1,119
1,119
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
40,424
39,025
879
40,144
1,119

2.9 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
34,545
37,326
12,676
37,326
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
34,545
37,326
12,676
37,326
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
5,879
1,699
(11,796)
2,818
1,119

65.9 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
32,278
38,157
38,157
Fund Balance, End of Year
38,157
39,856
40,975
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 506 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY FUND Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
29,923
31,452
0 31,452
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
2,105
0 1,267
1,626
1,626
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
32,027
31,452
1,267
33,078
1,626

5.2 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
33,988
31,634
6,951
31,634
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
33,988
31,634
6,951
31,634
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
(1,961)
(182)
(5,684)
1,444
1,626
-893.4
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
54,222
52,261
52,261
Fund Balance, End of Year
52,261
52,079
53,706
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 507 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW FUND
Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
15,219
15,308
0 15,308
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
588
0 403
520
520
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
15,807
15,308
403
15,828
520

3.4 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
10,374
15,224
5,332
15,224
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
10,374
15,224
5,332
15,224
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
5,432
84 (4,930)
604
520
619.4
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
12,141
17,574
17,574
Fund Balance, End of Year
17,574
17,658
18,178
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 508 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE FUND
% Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
137,146
137,025
0 137,025
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
5,029
0 3,019
3,881
3,881
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
142,175
137,025
3,019
140,906
3,881

2.8 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
135,347
137,214
48,498
137,214
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
135,347
137,214
48,498
137,214
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
6,828
(189)
(45,479)
3,692
3,881
-2,053.5 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
126,392
133,220
133,220
Fund Balance, End of Year
133,220
133,031
136,912
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 509 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA FUND
% Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
5,162
5,106
0 5,106
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
1,365
0 747
949
949
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
6,527
5,106
747
6,055
949

18.6 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
7,852
5,143
1,122
5,143
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
7,852
5,143
1,122
5,143
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
(1,325)
(37)
(375)
912
949
-2,566.1 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
30,892
29,567
29,567
Fund Balance, End of Year
29,567
29,530
30,480
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 510 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE FUND
Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
9,744
9,744
0 9,744
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
752
0 411
520
520
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
10,496
9,744
411
10,264
520

5.3 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
9,023
9,477
3,985
9,477
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
9,023
9,477
3,985
9,477
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
1,473
267
(3,574)
787
520
194.8
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
15,873
17,347
17,347
Fund Balance, End of Year
17,347
17,614
18,134
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 511 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW FUND
% Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
2,450
2,450
0 2,450
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
187
0 106
135
135
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
2,637
2,450
106
2,585
135

5.5 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
2,125
2,495
947
2,495
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
2,125
2,495
947
2,495
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
513
(45)
(841)
90 135
-300.3 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
3,986
4,499
4,499
Fund Balance, End of Year
4,499
4,454
4,589
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 512 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS FUND
Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
96,658
96,396
0 96,396
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
3,859
0 2,228
2,885
2,885
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
100,517
96,396
2,228
99,281
2,885

3.0 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
90,433
95,603
46,813
95,603
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
90,433
95,603
46,813
95,603
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
10,085
793
(44,586)
3,678
2,885
363.8
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
89,206
99,290
99,290
Fund Balance, End of Year
99,290
100,083
102,968
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 513 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP FUND Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
34,197
34,224
0 34,224
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
1,484
0 884
1,140
1,140
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
35,681
34,224
884
35,364
1,140

3.3 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
30,103
33,895
13,700
33,895
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
30,103
33,895
13,700
33,895
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
5,578
329
(12,817)
1,469
1,140
346.4
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
33,933
39,511
39,511
Fund Balance, End of Year
39,511
39,840
40,980
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 514 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES FUND % Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
14,909
14,774
0 14,774
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
614
0 330
421
421
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
15,523
14,774
330
15,195
421

2.8 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
13,815
14,770
6,411
14,770
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
13,815
14,770
6,411
14,770
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
1,707
4 (6,081)
425
421
10,519.5 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
13,263
14,970
14,970
Fund Balance, End of Year
14,970
14,974
15,395
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 515 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES FUND Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
9,800
9,800
0 9,800
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
699
0 416
530
530
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
10,499
9,800
416
10,330
530

5.4 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
8,356
9,571
2,925
9,571
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
8,356
9,571
2,925
9,571
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
2,144
229
(2,509)
759
530
231.6
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
15,065
17,209
17,209
Fund Balance, End of Year
17,209
17,438
17,968
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 516 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS FUND
Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
38,034
37,800
0 37,800
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
4,025
0 2,305
2,971
2,971
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
42,059
37,800
2,305
40,771
2,971

7.9 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
30,137
37,152
21,091
37,152
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
30,137
37,152
21,091
37,152
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
11,923
648
(18,785)
3,619
2,971
458.5
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
84,692
96,615
96,615
Fund Balance, End of Year
96,615
97,263
100,233
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 517 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA FUND
% Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
2,171
2,116
0 2,116
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
132
0 78
100
100
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
2,303
2,116
78 2,216
100

4.7 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
2,037
2,561
718
2,561
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
2,037
2,561
718
2,561
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
265
(445)
(640)
(345)
100
-22.6 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
3,050
3,315
3,315
Fund Balance, End of Year
3,315
2,870
2,970
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 518 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS FUND
Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
94,298
94,010
0 94,010
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
3,570
0 2,230
2,851
2,851
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
97,867
94,010
2,230
96,861
2,851

3.0 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
75,377
89,405
28,835
89,405
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
75,377
89,405
28,835
89,405
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
22,490
4,605
(26,605)
7,456
2,851

61.9 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
74,795
97,285
97,285
Fund Balance, End of Year
97,285
101,890
104,741
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 519 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR FUND
Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
54,703
54,450
0 54,450
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
3,843
0 2,201
2,826
2,826
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
58,546
54,450
2,201
57,276
2,826

5.2 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
47,637
58,752
22,594
58,752
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
47,637
58,752
22,594
58,752
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
10,909
(4,302)
(20,393)
(1,476)
2,826
-65.7
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
83,912
94,821
94,821
Fund Balance, End of Year
94,821
90,519
93,345
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 520 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL FUND
% Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
177,692
177,975
0 177,975
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
12,759
0 7,509
9,595
9,595
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
190,451
177,975
7,509
187,570
9,595

5.4 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
152,424
178,056
53,330
178,056
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
152,424
178,056
53,330
178,056
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
38,027
(81)
(45,821)
9,514
9,595
-11,846.0 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
275,202
313,229
313,229
Fund Balance, End of Year
313,229
313,148
322,743
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 521 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH FUND
% Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
228,618
228,201
0 228,201
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
8,680
0 5,097
6,522
6,522
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
237,298
228,201
5,097
234,723
6,522

2.9 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
215,450
229,693
77,754
229,693
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
215,450
229,693
77,754
229,693
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
21,848
(1,492)
(72,657)
5,030
6,522
-437.1 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
201,451
223,299
223,299
Fund Balance, End of Year
223,299
221,807
228,329
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 522 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE FUND
Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
4,408
4,408
0 4,408
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
577
0 337
431
431
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
4,985
4,408
337
4,839
431

9.8 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
3,454
4,479
1,583
4,479
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
3,454
4,479
1,583
4,479
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
1,531
(71)
(1,246)
360
431
-607.2
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
12,304
13,835
13,835
Fund Balance, End of Year
13,835
13,764
14,195
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 523 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN
% Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
8,392
8,400
0 8,400
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
1,428
0 830
1,064
1,064
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
9,820
8,400
830
9,464
1,064

12.7 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
5,873
8,506
1,925
8,506
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
5,873
8,506
1,925
8,506
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
3,947
(106)
(1,095)
958
1,064
-1,003.4 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
29,537
33,484
33,484
Fund Balance, End of Year
33,484
33,378
34,442
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 524 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON FUND
% Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
162,633
162,100
0 162,100
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
2,364
0 1,081
1,229
1,229
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
164,997
162,100
1,081
163,329
1,229

0.8 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
157,499
162,156
78,807
162,156
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
157,499
162,156
78,807
162,156
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
7,499
(56)
(77,725)
1,173
1,229
-2,195.0 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
66,809
74,307
74,307
Fund Balance, End of Year
74,307
74,251
75,480
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 525 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS FUND
% Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
44,323
44,000
0 44,000
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
3,832
0 2,267
2,893
2,893
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
48,155
44,000
2,267
46,893
2,893

6.6 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
34,406
44,535
13,232
44,535
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
34,406
44,535
13,232
44,535
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
13,749
(535)
(10,965)
2,358
2,893
-540.7 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
79,467
93,216
93,216
Fund Balance, End of Year
93,216
92,681
95,574
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 526 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERY TRADITION FUND % Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
2,160
2,160
0 2,160
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
120
0 71
91 91
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
2,280
2,160
71 2,251
91 4.2 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
1,748
2,170
986
2,170
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
1,748
2,170
986
2,170
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
532
(10)
(915)
81 91
-912.6 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
2,561
3,093
3,093
Fund Balance, End of Year
3,093
3,083
3,174
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 527 - SERVICE LEVEL" C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE FUND
% Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
9,323
9,100
0 9,100
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
500
0 288
367
367
100.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
9,823
9,100
288
9,467
367

4.0 %
Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
8,260
9,212
4,064
9,212
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
8,260
9,212
4,064
9,212
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
1,563
(112)
(3,776)
255
367
-327.6 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
11,183
12,745
12,745
Fund Balance, End of Year
12,745
12,633
13,000
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 528 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK FUND
% Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
234,022
232,974
0 232,974
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
20,819
0 6,803
7,562
7,562
100.0 %
Other
322,833
0 0
0 0

0.0 %
Total Revenues and Other Sources
577,674
232,974
6,803
240,536
7,562

3.2 %
Expenditures by Category
Transfers
411,891
39,809
0 39,809
0 0.0 %
Operations & Maintenance
212,152
237,459
88,446
237,459
0 0.0 %
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
624,043
277,268
88,446
277,268
0 0.0 %
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
(46,369)
(44,294)
(81,643)
(36,732)
7,562
-17.1 %
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
310,797
264,428
264,428
Fund Balance, End of Year
264,428
220,135
227,696
Fund Description

Alk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 529 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT FUND Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Licenses, Permits and Service Charges
Assessments
4,475
4,903
0 4,903
0 0.0
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
475
0 301
385
385
100.0
Total Revenues and Other Sources
4,949
4,903
301
5,288
385

7.9 Expenditures by Category
Operations & Maintenance
2,325
3,974
953
3,974
0 0.0
Total Expenditures and Other Financing
Uses
2,325
3,974
953
3,974
0 0.0
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
2,624
929
(652)
1,314
385

41.5 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
9,562
12,186
12,186
Fund Balance, End of Year
12,186
13,115
13,501
Fund Description

IL
f
Adk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Quarterly Budget Report
FUND: 530 - SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 30 FUTURE ZONES FUND
% Change
2024-25 Year to Date 2024-25 Q2 from
2023-24 Current Actuals Revised Requested Current
Description Actuals Budget 12-31-2024 Budget Adjustments Budget Revenues by Source
Use of Money and Property
Investment Interest
Total Revenues and Other Sources
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year
Fund Description
0 0
922 1,177
1,177 100.0 %
0 0
922 1,177
1,177 100.0 %
0 0
922 1,177
1,177 100.0 %
36,062
36,062
36,062
36,062
36,062
37,239

Item No. 11

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Matt Peters, Director of Community Development
DATE: February 11, 2025
SUBJECT: Introduce Ordinance Amending Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code Regarding Off -Site Wayfinding Signs Within the Temecula Auto Mall PREPARED BY: Mark Collins, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council introduce an ordinance entitled:

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 17.28.290 OF TITLE 17 OF

THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH

STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF -SITE

WAYFINDING SIGNS IN THE AUTO MALL, AND FINDING

THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (13)(3)

SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE: The proposed ordinance would make amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Listed below is a summary of the proposed changes to the Municipal Code, each of which is discussed in greater detail in the analysis section, which follows:

Changes to Title 17:

1. Wayfinding Signage Temecula Auto Mall — Add provisions that would allow for directional (wayfinding) signage within the existing right of way exclusively within the Temecula Auto Mall.

BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula City Council adopted the Municipal Code in January 1990. Since its adoption, the City Council has periodically made amendments to various sections of the Code to improve its clarity, make corrections and implement policy. The proposal would make amendments to Title 17 (zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code.

City staff met with the Planning Commission Municipal Code Maintenance Ad Hoc Subcommittee on July 17, 2024. (Commissioners Hagel and Ruiz). The Subcommittee had questions related to sign location and design and were supportive of the project.

City staff met with the City Council General Plan Update Ad Hoc Subcommittee on July 23, 2024. (then Mayor James Stewart and Councilmember Jessica Alexander). The Subcommittee was supportive of the idea and directed staff to move forward with public hearings.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65800, the Planning Commission is required to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding zoning regulations and amendments to Title 17 Zoning (Development Code) of the Temecula Municipal Code. The item was presented at a public hearing to the Planning Commission on January 15, 2025. At the hearing, language related to the funding of the proposed wayfinding signage was struck from the proposal for clarity and Resolution No. 2025-01 was recommended for adoption by a 5-0 vote.

FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed Ordinance itself does not have a direct fiscal impact if adopted, any costs for future signage would be through a separate agreement with a sign vendor.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-01

3. Notice of Public Hearing

4. Notice of Exemption

ORDINANCE NO. 2025-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 17.28.290 OF TITLE
17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO

ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR

OFF -SITE WAYFINDING SIGNS IN THE AUTO MALL,

AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15061 (B)(3)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:

A. City staff identified the need to make revisions and clarifications to portions of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code ("Municipal Code").

B. The Municipal Code amendments are being made to allow and to set standards for off -site wayfinding signs in commercial districts within the Auto Mall.

C. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code ("Ordinance") on January 15, 2025, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-01, recommending that the City Council approve the Title 17 amendments.

E. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Ordinance on February 11, 2025, at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council closed the public hearing and considered the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.

Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council, in approving the proposed Ordinance, hereby makes the following additional findings:

1. The Auto Mall, an area along Ynez Road, DLR Drive and Solana Way on which a concentration of automobile dealerships are located, provides customers the opportunity to quickly and conveniently visit multiple dealerships in a single visit to the area. While each dealership located within the Auto Mall may have its own Freestanding Building or Single -Tenant

Identification Sign to identify its location, the high concentration of dealerships and the proliferation of such signage, and three roads comprising the Auto Mall, make it difficult for visitors to the Auto Mall to locate and navigate to any particular vendor, a difficulty which is exacerbated by the large size of the land parcels on which the dealerships are situated and the many access driveways on such parcels. The Auto Mall's location along a busy thoroughfare with secondary roads and the multiple driveway entrances dedicated to different business services offered on site and hundreds of yards apart result in: (1) congested roads caused by drivers of motor vehicles slowing down and searching for particular dealerships, entrances, or signs giving directions thereto delaying traffic in the area, (2) congested roads caused by drivers of motor vehicles having to slow or stop abruptly to turn into properties or make U-turns along the major thoroughfare to access individual dealerships delaying traffic in the area, and (3) a proliferation of confusing directional signage erected by individual dealerships for the purpose of directing drivers of motor vehicles onto their properties.

2. "Wayfinding" or "Directional" Government Signs are needed by dealerships in the Auto Mall to a greater degree than other businesses because (1) visitors to the Auto Mall frequently visit multiple dealerships during a single visit to the area and need to safely navigate between each dealership property and (2) Auto Mall dealerships are located on large parcels of land on either side of a major thoroughfare, making it difficult for drivers moving through the Auto Mall area to visually locate and navigate to any particular dealership property while safely traveling with the normal flow of traffic. Thus, despite the availability of maps and other digital navigation technology, the most efficient method of directing drivers of motor vehicles in the Auto Mall is the use of Government Signs posted at the entrances to the Auto Mall area and at other critical locations.

3. Businesses outside of the Auto Mall that do not occupy such large parcels of land with multiple access points along major thoroughfares and without retail clientele who commonly visit multiple neighboring vendors during a single visit have less need for such Government Signs.

4. Businesses within the Auto Mall require the installation of uniform Government Signs to avoid confusion among drivers of motor vehicles, promote traffic safety, and reduce the visual blight caused by the proliferation of directional signs in the Auto Mall. To that end, other wayfinding signs, including travel direction signs, are prohibited except as provided in this Ordinance.

Section 3. A new Subsection F.2 is added to Section 17.28.050 (Exempt Signs) of Chapter 17.28 (Sign Standards) of Title 17 (Zoning) to read as follows:
442. Offsite Wayfinding Signs for Vehicle Dealerships at Temecula Auto Mall. a. Findings.
i. Vehicle dealerships in the Auto Mall are highly visible from the I-15 Freeway, however, these dealership entrances are difficult to locate once vehicles have exited the freeway. ii. The dealerships attract a constant influx of new visitors to the area of the Auto Mall.

Adequate Wayfinding Signage is necessary to ensure the safety of the community by providing 2 guidance to nonresidents or the general public unfamiliar with the area thereby reducing congestions and illegal turns. The Wayfinding Signs will help ensure that the general public can safely and easily find the dealerships.
ii. The Wayfinding Signs for the dealerships shall not advertise or highlight any brand or product and shall not show the logos of or any information for the dealerships or the products they sell. The signs must merely provide the names of the dealerships in a visible, uniform font in colors that do not reflect any brands or logos.
iii. The Wayfinding Signs are intended to serve public purpose and conform to the intent and language of the City's General Plan.
b. General Requirements.
i. The provisions of this Subsection 17.28.050.F.2 shall apply to businesses selling vehicles in the Temecula Auto Mall as shown on Exhibit 17.04.020 Area B ("Auto Mall") of this Code.
ii. A comprehensive signage program for off -site Wayfinding Signs, a type of Government Sign, for the Auto Mall shall conform to the provisions of this Subsection F.2 and be approved by resolution of the City Council. Wayfinding Signs are directional signs, maps, or other graphics used to convey location and directions to travelers. The signage program shall include the number, location, dimensions, sign area, colors, and design of the directional signs. Such signage shall comply with all the provisions of Chapter 17.28 (Signs). iii. The City shall install the Wayfinding Signs as part of the signage program after receipt of payment from automobile dealerships located in the Auto Mall. iv. Sign structure installations shall include "breakaway" design features where required in right-of-way areas.

V. The Wayfinding Signs shall only show the name of the dealership and an arrow providing direction to the dealership. The Wayfinding Signs for the dealerships shall not be illuminated and not advertise or highlight any brand, logo or product or show the logos of or any information about the dealerships or their products.
vi. The maximum height of the Wayfinding Signs shall not exceed twelve (12) feet, and the maximum width shall not exceed six feet.
vii. Wayfinding Signs shall not obstruct the use of sidewalks, walkways, bike and hiking trails; the visibility of vehicles, pedestrians, or traffic control signs; or be placed in the immediate vicinity of street intersections."
Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance would have a significant impact on the environment pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

The proposed Municipal Code amendments are minor policy changes, which do not result in any increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared and will be filed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
3 Section 4. Severability. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation.

Section 5. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of ,
Brenden Kalfus, Mayor
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2025- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 111h day of February, 2025, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, City Clerk

PC RESOLUTION NO.2025-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT

THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
ENTITLED, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION

17.28.290 OF TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL

CODE TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND

REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF -SITE WAYFINDING SIGNS

IN THE AUTO MALL, AND FINDING THAT THIS

ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT
TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (B)(3)."
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:

A. City staff identified the need to make revisions and clarifications to portions of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code.

B. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the proposed amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code on January 15, 2025, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter.

C. The proposed amendments to Title 17 are consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, and each element thereof.

D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit "A".

E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:

The Planning Commission, in recommending adoption of the proposed Ordinance, hereby makes the following additional findings as required by Section 17.01.040 ("Relationship to General Plan") of the Temecula Municipal Code:

1. The proposed use is allowed in the land use designation in which the use is located, as shown on the land use map, or is described in the text of the general plan.

The proposed Code Amendments do not change the types of uses allowed in the City. The proposed Code Amendments add language expanding the scope of

exempt signage within the Temecula Auto Mall, specific to automotive dealerships, to include offsite directional signage only.

2. The proposed uses are in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the general plan.

The proposed changes to Title 17 conform with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. The proposed changes allow for offsite directional (wayfinding) signs within the public right-of-way (ROW) exclusively in the existing Temecula Auto Mall, which furthers Policy 1.1 of the Economic Development Element of the Temecula General Plan, which is to "Attract and retain a diverse range of business and industry that complements Temecula's character, utilizes the local workforce, and takes advantage of Temecula's location." Additionally, the proposed amendments implement Goal 2 of the Community Design Element of the Temecula General Plan which states "Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signs." The amendments to the Temecula Municipal Code do not result in an inconsistency between the Temecula Municipal Code and the adopted General Plan.

3. The proposed uses are to be established and maintained in a manner which is consistent with the general plan and all applicable provisions contained therein.

The proposed amendments to Title 17 would provide for wayfinding signage for the Temecula Auto Mall and do not amend any land uses, nor do the amendments increase the intensity of any existing uses. The amendments are consistent with the general plan.

Section 3. Environmental Compliance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the proposed Ordinance No. 2025- is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance would have a significant impact on the environment pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The proposed Municipal Code amendments are minor policy changes, which do not result in any increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed. Instead, the amendments merely allow for wayfinding signs to be erected in the Auto Mall. The Planning Commission, therefore, recommends that the City Council of the City of Temecula adopt a Notice of Exemption for the proposed ordinance.

Section 4. Recommendation. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve Planning Application No. LR24-0435, a proposed Ordinance as set forth on Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15'h day of January, 2025.

ATTEST:
64Y%1-11
Matt Peters
Secretary
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Matt Peters, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 2025-01 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 151h day of January 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Hagel, Solis, Turley-Trejo, Watson, Watts
None
None
None
Matt Peters
Secretary

ORDINANCE NO. 2025-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 17.28.290 OF TITLE
17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO

ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR

OFF -SITE WAYFINDING SIGNS IN THE AUTO MALL,

AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15061 (11)(3).

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:

A. City staff identified the need to make revisions and clarifications to portions of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code ("Municipal Code").

B. The Municipal Code amendments are being made to allow and to set standards for off -site wayfinding signs in commercial districts within the Auto Mall.

C. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code ("Ordinance") on January 15, 2025, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-_, recommending that the City Council approve the Title 17 amendments.

E. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Ordinance on February 11, 2025, at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council closed the public hearing and considered the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.

Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council, in approving the proposed Ordinance, hereby makes the following additional findings:

1. The Auto Mall, an area along Ynez Road, DLR Drive and Solana Way on which a concentration of automobile dealerships are located, provides customers the opportunity to quickly and conveniently visit multiple dealerships in a single visit to the area. While each dealership located within the Auto Mall may have its own Freestanding Building or Single -Tenant 1 Identification Sign to identify its location, the high concentration of dealerships and the proliferation of such signage, and three roads comprising the Auto Mall, make it difficult for visitors to the Auto Mall to locate and navigate to any particular vendor, a difficulty which is exacerbated by the large size of the land parcels on which the dealerships are situated and the many access driveways on such parcels. The Auto Mall's location along a busy thoroughfare with secondary roads and the multiple driveway entrances dedicated to different business services offered on site and hundreds of yards apart result in: (1) congested roads caused by drivers of motor vehicles slowing down and searching for particular dealerships, entrances, or signs giving directions thereto delaying traffic in the area, (2) congested roads caused by drivers of motor vehicles having to slow or stop abruptly to turn into properties or make U-turns along the major thoroughfare to access individual dealerships delaying traffic in the area, and (3) a proliferation of confusing directional signage erected by individual dealerships for the purpose of directing drivers of motor vehicles onto their properties.

2. "Wayfinding" or "Directional" Government Signs are needed by dealerships in the Auto Mall to a greater degree than other businesses because (1) visitors to the Auto Mall frequently visit multiple dealerships during a single visit to the area and need to safely navigate between each dealership property and (2) Auto Mall dealerships are located on large parcels of land on either side of a major thoroughfare, making it difficult for drivers moving through the Auto Mall area to visually locate and navigate to any particular dealership property while safely traveling with the normal flow of traffic. Thus, despite the availability of maps and other digital navigation technology, the most efficient method of directing drivers of motor vehicles in the Auto Mall is the use of Government Signs posted at the entrances to the Auto Mall area and at other critical locations.

3. Businesses outside of the Auto Mall that do not occupy such large parcels of land with multiple access points along major thoroughfares and without retail clientele who commonly visit multiple neighboring vendors during a single visit have less need for such Government Signs.

4. Businesses within the Auto Mall require the installation of uniform Government Signs to avoid confusion among drivers of motor vehicles, promote traffic safety, and reduce the visual blight caused by the proliferation of directional signs in the Auto Mall. To that end, other wayfinding signs, including travel direction signs, are prohibited except as provided in this Ordinance.

Section 3. A new Subsection F.2 is added to Section 17.28.050 (Exempt Signs) of Chapter 17.28 (Sign Standards) of Title 17 (Zoning) to read as follows:
662. Offsite Wayfinding Signs for Vehicle Dealerships at Temecula Auto Mall. a. Findings.
i. Vehicle dealerships in the Auto Mall are highly visible from the I-15 Freeway, however, these dealership entrances are difficult to locate once vehicles have exited the freeway. ii. The dealerships attract a constant influx of new visitors to the area of the Auto Mall.

Adequate Wayfinding Signage is necessary to ensure the safety of the community by providing 2 guidance to nonresidents or the general public unfamiliar with the area thereby reducing congestions and illegal turns. The Wayfinding Signs will help ensure that the general public can safely and easily find the dealerships.
ii. The Wayfinding Signs for the dealerships shall not advertise or highlight any brand or product and shall not show the logos of or any information for the dealerships or the products they sell. The signs must merely provide the names of the dealerships in a visible, uniform font in colors that do not reflect any brands or logos.
iii. The Wayfinding Signs are intended to serve public purpose and conform to the intent and language of the City's General Plan.
b. General Requirements.
i. The provisions of this Subsection 17.28.050.F.2 shall apply to businesses selling vehicles in the Temecula Auto Mall as shown on Exhibit 17.04.020 Area B ("Auto Mall") of this Code.
ii. A comprehensive signage program for off -site Wayfinding Signs, a type of Government Sign, for the Auto Mall shall conform to the provisions of this Subsection F.2 and be approved by resolution of the City Council. Wayfinding Signs are directional signs, maps, or other graphics used to convey location and directions to travelers. The signage program shall include the number, location, dimensions, sign area, colors, and design of the directional signs. Such signage shall comply with all the provisions of Chapter 17.28 (Signs). iii. The City shall install the Wayfinding Signs as part of the signage program after receipt of payment from automobile dealerships located in the Auto Mall. iv. Sign structure installations shall include "breakaway" design features where required in right-of-way areas.

V. The Wayfinding Signs shall only show the name of the dealership and an arrow providing direction to the dealership. The Wayfinding Signs for the dealerships shall not be illuminated and not advertise or highlight any brand, logo or product or show the logos of or any information about the dealerships or their products.
vi. The maximum height of the Wayfinding Signs shall not exceed twelve (12) feet, and the maximum width shall not exceed six feet.
vii. Wayfinding Signs shall not obstruct the use of sidewalks, walkways, bike and hiking trails; the visibility of vehicles, pedestrians, or traffic control signs; or be placed in the immediate vicinity of street intersections."
Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance would have a significant impact on the environment pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

The proposed Municipal Code amendments are minor policy changes, which do not result in any increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared and will be filed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
3 Section 4. Severability. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation.

Section 5. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula the 11 th day of February, 2025.

ATTEST:

Randi Johl
City Clerk
[SEAL]
4 Brenden Kalfus, Mayor

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2025- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 1 I `h day of February, 2025, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Randi Johl
City Clerk

Notice of Public Hearing

THE CITY OF TEMECULA
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below.

Case No.: Long Range Project No. LR24-0435
Applicant: City of Temecula
Location: Citywide
Proposal: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula amending section

17.28.290 of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code to establish standards and requirements for off -site wayfinding signs in the auto mall.

Environmental Action: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), staff has determined that the proposed ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review and recommends that a Notice of Exemption be adopted in compliance with CEQA (Section 15061(b)(3)).

PLACE OF HEARING: City of Temecula, Council Chambers
41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590
DATE OF HEARING: February 11, 2025
TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 PM
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing.

Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice.

The proposed draft ordinance may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Community Development Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Mark Collins, City of Temecula Community Development Department, (951) 506-5172.

City of Temecula
Community Development
41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590
Phone (951 ) 694-6400 • TemeculaCA.gov

VIA -ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL
CEQAProces sina(& asrclkrec. com
February 12, 2025
Supervising Legal Certification Clerk
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751
SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Exemption for Long Range Project Number LR24-0435, an amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code Dear Sir/Madam:

Enclosed is the Notice of Exemption for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) the City will pay for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507. The payment of the $50.00 filing fee is under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee.

Also, please email a stamped copy of the Notice of Exemption within five working days after the 30-day posting to the email listed below.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mark Collins at email:

[email protected].

Sincerely,
Matt Peters
Director of Community Development
Enclosures: Notice of Exemption Form
Electronic Payment - Filing Fee Receipt

City of Temecula
Community Development
Planning Division
Notice of Exemption
TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Division County of Riverside City of Temecula
P.O. Box 751 41000 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590
Project Title: Long Range Project No. LR24-0435 Municipal Code Update Description of Project: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula amending section 17.28.290 of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code to establish standards and requirements for off - site wayfinding signs in the auto mall.

Project Location: Citywide
Applicant/Proponent: City of Temecula
The City Council approved the above -described project on February 1 It', 2025, and found that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

Exempt Status: (check one)
❑ Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); Section 15268); ❑ Statutory Exemptions (Section Number:
❑Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); Section ® Categorical Exemption: (Section 15061 (b)(3)) 15269(a)); ❑ Other: Section 15162 Categorical Exemption ❑Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); Section
15269(b)(c));
Statement of Reasons Supporting the Finding that the Project is Exempt:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed ordinance has been deemed to be exempt from further environmental review as there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance would have a significant impact on the environment pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The proposed ordinance amends the municipal code to allow for off -site wayfinding signage. The amendments do not authorize any construction nor changes to the physical environment.

Contact Person/Title: Mark Collins, Associate Planner Telephone Number (951) 506-5172 Signature:

Matt Peters, Director of Community Development
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:

Date:

Item No. 12

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Matt Peters, Director of Community Development
DATE: February 11, 2025
SUBJECT: Consider Fourth Amendment to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (Long Range Project No. LR23-0494)
PREPARED BY: Scott Cooper, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a public hearing and approve a fourth amendment to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (Long Range Project No. LR23-0494) and adopt a resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE
TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 7)
(LONG RANGE PROJECT NO. LR23-0494)
BACKGROUND: The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan was approved by the City Council on October 11, 1994, by the adoption of Resolution 94-101. On July 27, 1999, the City Council adopted Amendment No. 1 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan by the adoption of Ordinance No. 99-19.On January 28, 2003, the City Council adopted Amendment No. 2 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan by the adoption of Ordinance 03-02. On July 22, 2008, the City Council adopted Amendment No. 3 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan by the adoption of Ordinance 08-03.

On December 19, 2023, the City of Temecula initiated a Specific Plan Amendment to the Temecula Regional Center for a technical change to the document so the square footage in the Specific Plan reflects existing conditions/entitled projects.

Specific Plan Amendment
For the purposes of the analysis below the Specific Plan is comprised of two (2) Planning Areas as shown on the aerial below which includes an overlay of Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2.

V -t-+.e
F r5 i
May �� •,�t�'•, � ;.��'�r
Al
-�
tr1
M+',
All.
-`p•j•�
__ — _
,
e
Planning Area 1 consists of Bel Villago, The Commons at Temecula, Regal Edwards Theater, and other dining and retail establishments including Islands and Chick-fil-A. Planning Area 2 includes

the Promenade Temecula mall "core", Costco, the restaturants and retail outlets along Ynez Road and Winchester Road including Phil's BBQ, Benihana, and Karl Strauss, and Barnes & Noble.

The analysis below was performed using gross leasable area provided to staff directly from Promenade Temecula as well as research done by staff into all existing issued building permits and projects that have been entitled and vested but not yet constructed.

The Specific Plan allocates specific gross leasable area that can be constructed in the various planning areas. Beginning in November 2023 and lasting until October 2024 the City of Temecula Community Development Department performed a square footage analysis of the Specific Plan to determine the gross leasable area square footage of constructed and/or entitled (vested but not yet constructed) projects versus the allowable gross leasable area square footage within the Specific Plan. The results of the analysis show that Planning Area 1 of the Specific Plan is underbuilt by 374,900 square feet of gross leasable area and Planning Area 2 is overbuilt/entitled by 34,754 square feet of gross leasable area (shown in table below).

TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER/PROMENADE TEMECULA
SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY FOR PLANNING AREAS 1 & 2
Planning Area 1
Specific Plan GLA
1,055,000 GLA
GLA BuiltfEntitled
680,100
GLA Sq Ft
374,900 Remaining
Allowed
Remaining
Planning Area 2
Specific Plan GLA
1,375,000 GLA
GLA BuiltfEntitled
1,409,754
GLA Sq Ft
134,754) Overbuilt
Allowed
Remaining
Given this analysis, and given that the last entitlement in Planning Area 2 occurred in 2014 with construction completed in 2016, the revised "baseline" gross leasable square footage for the Specific Plan shall be 2,464,754 square feet for Planning Areas 1 & 2 combined, 1,055,000 square feet for Planning Area 1, and 1,409,754 square feet for Planning Area 2. Moving forward, projects within either individual planning area that propose new square footage that exceeds the revised baseline square footage shall be required to perform an environmental analysis based on the California Environmental Quality Act requirements. Any reference in the Specific Plan to 1,375,000 gross leasable area in Planning Area 2 shall be replaced with 1,409,754 gross leasable area. Any reference in the Specific Plan to 2,430,000 gross leasable area in the entire Specific Plan area shall be replaced with 2,464,754 gross leasable area.

Planning Commission Recommendation
Staff presented the project to the Planning Commission on December 18, 2024. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Resolution and make a finding of exemption. There were no public speakers at the meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Resolution which approves a Fourth Amendment to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan has no fiscal impact on the City of Temecula.

ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed Resolution, which approves an amendment to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the proposed Resolution may have a significant effect on the environment.

The adoption of the proposed Resolution will establish a new baseline of gross leasable area square footage for the Specific Plan based on projects that are already constructed or entiled/vested and does not propose any new gross leasable area square footage.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Aerial Map

2. Resolution — Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
Fourth Amendment

3. Exhibit A — Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Fourth Amendment

4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-25
Recommending approval of the Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan Fourth Amendment

5. Notice of Exemption

6. Notice of Public Hearing

0 4uc
LT
T"tVA-, ZZ,ti

RESOLUTION NO.2025-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO

THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
(SP 7) (LONG RANGE PROJECT NO. LR23-0494)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that:

A. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 7) was approved by the City Council on October 11, 1994 by the adoption of Resolution No. 94-101. Amendment No. 1 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) was approved on July 27, 1999 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 99-19. Amendment No. 2 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) was approved on January 28. 2003 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 03-02.

Amendment No. 3 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) was approved on July 22, 2008 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 08-03. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan as originally approved and as amended by Amendments Nos. 1-3 shall be referred to in this Resolution as the "Specific Plan".

B. On December 19, 2023, the City of Temecula processed Long Range Project No.

LR23-0494, a Specific Plan Amendment in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.

C. The Specific Plan provides standards and guidelines for development. Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan is a technical change to the document so the square footage in the Specific Plan reflects existing conditions/entitled projects.

D. On December 18, 2024 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Amendment No. 4 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) at which time all persons interested in these actions had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission.

E. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission hearing, and after due consideration of the testimony regarding the proposed Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan , the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024-25 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 7) (LONG RANGE PROJECT NO. LR 23-0494)" F. On February 11, 2025 the City Council considered the Amendment No 4 to the Specific Plan at a duly noticed public hearing which time the City staff presented its report, and all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the

Project. The Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the Project prior to and at the public hearing.

G. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2025- A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE Temecula Regional Center SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 7) (LONG RANGE PROJECT NO. LR23-0494)" Resolution No. 2025- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full.

H. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.

I. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Project, pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section, 17.05.010, hereby finds, determines and declares that:

A. The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the general plan and development code.

The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan discusses the consistency between the Specific Plan and the General Plan. Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan does not make any material changes to the Specific Plan that would impact the consistency findings set forth in the Specific Plan. The findings of consistency contained in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan are applicable and are incorporated herein by this reference. Policy

2.5 of the General Plan Economic Development Element is to promote retail and other support activities that provide a broader selection of high -quality goods and services for residents, workers and tourists, including apparel, general merchandise, home furnishings and appliances. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan provides for opportunities for a broader selection of high -quality goods and services and the Fourth Amendment to the Specific Plan details the amount of gross leasable area square feet available for the goods and services. Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan is also consistent with the City s development code because the City will require that all new construction comply with the City's design and building standards.

B. The proposed specific plan amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city.

Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the Specific Plan clearly defines land uses, and establishes development standards, regulations and building criteria for each land use type. The Fourth Amendment to the Specific Plan revises the amount ofgross leasable area square feet within each planning area to reflect existing conditions. These square footages are based on projects that have either already been entitled or were entitled several years ago and, therefore, the public interest, health, safety convenience or welfare will not be impacted by this technical change.

C. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments.

The subjectproperty is an existing regional mall and associated shopping centers all within the Specific Plan. The Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan does not propose any development or create any new land use designations.

D. The proposed specific plan amendment shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood.

No development or development standards are proposed as a part of Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan. Future development within the Specific Plan area will adhere to the development standards of the Specific Plan which will ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood.

Section 3. CEQA. This Resolution, which approves the Fourth Amendment to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the this Resolution may have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the this Resolution will establish a new baseline of gross leasable area square footage for the Specific Plan based on projects that are already constructed or entiled/vested and does not propose any new gross leasable area square footage.

Section 4. Approval of Amendment No. 4 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7). The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Amendment No. 4 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and directs the Community Development Director to incorporate Exhibit "A" as part of the Specific Plan.

Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this l lth day of February, 2025.

Brenden Kalfus, Mayor
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 1Ph day of February, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, City Clerk

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") allocates specific gross leasable area ("GLA") that can be constructed in the various planning areas. Beginning in November 2023 and lasting until October 2024 the City of Temecula Community Development Department performed a square footage analysis of the Specific Plan to determine the gross leasable area square footage of constructed and/or entitled (vested but not yet constructed) projects versus the allowable gross leasable area square footage within the Specific Plan. The results of the analysis show that Planning Area 1 of the Specific Plan is underbuilt by 374,900 square feet of gross leasable area and Planning Area 2 is overbuilt/entitled by 34,754 square feet of gross leasable area (shown in table below). The Specific Plan does not allow for density or square footage transfers between the Planning Areas.

TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTERIPROMENADE TEMECULA
SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY FOR PLANNING AREAS 1 &2
PLanningArea 1
Specific Plan GLA
1,055,000 GLA
GLA BuiLVEntitLed
680,100
GLASq Ft
374,900 Remaining
ALLowed
Remaining
PLanningArea 2
Specific Plan GLA
1,375,000 GLA
1,375,000
GLA BuRVEntitled
1,409,754
GLA Sq Ft
134,754) OverE�uilt
Allowed
Given this analysis, and given that the last entitlement in Planning Area 2 occurred in 2014 with construction completed in 2016, the revised "baseline" gross leasable square footage for the Specific Plan shall be 2,464,754 square feet for Planning Areas 1 & 2 combined, 1,055,000 square feet for Planning Area 1, and 1,409,754 square feet for Planning Area 2. This is a technical update to reflect existing conditions as they have existed for the last eight (8) years. Moving forward, projects within either individual planning area that propose new square footage that exceeds the revised baseline square footage shall be required to perform an environmental analysis based on the California Environmental Quality Act requirements.

This technical memo and data shall serve as the 4t" Amendment to the Specific Plan and the information contained herein shall be used by City of Temecula staff in the review of future proposed projects. Any reference in the Specific Plan to 1,375,000 gross leasable area in Planning Area 2 shall be replaced with 1,409,754 gross leasable area. Any reference in the Specific Plan to 2,430,000 gross leasable area in the entire Specific Plan area shall be replaced with 2,464,754 gross leasable area.

PC RESOLUTION NO. 2024-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT

THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO

THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
(SP 7) (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR 23-0494)"
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:

A. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 7) was approved by the City Council on October 11, 1994 by the adoption of Resolution No. 94-101. Amendment No. 1 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) was approved on July 27, 1999 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 99-19. Amendment No. 2 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) was approved on January 28. 2003 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 03-02.

Amendment No. 3 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) was approved on July 22, 2008 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 08-03. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan as originally approved and as amended by Amendments Nos. 1-3 shall be referred to in this Resolution as the "Specific Plan".

B. On December 19, 2023, the City of Temecula processed Planning Application No.

LR23-0494, a Specific Plan Amendment in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.

C. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.

D. On December 18, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Amendment No. 4 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) at which time all persons interested in these actions had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission.

E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred.

Section 2. Further Findings. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section

17.16.020, the Planning Commission, in recommending that the City Council approve Amendment No. 5 to the Specific Plan hereby finds, determines and declares that:

A. The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the general plan and development code.

The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan discusses the consistency between the Specific Plan and the General Plan. Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan does not make any material changes to the Specific Plan that would impact the consistency

findings set forth in the Specific Plan. The findings of consistency contained in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan are applicable and are incorporated herein by this reference. Policy 2.5 of the General Plan Economic Development Element is to promote retail and other support activities that provide a broader selection of high - quality goods and services for residents, workers and tourists, including apparel, general merchandise, home furnishings and appliances. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan provides for opportunities for a broader selection of high -quality goods and services and the Fourth Amendment to the Specific Plan details the amount of gross leasable area square feet available for the goods and services. Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan is also consistent with the City's development code because the City will require that all new construction comply with the City's design and building standards.

B. The proposed specific plan amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city.

Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the Specific Plan clearly defines land uses, and establishes development standards, regulations and building criteria for each land use type. The Fourth Amendment to the Specific Plan revises the amount of gross leasable area square feet within each planning area to reflect existing conditions. These square footages are based on projects that have either already been entitled or were entitled several years ago and, therefore, the public interest, health, safety convenience or welfare will not be impacted by this technical change.

C. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments.

The subject property is an existing regional mall and associated shopping centers all within the Specific Plan. The Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan does not propose any development or create any new land use designations.

D. The proposed specific plan amendment shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood.

No development or development standards are proposed as apart of Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan. Future development within the Specific Plan area will adhere to the development standards of the Specific Plan which will ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood.

Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the recommended approval of Specific Plan Amendment No. 4:

The proposed Resolution, which approves the Fourth Amendment to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no

possibility that the adoption of the proposed Resolution may have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed Resolution will establish a new baseline of gross leasable area square footage for the Specific Plan based on projects that are already constructed or entiledlvested and does not propose any new gross leasable area square footage.

Section 4. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE Temecula Regional Center SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 7) (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR 23- 0494)" in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 18.6 day of December, 2024.

ATTEST:

Matt Peters, Secretary
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
! " n k' (,/
Bob Hagel, Chair

I, Matt Peters, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 2024-25 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 181' day of December, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Hagel, Ruiz, Solis, Turley-Trejo, Watts NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
tLKn
Matt Peters, Secretary

RESOLUTION NO.2025-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO

THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
(SP 7) (LONG RANGE PROJECT NO. LR 23-0494)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that:

A. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 7) was approved by the City Council on October 11, 1994 by the adoption of Resolution No. 94-101. Amendment No. 1 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) was approved on July 27, 1999 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 99-19. Amendment No. 2 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) was approved on January 28. 2003 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 03-02.

Amendment No. 3 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) was approved on July 22, 2008 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 08-03. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan as originally approved and as amended by Amendments Nos. 1-3 shall be referred to in this Resolution as the "Specific Plan".

B. On December 19, 2023, the City of Temecula processed Long Range Project No.

LR23-0494, a Specific Plan Amendment in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.

C. The Specific Plan provides standards and guidelines for development. Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan is a technical change to the document so the square footage in the Specific Plan reflects existing conditions/entitled projects.

D. On December 18, 2024 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Amendment No. 4 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) at which time all persons interested in these actions had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission.

E. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission hearing, and after due consideration of the testimony regarding the proposed Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan , the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024-25 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 7) (LONG RANGE PROJECT NO. LR 23-0494)" F. On February 11, 2025 the City Council considered the Amendment No 4 to the Specific Plan at a duly noticed public hearing which time the City staff presented its report, and all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the

Project. The Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the Project prior to and at the public hearing.

G. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2025- A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE Temecula Regional Center SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 7) (LONG RANGE PROJECT NO. LR23-0494)" Resolution No. 2025- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full.

H. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.

I. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Project, pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section, 17.05.010, hereby finds, determines and declares that:

A. The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the general plan and development code.

The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan discusses the consistency between the Specific Plan and the General Plan. Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan does not make any material changes to the Specific Plan that would impact the consistency findings set forth in the Specific Plan. The findings of consistency contained in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan are applicable and are incorporated herein by this reference. Policy

2.5 of the General Plan Economic Development Element is to promote retail and other support activities that provide a broader selection of high -quality goods and services for residents, workers and tourists, including apparel, general merchandise, home furnishings and appliances. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan provides for opportunities for a broader selection of high -quality goods and services and the Fourth Amendment to the Specific Plan details the amount of gross leasable area square feet available for the goods and services. Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan is also consistent with the City's development code because the City will require that all new construction comply with the City's design and building standards.

B. The proposed specific plan amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city.

Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the Specific Plan clearly defines land uses, and establishes development standards, regulations and building criteria for each land use type. The Fourth Amendment to the Specific Plan revises the amount ofgross leasable area square feet within each planning area to reflect existing conditions. These square footages are based on projects that have either already been entitled or were entitled several years ago and, therefore, the public interest, health, safety convenience or welfare will not be impacted by this technical change.

C. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments.

The subject property is an existing regional mall and associated shopping centers all within the Specific Plan. The Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan does not propose any development or create any new land use designations.

D. The proposed specific plan amendment shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood.

No development or development standards are proposed as apart of Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan. Future development within the Specific Plan area will adhere to the development standards of the Specific Plan which will ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood.

Section 3. CEQA. This Resolution, which approves the Fourth Amendment to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the this Resolution may have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the this Resolution will establish a new baseline of gross leasable area square footage for the Specific Plan based on projects that are already constructed or entiled/vested and does not propose any new gross leasable area square footage.

Section 4. Approval of Amendment No. 4 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7). The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Amendment No. 4 to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 7) in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and directs the Community Development Director to incorporate Exhibit "A" as part of the Specific Plan.

Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 1 lth day of February, 2025.

Brenden Kalfus, Mayor
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 1 lth day of February, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, City Clerk

Gty of �Temecula
Community Development
41000 Main Street - Temecula, CA 92590
Phone (951) 694-6400 - Fax (951) 694-6477 • TemeculaCA.gov

VIA -ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL
CEQAProces sina(& asrclkrec. com
February 12, 2025
Supervising Legal Certification Clerk
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751
SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. LR23-0494, a Fourth Specific Plan Amendment to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan for a technical change to the document so the square footage in the Specific Plan reflects existing conditions/entitled projects.

Dear Sir/Madam:

Enclosed is the Notice of Exemption for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) the Applicant will pay for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507. The payment of the $50.00 filing fee is under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee.

Also, please email a stamped copy of the Notice of Exemption within five working days after the 30-day posting to the email listed below.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Scott Cooper at (951) 506-5137 or at email scott.cooperkTemeculaCA.gov.

Sincerely,
Matt Peters
Interim Director of Community Development
Attachments: Notice of Exemption Form
Electronic Payment - Filing Fee Receipt

City of Temecula
Community Development
Planning Division
Notice of Exemption
TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Division County of Riverside City of Temecula
P.O. Box 751 41000 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590
Project Title: Fourth Amendment to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (LR23-0494) Description of Project: Fourth Specific Plan Amendment to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan for a technical change to the document so the square footage in the Specific Plan reflects existing conditions/entitled projects.

Project Location: South of Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road, north of Overland Drive, and west of Margarita Road
Applicant/Proponent: City of Temecula, County of Riverside The City Council approved the above -described project on February 11, 2025, and found that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

Exempt Status: (check one)
❑
Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); Section 15268);
❑
Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); Section 15269(a)); ❑
Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); Section 15269(b)(c)); ❑
Statutory Exemptions (Section Number: )
❑
Categorical Exemption: (Section Number)
®
Other: Section 15061 (b)(3) General Rule Exemption
Statement of Reasons Supporting the Finding that the Project is Exempt:

The proposed Resolution, which approves an amendment to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the proposed Resolution may have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed Resolution will establish a new baseline of gross leasable area square footage for the Specific Plan based on projects that are already constructed or entiled/vested and does not propose any new gross leasable area square footage.

Contact Person/Title: Scott Cooper, Senior Planner Phone Number: (951) 506-5137 Signature:

Matt Peters
Interim Director of Community Development
Date:

Notice of Public Hearing

THE CITY OF TEMECULA
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below.

Case No.: LR23-0494
Applicant: City of Temecula
Location: South of Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road, north of Overland Drive, and west of Margarita Road
Proposal: Specific Plan Amendment to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan for a technical change to the document so the square footage in the Specific Plan reflects existing conditions/entitled projects.

Environmental Action: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review and recommends that a Notice of Exemption be adopted in compliance with CEQA (Section 15061(b)(3)) as it can be seen with certainty that there will be no effect on the environment because the Specific Plan Amendment is not proposing any construction or additional square footage that is not already existing or entitled.

PLACE OF HEARING: 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590, City of Temecula, Council Chambers DATE OF HEARING: February 11, 2025
TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 PM
2,
•�•` Project Site
F
Ri,�G FtD ?'D
DELO
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
, , i OVERLANDDR
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing.

Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice.

The proposed project application may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Planning Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Scott Cooper, City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 506- 5137.

Item No. 13

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Ron Moreno, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 11, 2025
SUBJECT: Approve Resolution to Amend the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program
PREPARED BY: Anissa Sharp, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

TEMECULA AMENDING THE APPLICABLE

TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF)

APPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF

TEMECULA AND FINDING THIS RESOLUTION EXEMPT

FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a Member Agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG"), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and eighteen (18) cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, in 2002-2003, WRCOG member jurisdictions developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials due to new development in Western Riverside County could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") on future residential, commercial, and industrial development. As a Member Agency of WRCOG and as a TUMF participating jurisdiction, the city participated in the preparation of a certain "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Fee Nexus Study," dated October 18, 2002 (the "2002 Nexus Study") prepared in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and adopted by the WRCOG executive committee.

Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.), WRCOG prepared a new Nexus Study ("2016 Nexus Study") to update the fees. On July 10, 2017, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2016 Nexus Study and recommended TUMF participating jurisdictions update their fees by amending their applicable TUMF Ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF Network and the cost of construction. The City Council adopted and implemented an ordinance

amending Chapter 15.08 to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF and adopt the 2016 Nexus Study.

In 2018, the TUMF Program was altered to adopt a process in which WRCOG calculates and collects TUMF on behalf of member agencies under the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2018. The City adopted Ordinance 19-01 amending Chapter 15.08 and allowing WRCOG to calculate and collect TUMF on behalf of the City.

WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, has prepared an updated nexus study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2024 Update" ("2024 Nexus Study") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On September 9, 2024, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2024 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program. The Executive Committee set the fee levels as follows:
(1) $12,380 per single family residential unit 1,800 square feet or less. (2) $13,927 per single family residential unit between 1,801 and 2,300 square feet. (3) $15,476 per single family residential unit between 2,301 and 2,700 square feet. (4) $19,344 per single family residential unit greater than 2,700 square feet. (5) $7,816 per multi -family residential unit.
(6) $2.33 per square foot of an industrial project.
(7) $7.72 per square foot of a retail commercial project. (8) $4.89 per square foot of a service commercial project. (9) $2.45 per square foot of a service Class A and B Office.

Continuation of the TUMF program will mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System and allow the fees to be used to construct transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users.

FISCAL IMPACT: The City of Temecula's existing ordinance provides the legal basis for a revised TUMF schedule. The attached resolution will establish the Fee Schedule for TUMF as follows:

From July 1, 2025 the fee schedule shall be as follows:
(1) $12,380 per single family residential unit 1,800 square feet or less. (2) $13,927 per single family residential unit between 1,801 and 2,300 square feet. (3) $15,476 per single family residential unit between 2,301 and 2,700 square feet. (4) $19,344 per single family residential unit greater than 2,700 square feet. (5) $7,816 per multi -family residential unit.

(6) $2.33 per square foot of an industrial project.
(7) $7.72 per square foot of a retail commercial project. (8) $4.89 per square foot of a service commercial project. (9) $2.45 per square foot of a service Class A and B Office.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - TUMF Nexus Fee Study 2024 Update

2. Notice of Public Hearing

RESOLUTION NO.2025-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE APPLICABLE

TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
(TUMF) APPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE

CITY OF TEMECULA AND FINDING THIS RESOLUTION

EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings, The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare as follows:

A. The city is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG"), a joint powers agency comprised of the county of Riverside and eighteen cities located in Western Riverside County.

B. Acting in concert, the WRCOG member agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials in Western Riverside County (the "Regional System") could be made up in part by a transportation uniform mitigation fee ("TUMF") on future residential, commercial and industrial development.

C. As a Member Agency of WRCOG and as a TUMF participating jurisdiction, the city participated in the preparation of a certain "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Fee Nexus Study," dated October 18, 2002 (the "2002 Nexus Study") prepared in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and adopted by the WRCOG executive committee.

D. The city also participated in the second major update of the TUMF network entitled the "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study; 2009 Update" ("2009 Nexus Study") pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. Based on the 2002 and 2009 Nexus Studies, the City Council adopted and implemented ordinances amending Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and authorizing the city's participation in a TUMF program.

E. WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF participating jurisdictions, has prepared an updated nexus study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2016 Update" ("2016 Nexus Study") pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On July 10, 2017, the WRCOG executive committee reviewed the 2016 Nexus Study and TUMF program and recommended TUMF participating jurisdictions amend their applicable

TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF program. The City Council adopted and implemented an ordinance amending Chapter 15.08 to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF and adopt the 2016 Nexus Study.

F. In 2018, the TUMF Program was altered to adopt a process in which WRCOG calculates and collects TUMF on behalf of member agencies under the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2018. The City adopted an ordinance amending Chapter 15.08 and allowing WRCOG to calculate and collect TUMF on behalf of the City.

G. WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, has prepared an updated nexus study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2024 Update" ("2024 Nexus Study") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On September 9, 2024, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2024 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program.

H. Consistent with its previous findings made in the adoption of ordinances amending Chapter 15.08, the city council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds and determines, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged and unless development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable levels of service. Furthermore, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thus, adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare.

Therefore, continuation of a TUMF program is essential.

I. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development in which the TUMF will be levied.

J. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional system. Such development will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such developments will be mitigated in part by payment of the TUMF.

K. The City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the N

new 2024 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements and the facilities that compromise the Regional System, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development.

L. The fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and real acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2024 Nexus Study. The need for the improvements and facilities is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic and creates the demand for the improvements.

M. The city council finds and determines that the 2024 Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional System.

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

O. At the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing.

P. Section 15.08.040 (A) of the Temecula Municipal Code authorizes periodic review and adjustment to the applicable TUMF in accordance with any adjustments made by the WRCOG Executive Committee.

Q. On, February 11, 2025 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed TUMF at which time the City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing.

R. The fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the public facilities described or identified in the Nexus Study.

SECTION 2. Adoption of 2024 Nexus Study. The City Council hereby adopts the "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2024 Update" (2024 Nexus Study) and its findings. The 2024 Nexus Study is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A." SECTION 3. TUMF Schedule. In accordance with Section 15.08.040 of the Temecula Municipal Code, there is hereby adopted the following fee schedule for the TUMF which supersedes the fee schedules set forth in prior resolutions of the City Council, effective as of the effective date of this Resolution as set forth in Section 5:
3 (1) $12,380 per single family residential unit 1,800 square feet or less. (2) $13,927 per single family residential unit between 1,801 and 2,300 square feet. (3) $15,476 per single family residential unit between 2,301 and 2,700 square feet. (4) $19,344 per single family residential unit greater than 2,700 square feet. (5) $7,816 per multi -family residential unit.
(6) $2.33 per square foot of an industrial project.
(7) $7.72 per square foot of a retail commercial project. (8) $4.89 per square foot of a service commercial project. (9) $2.45 per square foot of a service Class A and B Office.

SECTION 4. CEOA Findings. The amendment to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Schedule as described in this Resolution is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project does not include the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. This Resolution does not approve the construction nor cause the construction of any specific transportation improvements within Riverside County.

This Resolution will have no effect on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(d) and 15062, a Notice of Exemption will be prepared, executed and filed for the foregoing determination in the manner required by law, that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.

SECTION 5. Judicial Review. In accordance with State law, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this Ordinance shall be commenced within the time limits set forth in Government Code Section 66022.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective sixty (60) days following its adoption.

SECTION 7. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 1 lth day of February, 2025.

Brenden Kalfus, Mayor
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the I I th day of February, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, City Clerk

EXHIBIT "A"
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE NEXUS STUDY: 2024 UPDATE

WRCOG ,

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 Western Riverside
Council of Governments

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLEOF CONTENTS...................................................................................................................i LISTOF TABLES............................................................................................................................. ii
ES.0
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ iii
ES.1
Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study ........................................................iii ES.2
Future Growth............................................................................................................ vi
ES.3
Need for the TUMF.....................................................................................................

A
ES.4
The TUMF Network....................................................................................................viii ES.5
TUMF Nexus Analysis...................................................................................................x ES.6
Fair -Share Fee Calculation........................................................................................x ES.7
Conclusions................................................................................................................

A

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

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 to2045).............................................................................................................................17 Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison).......................................................................19 Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing to 2045 No-Build)...........................................................................................................................22 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction...................................35 Table 4.2 - Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County.......................................36 Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures..........................................................39 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates..............................................................................45 Table 4.5 - TUMF Transit Cost Estimates.................................................................................53 Table 4.6 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing and 2045 No -Build Scenarios to 2045 TUMF Build Scenario)..........................................................54 Table 5.1 - 2045 No -Build Peak Period Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone...............................57 Table 5.2 - 2045 No -Build Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone ................57 Table 5.3 - Backbone -Secondary Network Share Calculation...........................................58 Table 5.4 - Daily VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2018 - 2045) 59 Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share.................................................................61 Table 6.2 - Single -Family Residential Fee Adjustments by Unit Size....................................62 Table 6.3 - Fee Calculation for Non -Residential Share........................................................63 Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County..............64

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES.1
- Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process.................................v Figure ES.2
- Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045)......................................................................................................................vii Figure ES.3
- Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network Improvements ... ix Figure 1.1 -
Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process ................................. 6 Figure 2.1 -
Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ..............15 Table 2.2 -
Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ............ 16 Figure 2.2 -
Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ........... 16 Figure 2.3 -
Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to2045).............................................................................................................................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 11 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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 iii Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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 iv Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Figure ES.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process TUMF Road Project List
SCAG Data on
2018 Housing &
Employment
RivCoM 22
Existing Road
Network
RivCoM 2018
Baseline Model
Run

TUMF LOS
Target
Existing Capacity
Deficiencies
Capacity Deficiencies Attributable
to New Development
SCAG Forecast
for 2045 Housing
& Employment
RivCoM 2045
No -Build
Model Run
Future Capacity
Deficiencies
v TUMF Selection
Criteria
TUMF Road Project Cost Estimates
TUMF Design
Updated TUMF
Standards by
Unit Costs for ROW
Facility Type
& Construction
Cost per Mile by
TUMF Project Type
(Table 4.1)
TUMF Transit Component
RTA Transit Ridership
2023 Actual Average SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model
Weekday Daily Ridership 2045 Forecast Average
I TWeekday Daily Ridership
TUMF Road
%Attributed
J Pect List roj
to New
7 Development
Estimated Costs
Transit Costs
of TUMF Projects
Attributable to
New Development
Road Project
Costs Attributable to
New Development
Funds Available Project Costs to
from Other (non- be Covered to
TUMF) Sources New Development
RivCoM
5 Trip
Purposes

HBW, HBS, HBO WBO, OBO
Residential Fee Calculation (%ofvMT (%ofvMT
(Table 6.1 & Appendix K) Growth) Growth)
SCAG Forecast ITE
Growth in SFD, MFD Trip -Gen Rates
(Table 2.3) (11th Edition)
Growth in Trips
for SFD & MFD
Share of Project
Share of Project Costs Attributable
Costs Attributable to Retail Service,
to SFD & MFD Industrial, &
Public Sectors
Fee per DU Fee per SF
TUMF Nexus Study and
Schedule of Fees
Adjustments per
Fee Calculation Handbook
(Applicable to some project types)
-F:

Adjusted Fee
per Unit
RTA Transit Project List
TUMF Transit Updated Transit
Project List Unit Cost
(Table 4.3)
r Cost Estimate for
Transit Improvements
Non -Residential Fee Calculation
ITE Trip -Gen Rates by
(Table 6.2 & Appendix L)
Individual Land Use Code
(11th edition)
Riverside & SB (1990)
SCAG Study (2001)
Average Trip -Gen
ITE Percent
OCTAStudy (2001)
Rates by Sector
(Table L-4)
Pass -By Trips
(Table L-4)
Riverside County
General Plan (2015)
Average
SCAG Forecast
Growth in EmployeesriGen
Assumed Ratio of
7Adjusted
Rates by
by SectorEmployeeslTSF
ector (Table L-3)
(Tables 2.3 & L-2)
(Table L-1)
Growth in TSF for
Retail, Service, Industrial,
& Public Sectors
7 Growth in Trips for
Retail, Service, Industrial,
& Public Sectors
KEY
® Reference to Description in Text
Other Inputs Computations
Items for
RivCoM Adoption
WRCOG v Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

A major distinction between data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update and the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data used for this 2024 Update is the change in the base year from 2012 to 2018, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2040 to 2045. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation.

The population of Western Riverside County is projected to increase by 33% in the period between 2018 and 2045. During the same period, employment in Western Riverside County is anticipated to grow by 48%. Figure ES.2 illustrates the forecast growth in population, household and employment for Western Riverside County.

ES.3 Need for the TUMF
The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater RivCoM model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the TUMF study area included total vehicle miles of travel (VMT), total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS Q.

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

Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045)
3=,"
z,',DD,aOO
z,M,=
1--'00,00
IX
Say
Household Type
Single -Family
■ MultrFamily
Employment Sectors
❑ I ndustrial
Service
❑ Retail
❑ Government/Public Sector
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 vii Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

ESA The TUMF Network
The Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the TUMF Network) is the system of roadways that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied 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 viii Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

JURUPA VALLEY
Figure ES.3 - Regional System of
Highways and Arterials - TUMF
Network Improvements
ley
Grand Terrace
---
9� i
g7
C7Ni o kliIIs F- NORCO L�� � � - 2 ore Ic
Alessandro LL
2nd
Hidden ]FK +
+� Gm pilroad Val}eY RIVERSIDE �� � Van Buren
• `LO
� �° C�R�NA�
Ffar�eY no,.
mo
t\ $,77 ntd��t a Rami
a
• Mid -County
♦ (Placentia)
Pr. f
e �. No
474 rris
Ellis
Tustin t Ethanac
i �6W ft NIC
�•r_ I1pL5
f-+.ft¢S20ft v CANYON LAKE
Irvine
7 a r a n �� LAKE caMot'
9 Lake est \Road

ELSINORE
Rancho Santa -f -L- Lakeland Villa .

Margarita o:
r,
Santa Ana ► I' ca gUy
Mountains � � a a° WILDOMAR
0 / I ar
--`
C o�� Clinton 1
00 f ''7dr m
Legend o`
i N a
Ultimate Lanes • Interchange
^%,,v 2 0 Bridge
,ss,v 4 0 Railroad Crossing
^v 5 r TUMF Zone
8 = Cities
r - ] County Boundaries
• 10
1 ., rloha.,to
' south
tQ
rr--r ---- -—. r -A �•
i
i�
.�. San Mateo
a
E �...�Canyon
Esri,
Santa
Margarita-- J
n — CALIMLSA

MORENO VALLEY
Yucaipa
County
The
Badlands
ss�
1 1
L-�
Laket
w
M�i'h n s
r r
m
y Newport
It
N
r �m`
u
� I �
Scott
y ^�1
v
1 Benton
TA
Murrit. Hot
.Q
T
C
HE
r"
Cr�k
1 �
1 �
'

BANNING
Moronc�❑
' ' }
[p G
Reservation
•••1
�—= S n Gorg❑
t.aumo t Wilson
k• }
•'
Ram rl..n
1st Sun L+ Lnd.
10 $YPss. pa S s
v
Pa
;
+ `PA'LM
13EAUMONT
u
� r
r
I irF�
4 •
• - �•
`
L -WLWt San
•
�,.�----��
{
�t
Jacint� State
------v -Pdrk
A
•
To 7� 5o6a6a
r".V
o Reservation+
-79 E
1 } N,^3t5R-74
fdyllwilfi•.
(Florida)
Rouse
Hemet�sanr-
Jacinto M�
P.S. Census, County of Riverside, California State
hanga
nation I}
-% �!.
0 'A
r'
I
Thoma
Mounta
Western Rivenide
Cound I of Cove rnments
arks, Esri,omTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METIfNASA,
,_USGS, Yyreau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS
An
Mau

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

The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of peak period trips between zones. The overall result is that 51.1 % of the regional travel is attributable to the backbone network and 48.9% is assigned to the secondary network.

In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, peak period growth in VMT between 2018 and 2045 was derived from RivCoM and aggregated by trip purpose. It was concluded that home -based person trips represent

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

22.3% of the total future person trips.

ES.6 Fair -Share Fee Calculation
The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $4.24 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their "fair share" of the WRCOG x Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system.

Of the $4.24 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 77.7% ($3.30 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 22.3% ($946.5 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development.

ES.7 Conclusions
Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be demonstrated that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF Program.

Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include:
➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development.
➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways; ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County; ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development;
➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program;
➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automotive travel.

The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. The fair share fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table ES.1.

WRCOG xi Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
xii Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY

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

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

Continued high growth in households and jobs in Western Riverside County could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. Development exactions only provide improvements near the development site, and the broad -based county -level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half -cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements.

In anticipation of the continued future growth projected in Riverside County, several county -wide planning processes were initiated in 1999. These planning processes include the Riverside County General Plan Update, the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Related to these planning processes is the need to fund the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development.

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

In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the WRCOG I Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History
The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern Municipal Water District, Western Water, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority and the Riverside Transit Agency to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. WRCOG strives to "respect local control, provide regional perspective, and make a difference" to elevate the quality of life throughout the subregion. A current list of the standing WRCOG committees and committee membership that oversee the TUMF program is included in Appendix A.

The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. Its purpose was to establish the nexus or reasonable relationship between new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the proposed development impact fee that would be used to improve regional transportation facilities. It also identified the proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development.

Consistent with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act, the WRCOG Executive Committee has established that the TUMF Nexus Study will be subject of a comprehensive review of the underlying program assumptions at least every five years to confirm the Nexus. Acknowledging the unprecedented and unique nature of the TUMF Program, the Executive Committee determined that the first comprehensive review of the Program should be initiated within two years of initial adoption of the Program primarily to validate the findings and recommendations of the study and to correct any program oversights. The results of the first review of the Program were documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009.

A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015 leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015.

The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015, where it was resolved to "delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments' 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the Nexus Study". The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016, enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. The WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update Report was ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017.

WRCOG 3 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

To ensure new development continues to contribute a fair share of the cost to mitigate its cumulative regional transportation impacts in the period between the comprehensive review of program assumptions completed at least every five years, the WRCOG Executive Committee has also established that the TUMF Schedule of Fees will be reviewed annually, and adjusted, as needed, on July 1 st to reflect current costs. The revised schedule of fees will typically be recalculated in February of each year based WRCOG 4 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

on the percentage increase or decrease in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the twelve (12) month period from January of the prior year to January of the current year, and the percentage increase or decrease in the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Median Sales Price of Existing Single Family Homes in the Riverside/San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area for the twelve (12) month period from the 3rd Quarter of the second year prior to the 3rd Quarter of the prior year (to coincide with the publication of the most recently updated index). If approved by the Executive Committee, the resultant percentage change for each of the indices will be applied to the unit cost assumptions for roadway and bus transit costs, and land acquisition costs, respectively, to reflect the combined effects of changes in eligible project costs on the resultant per unit fee for each defined land use category. The most recent annual cost adjustment to the TUMF Schedule of Fees was adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 12, 2021.

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

Furthermore, the TUMF Network was re-examined in detail based on travel demand forecasts derived from the most recent version of the Riverside County Model (RivCoM) to more accurately reflect future project needs to address the cumulative regional impacts of new development in Western Riverside County as well as eliminating those projects having been completed prior to the commencement of the Nexus review in 2021.

The subsequent chapters of this Nexus Study document describe the various assumptions, data inputs and analysis leading to the determination of each major variable in the TUMF calculation, and ultimately leading to the determination of the TUMF Schedule of Fees that indicates the maximum "fair share" fee for each of the various use types defined in the TUMF program. The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is summarized in this section, including the flow chart in Figure 1.1 that illustrates the various technical steps in this fee calculation process. Each technical step that was followed to determine the TUMF Schedule of Fees and establish the program nexus is summarized below, with the numbers denoted on the flow chart correlating to the steps described. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of RivCoM, steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in this Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step.

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

Figure 1.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process TUMF Road Project List
SCAG Data on
2018 Housing &
Employment
RivCoM 22
Existing Road
Network
RivCoM 2018
Baseline Model
Run

TUMF LOS
Target
Existing Capacity
Deficiencies
Capacity Deficiencies Attributable
to New Development
SCAG Forecast
for 2045 Housing
& Employment
RivCoM 2045
No -Build
Model Run
Future Capacity
Deficiencies
v TUMF Selection
Criteria
TUMF Road Project Cost Estimates
TUMF Design
Updated TUMF
Standards by
Unit Costs for ROW
Facility Type
& Construction
Cost per Mile by
TUMF Project Type
(Table 4.1)
TUMF Transit Component
RTA Transit Ridership
2023 Actual Average SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model
Weekday Daily Ridership 2045 Forecast Average
I TWeekday Daily Ridership
TUMF Road
%Attributed
J Pect List roj
to New
7 Development
Estimated Costs
Transit Costs
of TUMF Projects
Attributable to
New Development
Road Project
Costs Attributable to
New Development
Funds Available Project Costs to
from Other (non- be Covered to
TUMF) Sources New Development
RivCoM
5 Trip
Purposes

HBW, HBS, HBO WBO, OBO
Residential Fee Calculation (%ofvMT (%ofvMT
(Table 6.1 & Appendix K) Growth) Growth)
SCAG Forecast ITE
Growth in SFD, MFD Trip -Gen Rates
(Table 2.3) (11th Edition)
Growth in Trips
for SFD & MFD
Share of Project
Share of Project Costs Attributable
Costs Attributable to Retail Service,
to SFD & MFD Industrial, &
Public Sectors
Fee per DU Fee per SF
TUMF Nexus Study and
Schedule of Fees
Adjustments per
Fee Calculation Handbook
(Applicable to some project types)
-F:

Adjusted Fee
per Unit
RTA Transit Project List
TUMF Transit Updated Transit
Project List Unit Cost
(Table 4.3)
r Cost Estimate for
Transit Improvements
Non -Residential Fee Calculation
ITE Trip -Gen Rates by
(Table 6.2 & Appendix L)
Individual Land Use Code
(11th edition)
Riverside & SB (1990)
SCAG Study (2001)
Average Trip -Gen
ITE Percent
OCTAStudy (2001)
Rates by Sector
(Table L-4)
Pass -By Trips
(Table L-4)
Riverside County
General Plan (2015)
Average
SCAG Forecast
Growth in EmployeesriGen
Assumed Ratio of
7Adjusted
Rates by
by SectorEmployeeslTSF
ector (Table L-3)
(Tables 2.3 & L-2)
(Table L-1)
Growth in TSF for
Retail, Service, Industrial,
& Public Sectors
7 Growth in Trips for
Retail, Service, Industrial,
& Public Sectors
KEY
® Reference to Description in Text
Other Inputs Computations
Items for
RivCoM Adoption
WRCOG 6 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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' has datasets available that represent the capacity of the different facilities in the road network for several different study years. For this nexus update, the RivCoM 2018 base network that was developed following the adoption of the SCAG 2020 RTP was selected as the one most closely resembling current conditions. This network was subsequently reviewed and updated, including a detailed review by WRCOG staff and participating jurisdictions, to identify projects that were completed on the arterial network in the period between 2016 and December 2021. The arterial network was then recoded to reflect the changes to the TUMF Network to create a 2021 Existing Network as the base network for analysis. A second version of the base network was also developed adding only those facilities that had been identified on the 2016 TUMF network that did not currently exist and therefore were not represented by a link(s) in RivCoM. The Supplemental 2021 Existing Network was utilized as the basis for assessing only those projects that did not currently exist on the TUMF Network.
3) RivCoM was run using the 2018 socio-economic data (SED) and the 2021 Existing Networks to produce the baseline volumes on the roads in the TUMF Network. 4) The baseline volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio was then determined. The target LOS for TUMF facilities is "D", meaning that facilities with LOS "E" or "F", i.e. those with a V/C ratio of 0.9 or higher, are deemed to have inadequate capacity. The result of this step is a list of roads that have existing capacity deficiencies. 1 The macro -level traffic forecasting was conducted using the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivCoM) RivCoM is consistent of SCAG's six -county model with additional detail (traffic analysis zones and local roads) added within Riverside County. It was developed for use in traffic studies in Riverside County as a replacement for the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM) integrating an updated modeling platform to improve run time and reliability, as well as a more focused model area, more detailed network and zone structure, and prost processors to satisfy more recent legislative requirements. RivCoM has both the geographic scope needed to analyze all TUMF facilities and conformity with regional planning assumptions. There is a memorandum of understanding among the jurisdictions of Riverside County that encourages the use of the RivCoM model for use in regional traffic studies.

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

5) The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2045 as its forecast horizon year. This adopted dataset was also used as the future base year for the TUMF update calculation.
6) RivCoM was run using the 2021 Existing Networks with the land use assumptions for 2045. These "Future No -Build" scenarios was used to determine where deficiencies would occur in the roadway system if development occurred as expected but no roadway improvements were implemented.
7) Comparing the existing capacity deficiencies with the future deficiencies showed where new deficiencies would occur that are entirely attributable to growth in households and employment. Comparing the existing and future traffic volume to capacity ratio on the roads that are currently deficient shows the portion of the future deficiency that is attributable to growth. 8) It is generally acknowledged that the TUMF program cannot and should not attempt to fund every roadway improvement needed in Western Riverside County. WRCOG has adopted a set of selection criteria that was used to choose which roadway improvements would be eligible for TUMF funding. 9) The selection criteria were applied to the forecast deficiencies to identify projects for the TUMF Project List. The project list was subsequently reviewed to confirm the eligibility of proposed projects, including projects previously included in the TUMF program, as well as additional projects requested for inclusion as part of the current update. The project list was then subsequently updated to reflect those projects considered eligible for TUMF funding as part of the 2024 Nexus Study Update.

2.3.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs
The estimated costs of proposed improvements on the TUMF Network are calculated based on the prices of construction materials, labor and land values for the various eligible project types included as part of the TUMF program. The approach and outcomes of the following steps is described in Chapter 4 of this report. 10) The TUMF program has design standards covering the road project components that are eligible for TUMF funding. This ensures that projects in jurisdictions with different design standards are treated equally2.
1 1) 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.
z A jurisdiction may choose to design to a higher standard, but if it does so, TUMF will only fund up to the equivalent of what costs would have been had the TUMF design standards been followed.

WRCOG 8 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

2.3.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments
Having determined the total project costs to be covered by new development under the TUMF program, it is necessary to divide these costs among different types of developments roughly in proportion to their expected traffic impacts. The following steps describes the process for determining the proportion attributable to new residential development. The approach for accomplishing these steps along with the findings of this analysis are described in detail in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report. 23) California legislation encourages the use of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the primary indicator of traffic impacts because it combines the number of vehicle trips and the average length of those trips to reflect the proportional impact to the roadway network. As a result, the methodology for determining the relative distribution of traffic impacts between residential and non-residential uses for the purposes of TUMF utilizes a VMT based approach. The RivCoM 2021 Existing Network and 2045 No -Build model runs were examined to determine the VMT of various trip types that would take place in Western Riverside County (excluding through trips). The results were compared to determine the growth in VMT for each trip type. Per WRCOG policy (based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) recommended practice) trips originating in or destined for a home are attributed to residential development while trips where neither the origin nor the destination are a home are attributed to non-residential development.
24) The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS socio-economic forecasts were used to estimate the number of single-family and multi -family dwelling units that will be developed during the 2018 to 2045 period.
25) The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE's) trip generation rates, which come from surveys of existing sites for various development types, were then used to estimate the daily number of trips that will be generated by future single- and multi -family developments that will occur in the region from 2018 to 2045. 26) The cost to be covered by residential development was divided into the portion attributable to new single-family dwellings and portion attributable to new 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 10 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

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

2.0 FUTURE GROWTH

2.1 Recent Historical Trend
Western Riverside County experienced robust growth in the period from the late 1990's to the mid 2000's. The results of Census 2000 indicate that in the year 2000, Western Riverside County had a population of 1.187 million representing a 30% increase (or 2.7% average annual increase) from the 1990 population of 912,000. Total employment in Western Riverside County in 2000 was estimated by the SCAG to be 381,000 representing a 46% increase (or 3.9% average annual increase) over the 1990 employment of 261,000.

Despite the impacts of the Great Recession and the associated residential mortgage and foreclosure crisis, and more recently with the shifting of population during and following the COVID-19 pandemic, Western Riverside County has continued to grow due to the availability of relatively affordable residential and commercial property, and a generally well-educated workforce. By 2010, the population of the region had grown to 1.742 million, a further 47% growth in population from 2000. Similarly, total employment in the region had also grown from 2000 to 2010 with 434,000 employees estimated to be working in Western Riverside County. This represents a 12% increase from the 381,000 employees working in the region in 2000.

2.2 Available Demographic Data
A variety of alternate demographic information that quantifies future population, household and employment growth is available for Western Riverside County. For earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by SCAG. SCAG is the largest of nearly 700 Councils of Government (COG) in the United States and functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties in Southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and plan for issues of regional significance including transportation and growth management. As part of these responsibilities, SCAG maintains a comprehensive database of regional socioeconomic data and develops demographic projections and travel demand forecasts for Southern California.

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

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

2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis A major distinction between data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update and the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data used for this 2024 Update is the change in the base year from 2012 to 2018, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2040 to 2045. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation.

The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data were compared to the 2016 RTP/SCS data used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update. As can be seen in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, the 2018 data reflects an increase in population and single-family households, and a very slight decline in multi -family households. Employment grew substantially overall, with significant growth in industrial employment, largely attributable to the rapid expansion of warehousing and logistics facilities in Western Riverside County. In contrast, there was a notable decline in government and public sector employment in the region from 2012 to 2018
Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County SED Type
2016 Update
(2012)
2024 Update
(2018)
Change
Percent
Total Population
1,773,935
1,905,440
131,505
7%
Total Households
525,149
554,573
29,424
6%
Single -Family
366,588
397,407
30,819
8%
Multi -Family
158,561
157,166
-1,395
-1 %
Total Employment
460,787
570,420
109,633
247o
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
-1 1%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
WRCOG 14 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,OOC
1,200,001
1,000,00
800,0(
6(0,04
400,0
200,(
zr y e
.z•O o� Dos s`�
Household Type
Single -Family
■ Multi -Family
Employment5ectors
❑ Industrial
Q Service
Retail
Government/Public Sector
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 15 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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%a
Single -Family
539,631
564,898
25,267
5%
Multi -Family
235,600
247,501
11,901
5%
Total Employment
861,455
I 846,442
-15,013
-27o
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 2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,00(
1,200,001
1,000,OC
800,0(
600,Oi
400,C
200,(
Household Type
Single -Family
■ Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
❑ Industrial
0 Service
Retail
Government/Public Sector
WRCOG 16 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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
Change
Percent
Total Population
1,905,440
2,533,876
628,436
3317o
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
4817o
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 17 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045)
2,500: ax
2AM,00c
i,soo,oa
i3ODa
XOR
Household Type
❑ Single -Family
❑ MultFFamily
Employment Sectors
❑ Industrial
❑ Service
❑ Retail
❑ Government/Public Sector
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 18 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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
-3117o
TUMF Industrial
80,592
76,581
-4,01 1
-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 19 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison)
700,OM
600,000
500,000
400,00(
300,00
200,0(
100,DI
QOQJ\ 0 aS \b ae
ar o\ 'j4 ,yp
.r0 �0
Household Type
❑ Single -Family
❑ Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
Industrial
Service
Retail
Government/Public Sector
WRCOG 20 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF
All new developments have some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a community, city or county due to an increase in travel demand. Increasing usage of the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing VMT, traffic congestion and decreasing the level of service (LOS)3. To meet the increased travel demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become necessary to sustain pre -development traffic conditions.

The projected growth in Western Riverside County (33% growth in population and 48% growth in employment in 27 years) and the related growth in VMT can be expected to increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial highways and roadways that carry a significant number of the trips between cities, since traditional sources of transportation improvement funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to serve new development. Development exactions generally provide only a fraction of the improvements with those being confined to the area immediately adjacent to the respective development, and the broad -based county -level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half -cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements.

This section documents the existing and future congestion levels that demonstrate the need for future improvements to the transportation system to specifically mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. It then describes the TUMF concept that has been developed to fund future new developments' fair share of needed improvements.

The forecast of future congestion levels is derived from Year 2045 No -Build travel demand forecasts for Western Riverside County developed using RivCoM. The Year 2045 No -Build scenario evaluates the effects of 2045 population, employment and resultant traffic generation on the 2021 existing arterial highway network.

3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels
To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the existing arterial highway system in Western Riverside County, existing (2018) and future (2045) SED were modeled on the existing (2021) arterial highway network using RivCoM. To quantify traffic growth impacts, various traffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for the AM and PM peak periods for each of the two scenarios. The 3 The Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition - A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 2016, Volume 1 - Concepts, pp 5-3) describes LOS as a "quantitative stratification of performance measure or measures representing quality of service .... HCM defines six levels of service, ranging from A to F, for each service measure or combination of measures. LOS A represents the best operating conditions from the traveler's perspective and LOS F the worst." WRCOG 21 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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
127o
377o
* 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 22 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values:

VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume
VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume VHD = VHT - (Free -flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume) VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90) Note: Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio thresholds for LOS E are based on the Transportation Research Board 2010 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 14-5, Chapter 14, Page 14-5).

The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 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 6t" 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, 201 1) Page ES-3, ES-1
WRCOG 23 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

program follows the guidance of the Highway Capacity Manual in establishing LOS E as the threshold for unacceptable level of service, and subsequently as the basis for measuring system performance and accounting for existing needs. This approach ensures a more conservative accounting of existing system needs as part of the determination of the "fair share" of mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of future new development on the transportation system.

The continuing need for a mitigation fee on new development is shown by the adverse impact that new development will have on Western Riverside County's transportation infrastructure, and particularly the arterial highway network. As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure with the total peak period VMT on the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA; also referred to as the TUMF Network) estimated to increase by approximately 38% or 1.2% compounded annually.

As shown in Table 3.1, the peak period VMT on arterial facilities within the TUMF Network experiencing LOS E or worse will increase by approximately 316% or 5.4% compounded annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2018 and 2045. By 2045, 37% of the total VMT on the TUMF arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the TUMF arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on TUMF arterial highways during the peak periods will increase by approximately 5.0% per year. The combined influences of increased travel demand and worsened LOS that manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay highlighting the continuing need to complete substantial capacity expansion on the TUMF arterial highway system to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of increased travel demand resulting from new development.

The RivCoM outputs summarized in Table 3.1 clearly demonstrate that the travel demands generated by future new development in the region will lead to increasing levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The need to improve these roadways to accommodate the anticipated growth in VMT and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the additional travel demand.

3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels
In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Transit represents a critical component of the transportation system by providing an alternative mode choice for those not wanting to use an automobile, and particularly for those who do not readily have access to an automobile. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows because of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow.

WRCOG 24 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

While some future transit trips will be accommodated by inter -regional transit services such as Metrolink, a substantial number of the trips within Western Riverside County will be served by bus transit services and for this reason the provision of regional bus transit service is considered integral to addressing the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new developments. Regional bus transit services within Western Riverside County are primarily provided by RTA.

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

The future growth in demand for public transit services is reflective of the cumulative regional impacts of new development, and the associated increase in demand for all types of transportation infrastructure and services to accommodate this growth.

Furthermore, bus transit ridership is expected to grow as the improved services being planned and implemented by RTA attract new riders and encourages existing riders to use transit more often as an alternative to driving. Attracting additional riders to bus transit services contributes to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development by reducing the number of trips that need to be served on the highway system. The need to provide additional bus transit services within Western Riverside County to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the demand.

3.3 The TUMF Concept
A sizable percentage of trip -making for any given local community extends beyond the bounds of the individual community as residents pursue employment, education, shopping and entertainment opportunities elsewhere. As new development occurs within a particular local community, this dispersal of trips of all purposes by new residents and the new business that serve them generates additional travel demand and contributes to the need for transportation improvements within their community and in the other communities of Western Riverside County. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute uniformly to paying the fair share cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these trips between communities. Thus, the fee is intended to be used primarily to improve S RTA, like most public transportation agencies, have seen significant short-term declines in transit ridership resulting from changes in travel demands, mode choice and trip distribution following the COVID-19 pandemic. RTA's 2016 actual average weekday daily ridership was 30,700. Post COVID-19, the RTA actual average weekday daily ridership in 2023 was 16,575, a decline of almost 50% of pre -pandemic ridership levels. These levels would be expected to continue to recover toward pre -pandemic levels as potential riders resume more regular work schedules, and apprehension toward the use of transit services for public health reasons wane.

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

transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (in particular, arterial roadways and regional bus transit services).

Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, while some also serve trips between more distant communities within the region. The differing roadway functions led to the concept of using a portion of the fee revenues for a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve the longer -distance trips (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region), while using a second portion of the fee revenues for a secondary system of arterials that serve inter -community trips within a specific subregion or zone (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the communities most directly served by these roads - to some extent, a return -to -source of that portion of the funds). Reflecting the importance of public transit to provide an alternative to highway travel as part of a balanced regional transportation strategy, a third portion of fee revenues was reserved for improvements to regional bus transit services (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region).

Much, but not all, of the new trip -making in each area is generated by residential development (i.e. when people move into new homes, they create new trips on the transportation system as they travel to work, school, shopping or entertainment). Some of the new trips are generated simply by activities associated with new businesses (i.e. new businesses will create new trips through the delivery of goods and services, etc.).

Apart from commute trips by residents coming to and from work, and the trips of residents coming to and from new businesses to get goods and services, the travel demands of new businesses are not considered to be directly attributable to residential development. The consideration of different sources of new travel demand is therefore reflected in the concept of assessing both residential and non-residential development for their related transportation impacts.

In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following:
➢ A uniform fee that is levied on new development throughout Western Riverside County.
➢ The fee is assessed roughly proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each new use on the transportation system.
➢ A portion of the fee is used to fund capacity improvements on a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve longer -distance trips within the region; a portion of the fee is returned to the subregion or zone in which it was generated to fund capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that link the communities in that area; and a portion of the fee is used to fund improvements to regional bus transit services that serve trips between the communities within the region.

WRCOG 26 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK

4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network
An integral element of the initial Nexus Study was the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system. As a result, this system also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The TUMF Network does not include the freeways of Western Riverside County as these facilities primarily serve longer distance inter -regional trips and a significant number of pass -through trips that have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County6.

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

1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at ultimate build -out (not including freeways).

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

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

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

5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services.

6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi -modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers).

Appendix E includes exhibits illustrating the various performance measures assessed during the definition of the RSHA.

Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied these guidelines were initially identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where several guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was subsequently endorsed by 6 Since pass -through trips have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County, new development within Western Riverside County cannot be considered responsible for mitigating the impacts of pass -through trips. The impact of 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 27 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee.

The RSHA is illustrated in Figure 4.1. As stated previously, the RSHA represents those regional significant highway facilities that primarily serve inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and therefore also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements.

The TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the 2024 Nexus Update to ensure facilities generally still met the previously described performance guidelines, and/or that the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network were roughly proportional to the impacts needing to be mitigated. This review process resulted in the removal of various facilities from the TUMF Network, as well as various changes in the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network. The resulting TUMF Network used as the basis for this Nexus Update is discussed in Section 4.3 of this report.

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

JURUPA VALLEY 6 /Grand Terrace Yucaipa
Figure 4.1 - Regional System of SS ,
iF o Center .� 0
C'nt-Glln. Ca�_� �e� x (Ma n)— A9-� �� County 1 `
Highways and Arterials for Western 'anch �e0e9 Jai \e3' �O�mb. °�o 0akLine _ Riverside County �, �.,ec�le 3 `°rr�adrS�C,A v 'P°�� Cany�°n CALIMESAIN�o 3 �.° e o �� m chP �` Oak'Valle
f e= u, o lunalley v Unvr. Q J Cd�y
o es Cherry Valley
co 3 <-d � Morongo
SChlsm, 1
North Central a°j n " g Reservation '
o v o, ' Oak Valley o
Arlington o o Ironwood o a v (14th) o a E
J 6th U 90 _° =w, S rr�rnr �...
' a Norco m 3 Eucal—tus m o o Imo tWilson aBANIVING
River �s y m o ' YP a, The 6th; . .
—F / 1, U Alessandro ,� z 0 1st Lncln. Rainse n I�Bypa sq Pass C o Hills NORCO \r soy ore o Badlands y 1
�� r, outh r '
c
2nd ° w JFK Cots o
Ln
Hidden j MORENO VALLEY
railroad 3 RIVERSIDE s' af6i Gii� 0 Pa � r
Grn• Valley o � Van Buren =
rn 0
i m d7 r; m
CORONA l v C 3°c o� s°^i can v BEAUMONT �P4"LM
G N d�L o a 7 s
9 SPRINGS
r o n o� 96,^ � ; - FlarleY Knox ntm •� o 1,
O t n d ISa
�- Ln
`, o���// o �° �� 1 Ramona c Mid -County (Ramona) `/ac
�\ Ca�a\co 2
d G°�
Mid - County
!♦ (Placentia)_ d �^� �� - - ` -WL9vt San
ern L i Z '. Jacinth State
R
No 1 Nuevo SA'` •••���������
e — g%74 erris cJACINTO w
�ctth) �. 1 3o Soboba r ..
o w Reservation ;
a Lakev1ew HEMET �,
Ellis � Esplanade
Cds Mo.ufl ains m o t
''•• PERRIS e �f CO SR-74/SR-79;� '
�..� ewe a� �L� (Florida) .�?1r,,)t`SR-74 , Idyllwihtl
Tustin i scd/Co Ethanac SR-74 �c� " (Florida)
.�
�yO M En Stetsn. `
00, McCall
6� hols Ln m °
-�_�_ Aft 4620jt Nic CANYON LAKE Sun omen 9 N HE IT
Rouse
J°J �� MEN`FEE .. HemetJSan Ridge +
I n/I ne m Newport
LAKE+ELSINORE nn °�
O r a n g Ca y Lake est �2 L Elsiiar�road a Holland m Jacinto i Rancho Santa 3 Lv
Margarita Lakeland Villa nyon Scott
Santa Ana ; Gr d Bundy CaKeller v ,m\_ 1 , #4^
Mountains
o� a� o Thoma
d ar v j Mounta
S a Mission Vie o ode Clinton Keith
Joaquin ° WILDOMAR °'�idr m h Benton
Hills m MURRIETA
�° p
4,' G C'a �`etd Murrit. Hot
@ o Pia Springs o
4y aguna Beach
Prs° An
0`e South '� TEMECULA m M o u Marga
Legend�- ,
• o me Temecula N.

TUMF Road 0 Cities �•.� � S\R79( pV\0 reek i
a� San Mateo VAP y, Council ofGovernments
�� Canyon
Network r _ ; County Boundaries
~ Esri, NA A! A, USG FE, A bur . U.S. Census, County of Riverside, California Stat-,Parks, Esri, (TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA, r _ TUMF Zone~� �:hanga USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS Santa = R !,rvation
Margarita_
�� ��

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

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

WRCOG 30 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

JURUPA VALLEY 'pry Grand Terrace __ Yucaipa _
Figure 4.2 -Backbone Network of ��� —� � center.: � ; y��^�� :� ~ - �� - — - - — - (Mai-_-.� r
Highways and Arterials for Western
h"''�'� ya: q - ► oakrl°n Cline 1
ounty
Bye
Riverside County 43 CALIMESA
alley llnivrsty�
1,.1 v"r E ti Cherry Valley BANNING Morongo }{
V cc;' isman i 1 s rn /y i H Reservation •A
North Central jn c rsj Oak =
E Arlirx,Iton o Ironwood CJ V1111 (1) o 'a
s _5 ° 0 � _ � San Gorgonio
Rvr ¢G .� a 3S Eucalyptus I The a �au6Yh° t
a Hills F� - Fa NORCt7 Alessandro► or o Badlands Sun Laa Lnd. Rams' I"za ByAass � Pas s 2nd� RI VERSlDE Ccts. as Saud � • • +
�1 V�alllley IFK � � MOREND VALLEY �
.. 4 Pass2.
►, been idraad CORONA �r7y Van Buren = 7� Gad, a°
• .� �yV{.r-y� .yam ^y N Spr. Ur�d
� o� BEAUMONT r
- y°o 6'Q - -Y Knox Cen LI Ci l
• L�t`❑� Ca}oleo 1 Mid County [Ramoria] ✓�,�- r -
• Mid FCaunty untY �r 1
��` �:. • (Placentia}a• ' • ^ — 1
1 _ SA
tht
• `A1, erri L � {{
~ 1■�W 1 Nuevo ��-.., - �—
e * 1 ` JAClNTD 9 - — `Zi — m -Pdrk
- — — — — — — w ■_.A [4th] erris � � � ��J Soboba y
w ► Reservation •
Ellis Esplanade I ,
c Lakeview NEMET �+
1 PERRIS >y �I�E2 SR 74LSR 79 ro r 1
Tustin t ��• Te �- Ethanac SR 74 Florida . Ln ')0t SR-74 ti 1 � � �,� � { } � fdyllwi
IE [Florida] •
f I j nyOn J �^ Stetson
1 ;tia6Lr Nf 401 Sun Ii C HEMET
f �" ■ rza fr chols 1� CANYON AKE
- X , MENlFEE Hemp+'Sa n Ridge , C�
Irvine ( F "MI
L� " _ Newport �Q
�� `1 ' �v tip' `Q'' LAKE ELSINORE C.y�` N Jacinto �+ a r a n g Lake est ' �° Isi o Yr ♦} jr t m 1
Rancho Santa'' �� Lakeland Villa t Soatt Margarita ��• , � � ti Santa Ana �e Bund - Keller" off v i
Mountains Thom
G b •.• s 1
5 n r WlLDDMAR 8 Mount
u d ar Clinton 1
Mission Vie o - °a Keith q
Joaquin �,.,r Benton
Hills `
MURRlETA y
J 4j, ' G J'�ta Murrit. Hot N
0 Springs
na Beach q
An
� Southwest �M o u r } ' ❑t2 TEMECLILA �� � -
i
Legend A ��s'° �,�
— ■ SR-75{Tess�c� u Creek t ; •
TUMFNetwork - - TUMF Zone San Mateo pkw•] coundIofCove mments } �.. Canyon
Cities
�I Backbone ' + Esri, NASA, NGA, US urc ensus, County of Riverside, California State Par sri, TomTorn, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA, USGS, r _ J County Boundaries Santa �+� echanga _B reau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS Secondary - ,rvation �-
Margarita 16--- -- — --y.- o,

42 San Gorgonio
Figure 4.3 - Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts JUMF Zones) Ima Linda 0 Redlands Wilderness
Yucaipa _ _
60 Center
Chino Cnt Glln. ve — (Main). p�9e _ _ _ _ _ Cnt. I 1
Chino Hills FLanch �e\\e9ta L �a�\e� �`e� CI. �ti C°r0dss/ — —Uve — — — — — — — Lam= �m fl �� t Igt fitd°, �° ` P�,chP CBM011 0(SVC//ey ec°c 1 62.

Limonite = h U—M'. L. �a�� Cd ) Sln9\
i K. �L° A Cherry Valley 1
z Sch/s. / 3 Q ��G°c Os J
i North Central m- v �� 1. Oak a f
Arlington u r Ironwod. E o v Ga Vally.(14t.) I Pass J
6th Ci va c a s m m 1�lJ 1—
Rv, Norco d3s 3� U o Eclypt. at 0 6th Wilson
- Alessandro z 0 1st Sung L Ramsl Y; IIS Bypass
Chino Hills State a o a
Park 1 L°i� 2n•
Hidden °�a Vic °� Ccts. °1 N outh� f —
\ JFK Y
1 Valley apo Vdd 3 o LAG.vacs rt
CD N
G� Rai/r e r
�3 j 4r 1
r6 Mm d I 111
°oF: l = hsbr. mF-------
91 �'96. o Central
r_ O hyo�Q •- — Purley Know s
`\ Foothill hEdrro F RamonaMid-County° f
` ° s6 ✓y �� (Ramona) (U r
♦ Gee aja\cO C° o I 243 Palm
Mid -County
♦` � ; (Placentia) Mount San
\s 1 Jacinto State
Northwest 3� Nuevo f', _�_ Park
ro
a f, Lathy > j 2>J °?� o
241 L� Ellis Cd u' o Esplanade1 �0)
SR-74/SR-79 SR=74
�iL7 �4 (Florida) U) (Florida), I Idyllwild Agua Caliente 1 Ethanac doh SR-r74 ay 1 4
Stetson
McCI.
�J* Nichols 2F QomenigOn/ Hemet/San I 7a'
133 ♦ m <CL) �o — n 1 --I
♦♦ -' � l 2: Newport Jacinto _I
rn 1
Lake Forest ♦ ♦ �% Railroad Holland '2'
o ♦ ♦ �' Canyon C° j
... Rancho Santa / f
® Margarita Scott v
// drjo Keller
°� ` 1
i I
DI \� ` r 0
J
Clinton °°a g`t ►
Mission Viejo / �� °dj Keith /
o / JJ` Oih�� Benton
Legend
.one
Central
Hemet/San Jaci
Northwest
Pass
Southwest
r VI
/ vJ
Murrit, Hot Sant
74 // Southwest°yP�a cl Springs o ° ♦\ 371 Resear
'E c.°r a 1
co
t r Cahuilla
Reservation
�___________
1 ✓' � / 371
r
�G ♦ Beauty Beauty
1 Mountain Mountain
1 _County of Ri side, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeG�rh OViME-T-lJif�1ASA,\lW�+�,rIW;r�8ueAftlYand Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS — —

4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs
To calculate a "fair share" fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development.

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

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

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

As part of the 2024 TUMF Nexus Update, the original unit cost categories were revised to generate entirely new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction cost, labor cost and land acquisition cost values for comparable projects within Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed 9 Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachell a Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)
'a TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates WRCOG 33 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003, states that "each new transportation project will contribute to Plan implementation. Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% - 5% of their construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts." This expectation is reiterated in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020) Section 6 which indicates that "about 44% of the revenue for the program" is expected to be derived from non -fee sources, including " the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through 2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF)." Consistent with the MSHCP Nexus Report, an amount equal to 5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges and railroad grade separations will be specifically included as part of TUMF Program with revenues to be provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for the acquisition of land identified in the MSHCP. The relevant sections of the MSHCP document and the most recent MSHCP Nexus Report are included in Appendix F.

Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate as part of the current Nexus Update. Table 4.1 also includes a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions and the 2016 Nexus Study unit cost assumptions that demonstrates the significant increases in unit costs observed during recent years. In most cases the unit cost assumptions have more than doubled from those used for the 2016 Nexus Study. Cost estimates are provided in current year values as indicated.

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

The initial list of improvements was then compared with local General Plan Circulation Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of regional significance. A consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the network to mitigate for future traffic growth associated with new development. This initial list of proposed improvements has since been revised and updated as part of each subsequent Nexus Update to reflect the completion of projects, changing levels of development and associated changes in travel demand and transportation system impacts to be mitigated as part of the TUMF program.

WRCOG 34 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction Original Cost
Cost Assumptions
Cost Assumptions
Component
Assumptions as
per 2016 Nexus
per 2024 Nexus
Description
Type
published
Study
Update
October 18, 2002
July 10, 2017
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
L
Landuse 3
$240,000
$287,000
$490,000
ROW cost factor per lane mile rural
areas
Complex new
Interchange 1
n/a
$50,032,000
$84,190,000
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
total 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, preliminary engineering
Planning
10%
10%
10°7.
and environmental assessment costs
based on construction cost only
Project study report, design,
Engineering
25%
25°Jo0
25�/o
permitting and construction
oversight costs based on
construction cost only
Contingency
10%
10%
10%
Contingency costs based on total
segment cost
Administration
4�/0
4%
TUMF program administration based
on total TUMF eligible network cost
TUMF component of MSHCP based
MSHCP
5%
5%
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 35 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Table 4.2 - Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County Measure of Performance
2024 Nexus Update
2016 Nexus Study
Peak Period
Peak Period
2018 Existing
2045 No -Build
2012 Existing
2040 No -Build
VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES
23,284,724
29,897,254
19,532,437
29,277,587

VMT - FREEWAYS
13,514,522
15,490,284
11,019,155
14,487,570

VMT - ALL ARTERIALS
9,770,202
14,406,970
8,513,282
14,790,016

TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT
6,216,985
8,597,200
5,585,202
9,089,495
Source: RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network as existing in December 2021; RivTAM 2012 network and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016
As a result of the reduced forecast traffic growth in the region, it is anticipated that the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the arterial highway and transit systems in the region is also reduced necessitating a reduction in the projects identified on the TUMF Network to mitigate the impacts of new development. As part of the 2024 Nexus Update, the list of proposed improvements included in the initial Nexus Study and validated during the subsequent Nexus updates was reviewed for accuracy and, where necessary, amended to remove or modify projects that have changed in need to mitigate impacts based on changes in the patterns of growth and travel demand within the region. Projects completed since the adoption of the 2016 Nexus Update were also removed from the network to reflect the fact that mitigation at these locations is no longer required. The specific network changes were screened by the WRCOG Public Works Committee for consistency with TUMF network guidelines including travel demand and traffic performance.

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

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

1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes

2. Construction of new Network roadway segments

3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures

4. Construction of new Network bridge structures

5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways

6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways

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

8. Installation of ITS along Network roadway segments
All eligible improvement types, except for ITS, provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. ITS provides the ability to improve traffic flows along corridors WRCOG 36 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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 37 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

RTA. Transit needs to serve future regional travel in Western Riverside County via bus transit include vehicle acquisitions, transit centers, express bus stop upgrades, maintenance facilities and other associated capital improvements to develop express bus or other high frequency inter -community transit bus services within the region.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Express bus routes and other high -frequency bus transit routes and corridors in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were identified by RTA. 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 38 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures Original Cost
Cost Assumptions
Cost
Component Type*
Assumptions as
per 2016 Nexus
Assumptions per
Description
published
Study
2024 Nexus
October 18, 2002
July 10, 2017
Update
Relocation/expansion of
Transit Center 1
$6,000,000
$7,465,000
existing Regional Transit
Center with up to 14 bus
bays and ark and ride
New Regional Transit Center
Transit Center 2
$6,000,000
$9,000,000
$11,195,000
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 I***
$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
Comprehensive
COA Study
$950,000
$1,150,000
Operational Analysis Study
component of Nexus Study
Update
* Transit Cost Component Types were restructured as part of the 2016 Nexus Update in accordance with the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis (January 2015) ** BRT Service Capital Cost Assumption was based on a per mile unit prior to the 2016 Nexus Update. 2016 Nexus Update uses a per stop unit cost for BRT Service Capital *** Vehicle Fleet component was restructured as part of the 2024 Nexus Update with the inclusion of Small Sized Bus/Van Contract Operated as Vehicle Fleet 1 and subsequent renumbering of Vehicle Fleet 2 and 3, respectively The estimated total cost for future RTA bus transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $217.9 million with this cost including all planning, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Section 4.7. The full cost to improve RTA bus transit services cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for existing needs. Section 4.6 describes the adjustments to the total transit cost to account for existing needs.

WRCOG 39 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

4.5 Existing Obligated Funding
For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the funded cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF Program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds.

To determine the availability of obligated funds, WRCOG staff, in conjunction with RCTC staff, completed a review of the current Federal Transportation improvement Program (FTIP) to identify TUMF eligible projects that were also programmed to receive funding from alternate sources. A table summarizing the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix H. A total of $382.9 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated total TUMF network project cost was subsequently reduced by this amount.

4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs
A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (as presented in Table

3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service. In addition, demand for inter -community transit service already exists and future utilization of proposed inter -community transit services will partially satisfy this existing demand. The need to improve these portions of the system is generated, at least in part, by existing demand, rather than solely the cumulative regional impacts of future new development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost share of improvements providing for this existing need.

To account for existing need in the TUMF Network, the cost for facilities identified as currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted. This was done by identifying the portion of any segment of the TUMF Network with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of greater than 0.9 (the threshold for LOS E) in the RivCoM 2018 Existing scenario and extracting the share of the overall facility cost to improve that portion. This cost adjustment provides for the mitigation of incremental traffic growth on those TUMF segments with an existing high level of congestion. The following approach was applied to account for incremental traffic growth associated with new development as part of the existing need methodology:

Facilities with an existing need were identified by reviewing the RivCoM 2018 Existing scenario assigned traffic on the 2021 existing network and delineating WRCOG 40 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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.
11 The RivCoM 2021 Existing Network used for the TUMF Nexus Study analyses reflects the RivCoM 2018 base year network augmented to include highways facilities on the TUMF Network as they existed in December 2021. A second version of the base network was also developed adding only those facilities that had been identified on the 2016 TUMF Nexus study 2040 Build scenario that did not currently exist in December 2021 and therefore were not represented by a link(s) in the RivCoM base network. The Supplemental 2021 Existing Network was utilized as the basis for determining existing and future v/c for only those projects that did not currently exist on the 2021 TUMF Network.

WRCOG 41 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

5. For those segments experiencing a net increase in v/c over the base year, TUMF will 'discount' the cost of existing need improvements by the proportion of the incremental v/c growth through 2045 No -Build compared to the 2018 Baseline v/c (up to a maximum of 100%).

The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs (including the related MSHCP obligation) totals $582.6 million. Appendix H includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment and spot improvement experiencing unacceptable LOS.

For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement needs is $63.0 million representing 28.9% of the TUMF transit component. Appendix H includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost.

4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost
A total of $382.9 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. Since these improvements are already funded with other available revenue sources, the funded portion of these projects cannot also be funded with TUMF revenues. Furthermore, the total cost of the unfunded existing improvement need is $646.9 million. These improvements are needed to mitigate existing transportation deficiencies and therefore their costs cannot be assigned to new development through TUMF.

Based on the estimated costs described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, the total value to complete the identified TUMF network and transit improvements, and administer the program is $5.28 billion. Having accounted for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, respectively, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $4.24 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $3.87 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $154.8 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $53.9 million is eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $161.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program.

Figure 4.4 illustrates the various improvements to the RSHA included as part of the TUMF network cost calculation. Table 4.4 summarizes the TUMF network cost calculations for each of the individual segments. This table also identifies the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment having accounted for obligated funding and unfunded WRCOG 42 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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 43 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

JURUPA VALLEY Grand Terrace Yucaipa
Figure 4.4 - Regional System of o Center
Highways and Arterials -TUMF C'nt-Gllh. ra�� �e� X (Main)_ A9; --.k County ranch gel\e9 Jai y� eym �__ Live Oakes Line
Network Improvements ,�e�`e IM/Sso ~� o COrr�$11 �_(1501 `` Y°n CALIMESA7k o EL fu w alley `a IgF Unvr. ��' qj
cd7` �= 5�r°' Cherry
f c� °7 �` pd� �di Valley BANNING Morongo
Schleisman °, 3 L ry
North Central �a ° d// h�^m0ak (mE Reservation
9 �' Ironwood o o ey(ST) Valle 1 = a S n Gorgo
6th Arlington C �� � C y( .)
River a` tJorco ��� o Eucalyptus C° o -aumo t Wilsons
D/ NORCO li w. " t The o, 6th Rams ,inrin
C o Hills —F r0Alessandro LL ore o z Badlands �°�,' 1st Su1L•ks Md. y' I�Bypss Pass 2nd �)rGo o' Gets. a r� SoUth .. r
]FK o r MORENO VALLEY n�i
t Hidden U N G,j 0 Pa a..: r
Grn railroad Valley 3 RIVERSIDE ds� Van Buren a) m ado o r ■ �� ♦ Rvr. � �. CORONA o�'�i v C' 3°r, fl t3 s°^i '�°j act BEAUMONT PALM L day �% � o a o9s g� L .SPRINGS
C O °,� 96,^q � r ' - Harley Knox ntmi �S u
r
o �
~ ♦� o1 1 Ramona c Mid -County (Ramona) �a� 0
'
Ca�aico ♦ Mid county Mrd,C° 1 6r,'a� '�. 2��
♦ 1 o ♦ ♦ (Placentia) cn� - Wm.t San
erri -
% cState
L - v
le �R No ; Nuevo � Ln SAN �♦..� - - ����v-FhArk
�+ �•�.-------�.•� +...1 rns ' �' JACINTO °'
�) 3 Soboba a..♦
° Ellis w cy Esplanade Reservation k� +
L s a Lakev1ew
�c M0,10 ains o
v • d� �.. PERRIS Cd f m , 1
SR 74/SR 79 �\_ SR 74 Idyllwill`"
oTustin ` h Ethanac SRr74 (Florida) �•1' I I
■ 2� Q (Florida) '
oMYO Stetson M `.

Nichols ' • Su McCall N i9061 HEMET Rouse
'- fAJW46zo jt v CA_ N•YON LAKE g Oo�er
J �� ,(CIL) MENI FEE Newport HemetJSan Ridge
Irvine
O r a n g Lake est �� ��, LAKE L Ir• road Canyon 1° Holland , �' Jacinto ELSINORE, Rari ° m` a
Rancho Santa
Margarita Lakeland Villa o nyon Scott 3
Ca rn .•..

Santa Ana Gr\ gray ^ 1 , /.. ".,. �� •" 1
ho 0 Keller �
Mountains a° WILDOMAR,6 P °j Thoma
�� �l w ar 3 U.
1 Mounta
Legend
Ultimate Lanes 0 Interchange
2 O Bridge
4 O Railroad Crossing
6 r _ TUMF Zone
^v 8 = Cities
r _ ] County Boundaries
Sollti•1
�.� San Mateo
Canyon
� Esri,
�y� I
Santa =
Margarita_
-rit. Hot
Springs
ECULA
creel
xm__
ounty of Riverside,California State
An
Mou
1 %. ,- % l
1h'e5tern Riverside
Council of Governments
TomTo armin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA, USGS,
B, reau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates

AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME

SEGMENTFROM

SEGMENTTO

TOTALCOST

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
Centro l
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
Mumeto
$0
$0
Central
Menifee Newport
Murrieta
1-215
$1,130,000
$1,130,000
Central
Menifee Newport
1-215
Menifee
$0
$0
Central
Menifee Newport
Menifee
Lindenberger
$0
$0
Centro l
Menifee Newport
Lindenberger
SR-79 (Winchester)
$0
$0
Central
Menifee Scott
1-215
Briggs
$8,635,000
$8,635,000
Central
Menifee Scott
1-215
interchange
$0
$0
Central
Menifee Scott
Sunset
Mumeto
$4,388,000
$4,388,000
Central
Menifee Scott
Murrieta
1-215
$16,949,000
$12,949,000
Centro l
Menifee SR-74
Matthews
Briggs
$8,254,000
$8,254,000
Central
Moreno Valley Alessandro
1-215
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 Val ley Gilmon 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
Centrol
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
Centro l
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
1-215
$20,876,000
$20,876,000
Central
Perris Case
San Jacinto River
bridge
$1,740,000
$1,235,000
Centro l
Perris Ethanac
Keystone
Goetz
$6,056,000
$6,056,000
Central
Perris Ethanac
San Jacinto River
bridge
$5,568,000
$5,568,000
Centro l
Perris Ethanac
1-215
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
Centro l
Perris Mid -County (Placentia)-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
1-215 overcrossing
bridge
$0
$0
Central
Perris Ramona
1-215
Perris
$5,039,000
$5,039,000
Central
Perris Ramona
1-215
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
1-215
$0
$0
Centro l
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 it 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-15
Temescal Canyon
$0
$0
Northwes}
Corona Cajalco-15
interchange
$0
$0
Northwest
Corona Foothill
Poseo Grande
Lincoln
$0
$0
Northwest
Corona Foothill
Wardlow Wash
bridge
$0
$0
Northwest
Corona Foothill
Lincoln
California
$0
$0
Northwest
Corona Foothill
California
1-15
$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
Poseo Grande
$0
$0
Northwes}
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
AStreet
$119,000
$119,000
Northwest
Eastvale Schleisman
A Street
Hamner
$209,000
$209,000
WRCOG
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
45 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME

SEGMENTFROM

SEGMENTTO

TOTALCOST

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
1-215
$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
1-215
$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
$516,453,000
$96,453,000
Northwest
Unincorporated Van Buren
Mockingbird Canyon
Wood
$67,429,000
$67,429,000
Northwest
Unincorporated Van Buren
Orange Terrace
1-215
$0
$0
Pass
Banning Highland Springs
Wilson f8th)
Sun Lakes
$0
$0
Pass
Banning Highland Springs
1-10
interchange
$63,061,000
$32,516,000
Pass
Banning Highland Springs
Oak Valley f14th)
Wilson (8th)
$0
$0
Pass
Banning Highland Springs
Cherry Valley
Oak Valley (14th)
$0
$0
Pass
Banning 1-10 Bypass South
1-10
Morongo Trail (Apache Trail)
$50,110,000
$50,110,000
Pass
Banning 1-10 Bypass South
1-10
interchange
$63,061,000
$63,061,000
Pass
Banning 1-10 Bypass South
San Gorgonio
bridge
$4,176,000
$4,176,000
Pass
Banning 1-10 Bypass South
UP/Hargrave
railroad crossing
$52,780,000
$52,780,000
Pass
Beaumont Beaumont
Oak Valley f14th)
1-10
$0
$0
Pass
Beaumont Potrero
Oak Valley fSon 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)
1-10
California
$0
$0
Pass
Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont)
1-10
interchange
$63,061,000
$7,408,000
Pass
Calimesa Cherry Valley
1-10
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 fWinchester)
$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 fFlorida)
$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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
46 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

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
1-15
interchange
$63,061,000
$24,162,000
Southwest
Murrieta Clinton Keith
Copper Craft
Toulon
$0
$0
Southwest
Murneto Clinton Keith
Toulon
1-215
$2,076,000
$2,076,000
Southwest
Murrieta Clinton Keith
1-215
Whitewood
$0
$0
Southwest
Murrieto French Valley (Date(
Murrieto 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)
Murrieto Creek
bridge
$5,846,000
$5,846,000
Southwes}
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(
1-15
interchange
$122,076,000
$122,076,000
Southwest
Temecula SR-79 (Winchester(
Murrieta Hot Springs
Jefferson
$2,697,000
$2,697,000
Southwes}
Temecula SR-79 (Winches}er(
1-15
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( 1-15
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
Southwes}
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
1-15
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
Murneta Hot Springs
$595,000
$442,000
Southwest
Wildomar Bundy Canyon
1-15
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
1-15
$0
$0
Southwest
Wildomar Clinton Keith
1-15
Copper Craft
$5,030,000
$0
WRCOG
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
47 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME

SEGMENTFROM

SEGMENTTO

TOTAL COST

MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Central
Menifee Briggs
Newport
Scoff
$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
1-215
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
1-215 overcrossing
bridge
$9,744,000
$9,744,000
Central
Menifee Holland
Antelope
Menifee
$3,844,000
$3,844,000
Central
Menifee McCall-215
Aspel
$5,354,000
$5,354,000
Central
Menifee McCall
1-215
interchange
$0
$0
Central
Menifee McCall
Aspel
Menifee
$2,288,000
$2,288,000
Central
Menifee Murriefa
Ethanac
McCall
$0
$0
Central
Menifee Murrieta
McCall
Newport
$7,967,000
$7,967,000
Central
Menifee Murriefa
Newport
Bundy Canyon
$0
$0
Central
Moreno Valley Cactus
1-215
Heacock
$5,617,000
$5,617,000
Central
Moreno Valley Cactus
1-215
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
1-215
Towngate
$8,843,000
$8,843,000
Central
Moreno Valley Eucalyptus
To —gate
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 Losselle
John F Kennedy
Oleander
$0
$0
Central
Moreno Valley Moreno Beach
Reche Canyon
Canyon.

SR-60
$18,797,000
$18,797,000
Central
Moreno Valley Moreno Beach
SR-60
bridge
$0
$0
Central
Moreno Valley No on
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
Perns 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
1-215
bridge
$8,352,000
$8,352,000
Central
Perris Goetz
Lesser
Ethanac
$7,845,000
$7,845,000
Central
Perris Harley Knox
1-215
Indian
$0
$0
Central
Perris Harley Knox-215
interchange
$0
$0
Central
Penis Harley Knox
Indian
Perris
$0
$0
Central
Perris Harley Knox
Perris
Redlands
$0
$0
Central
Penis Nuevo
1-215
Murrieto
$16,971,000
$16,971,000
Central
Perris Nuevo
1-215
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
it
Perris SR-74 (Matthews-215
Ethanac
$0
$0
Central
SR-74 (Matthews)-215
interchange
$32,698,000
$21,835,000
Central
Unincorporated Center (Main(-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 Tmoteo Canyon
Locust
$0
$0
WRCOG
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
48 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

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
Porkridge
Ontario
$0
$0
Northwest
Corona
Magnolia
6th
Sherbom
$7,054,000
$6,419,000
Northwest
Corona
Magnolia
Temescal Creek
bridge
$4,176,000
$3,580,000
Northwest
Corona
Magnolia
Sherbom
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
Porkridge
$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
1-15
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
1-15
$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
1-15
Eastvale Gateway
$289,000
$289,000
Northwest
Eastvale
Limonite
1-15
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
Hanson
$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
1-15
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
1-15
$0
$0
Northwest
Norco
6th
Hamner
California
$0
$0
Northwest
Norco
6th
1-15
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
1-15
Norco Hills
$0
$0
Northwest
Norco
Hidden Valley
Hamner
1-15
$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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
49 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

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 ls}
Market
Main
$0
$0
Northwest
Riverside 3rd
SR-91
1-215
$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
1-215/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
1-215
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 Lo Siena
Arlington
SR-91
$0
$0
Northwest
Riverside La Sierra
SR-91
Indiana
$192,000
$192,000
Northwest
Riverside Lo Siena
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
1-215/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 Troutwein
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
1-215/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 (Weidck)
Temescal Canyon
1-15
$0
$0
Northwest
Unincorporated El Cerrito
1-15
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 Siena
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
1-15
$0
$0
Northwest
Unincorporated Temescal Canyon
1-15
interchange
$32,698,000
$32,698,000
Northwest
Unincorporated Temescal Canyon
1-15
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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
50 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY

STREETNAME

SEGMENTFROM

SEGMENTTO

TOTALCOST

MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Pass
Banning
8th
Wilson
1-10
$0
$0
Pass
Banning
Lincoln
Sunset
SIR
$0
$0
Pass
Banning
Ramsey
1-10
8th
$0
$0
Pass
Banning
Ramsey
8th
Highland Springs
$0
$0
Pass
Banning
SR-243
1-10
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
1-10
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
1-10
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
1-10
$0
$0
Pass
Beaumont
Oak Valley (14th)
1-10
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
1-10
$0
$0
Pass
Beaumont
Pennsylvania
6th
1st
$6,588,000
$6,588,000
Pass
Beaumont
Pennsylvania
1-10
interchange
$0
$0
Pass
Colimesa
Bryant
County Line
Avenue L
$0
$0
Pass
Calimesa
Calimesa
County Line
1-10
$0
$0
Pass
Calimesa
Calimesa
1-10
interchange
$63,061,000
$63,061,000
Pass
Calimesa
County Line
7th
Bryant
$0
$0
Pass
Calimesa
County Line
1-10
interchange
$32,698,000
$32,698,000
Pass
Calimesa
Desert Lawn
Palmer
Champions
$0
$0
Pass
Colimesa
Singleton
Avenue L
Condit
$0
$0
Pass
Calimesa
Singleton
Condit
Roberts
$12,972,000
$12,972,000
Pass
Calimesa
Singleton
1-10
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 Tmoteo Canyon
San Bernardino County
UP Railroad
$0
$0
Pass
Unincorporated
San Tmoteo 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 )Flonda)
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 )Flordo)
Domenigoni
$0
$0
WRCOG
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
51 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME

SEGMENTFROM

SEGMENTTO

TOTALCOST

MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Soufhwesf
Lake Elsinore Corydon
Mission
Grand
$3,336,000
$3,336,000
Soufhwesf
Lake Elsinore Diamond
Mission
I-15
$0
$0
Southwest
Lake Elsinore Franklin (integral to Railroad
I-15
interchange
$32,698,000
$32,698,000
Canyon Interchange)
Southwest
Lake Elsinore Grand
Lincoln
Toff
$0
$0
South wesf
Lake Elsinore Grand
Toff
SR-74 (Riverside)
$3,512,000
$3,512,000
Southwest
Lake Elsinore Lake-15
Lincoln
$39,817,000
$32,726,000
Southwest
Lake Elsinore Lake
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
Soufhwesf
Lake Elsinore Nichols-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
1-15
interchange
$63,061,000
$63,061,000
Southwest
Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Collier/Riverside)
1-15
Lakeshore
$24,303,000
$24,303,000
Southwest
Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Grand(
Riverside
SR-74 (Ortega)
$9,733,000
$3,691,000
Soufhwesf
Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Riverside)
Lakeshore
Grand
$20,175,000
$20,175,000
Southwest
Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon
1-15
Lake
$7,411,000
$7,411,000
Southwest
Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon
Temescal Wash
bridge
$3,480,000
$3,480,000
Southwest
Murrieto Califomia Oaks
Jefferson
1-15
$0
$0
Southwest
Murrieto Califomia Oaks
1-15
Jackson
$0
$0
Southwest
Mumefa California Oaks
Jackson
Clinton Keith
$0
$0
Southwest
Murrieto Jackson
Whifewood
Ynez
$0
$0
Southwest
Mumefa Jefferson
Palomar
Nutmeg
$1,562,000
$1,562,000
Southwest
Murrieta Jefferson
Nutmeg
Murrieto Hof Springs
$0
$0
Southwest
Mumefa Jefferson
Mumefa Hof Springs
Cherry
$30,634,000
$30,634,000
Southwest
Murrieta Keller
1-215
Whifewood
$0
$0
Southwest
Mumefa Keller
1-215
interchange
$0
$0
Southwest
Murrieto Los Alamos
Jefferson
1-215
$0
$0
Southwest
Mumefa Mumefa Hof Springs
Jefferson
1-215
$0
$0
Southwest
Mumefa Mumefa Hof Springs
1-215
Margarita
$0
$0
Southwest
Murrieto Murrieto Hot Springs
Margarita
SR-79 (Winchester)
$4,057,000
$3,899,000
Southwest
Mumefa Nutmeg
Jefferson
Clinton Keith
$0
$0
Southwest
Murrieto Whifewood
Clinton Keith
Los Alamos
$2,708,000
$2,708,000
Southwest
Mumefa Whifewood
Los Alamos
Murrieta Hof Springs
$0
$0
Southwest
Murrieto Whifewood
Murrieto Hot Springs
Jackson
$4,629,000
$4,629,000
Southwest
Mumefa Ynez
Jackson
SR-79 (Winchester)
$0
$0
Southwest
Temecula Butterfield Stage
Murrieto Hot Springs
Calle Chapos
$816,000
$816,000
Southwest
Temecula Butterfield Stage
Calle Chapos
La Serena
$696,000
$696,000
Southwest
Temecula Butterfield Stage
Lo 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
Murrieto Hot Springs
SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)
$7,644,000
$7,644,000
Southwest
Temecula Old Town Front
Rancho California
1-15/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
1-15
interchange
$32,698,000
$0
Southwest
Temecula Rancho California
Margarita
Butterfield Stage
$0
$0
Southwest
Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)
1-15
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
Mumefa Hof Springs
$23,076,000
$23,076,000
Southwest
Unincorporated Grand
Ortega
Corydon
$68,025,000
$68,025,000
Southwest
Unincorporated Horsefhief Canyon
Temescal Canyon
1-15
$0
$0
Southwest
Unincorporated Indian Truck Trail
Temescal Canyon
1-15
$0
$0
Southwest
Unincorporated Murrieto 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
Horsefhief Canyon Wash
bridge
$3,340,000
$3,340,000
Southwest
Unincorporated Temescal Canyon
Indian Truck Trail
1-15
$15,739,000
$15,739,000
Southwest
Unincorporated Temescal Canyon
Indian Wash
bridge
$1,462,000
$1,462,000
Southwest
Wildomar Bundy Canyon
Mission
1-15
$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
1-15
Baxter
$1,281,000
$1,281,000
Southwest
Wildomar Wildomar Trail
1-15
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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
52 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

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 Hubs)
Jurupa Valley
1 $11,195,000
$11,195.000
$7,956,000
Pass
RTA
Pass Area Mobility HubJsJ
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
7EB Technology Enhancements
Various locations region wide
10 $100.000
$1,000,000
$711,000
Northwest
RTA
Regional Operations and Maintenance
Facility$62,186,000
Riverside
I
$62,186,000
$44.192,000
Regional
ETA
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 $300000
$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
$217,870,00054,831,000
r�'
TOTAL

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 53 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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
9,1 15,937

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 2021 and RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network plus future TUMF network projects.

NOTES:

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

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

WRCOG 54 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS
The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the correlation between future development and the need for transportation system improvements on the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of this new development, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components of the TUMF concept.

5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements
Previous sections of this report documented the projected population, household and employment growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic congestion and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system improvements that will serve these future inter -community travel demands. The following points coalesce this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates to the need for improvements to the TUMF system.
➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing. owing.

Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate of growth into the foreseeable future. Current projections estimate the population is projected to grow from a level of approximately 1.91 million in 2018 to a future level of about 2.53 million in 2045, while employment is projected to grow from a level of about 570,000 in 2018 to approximately 846,000 in 2045 (as shown in Table 2.3). ➢ Continuing growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways.

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

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

To maintain transportation service closer to current levels of efficiency, capacity enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing WRCOG 55 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, grade separation of at -grade rail crossings, or the installation of new ITS to improve traffic flows. The completion of improvements to the arterial roadway system would enhance regional mobility and reduce the total peak period vehicles hours of travel (VHT) by over 2%, reduce peak period vehicle hours of delay (VHD) by over 7%, and reduce the share of traffic experiencing congestion in the peak periods by over 4% (as shown in Table 4.6). The specific needs and timing of implementation will depend on the location and rate of future development, so the specific improvements to be funded by the TUMF and their priority of implementation will be determined during future project programming activities as improvement needs unfold and as TUMF funds become available.
➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program.

The criteria used to identify roads for the TUMF network (future number of lanes, future traffic volume, future congestion level, and roadway function linking communities and activity centers and serving public transportation) were selected to ensure that these are the roadways that will serve inter -community travel and will require future improvement to alleviate congestion.
➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel.

Since a portion of the population does not own an automobile and depends on public transportation for mobility, public transportation infrastructure and service will need to be enhanced and expanded to ensure continued mobility for this segment of the population. In addition, improvements to the public transportation system will be required to ensure that transit service can function as a viable option for future new Western Riverside County residents and employees who choose to avoid congestion by using public transportation.

For the reasons cited above, it can be readily concluded that there is a rational nexus between the future need for transportation improvements on the TUMF system and the future development upon which the proposed TUMF would be levied. The following sections evaluate the rational nexus in relation to the system components and the types of uses upon which the fee is assessed.

5.2 Application of Fee to System Components
As noted in Section 3.2, the TUMF concept includes splitting the fee revenues between the backbone system of arterials, the secondary system of arterials, and the public transportation system. This section evaluates the travel demands to determine the rational nexus between the future travel demands and the use of the fee to fund improvements to the future system components.

The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle trips that are relatively local (between WRCOG 56 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future combined AM and PM peak period travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones to show the percentage of trips that remain within each zone in relation to the volume that travels to the other zones. This analysis was completed using the Year 2045 No -Build scenario trip tables from RivCoM.

The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the TAZs in the model and the five WRCOG TUMF zones (i.e. Northwest, Southwest, Central, Hemet/San Jacinto and Pass). The TAZs were then compressed into six districts (the five WRCOG zones and one for the rest of the SCAG region).

Table 5.1 shows the estimated peak period vehicle trips within and between each of the zones. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of peak period vehicle trips within and between the respective zones. Appendix I includes the detailed RivCoM outputs used to develop the regional trip distribution profile shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2.

Table 5.1 - 2045 No -Build Peak Period Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone TO
From
Central
Hemet/San
Jacinto
Northwest
Pass
Southwest
Outside
WRCOG
TOTAL
Central
417,608
23,474
89,780
6,301
55,101
57,558
649,822
Hemet/San Jacinto
29,401
209,005
8,647
8,432
16,081
18,078
289,645
Northwest
58,578
2,684
743,234
2,687
11,032
196,041
1,014,257
Pass
8,068
7,585
6,114
110,385
908
32,334
165,395
Southwest
55,812
16,232
32,852
1,976
667,255
62,713
836,839
Outside WRCOG
33,907
7,574
192,712
24,490
33,867
292,550
TOTAL
603,375
266,554
1,073,340
154,271
784,244
1 366,724
1 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 57 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUNIF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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
Backbone
Secondary
Secondary
3,248,507
Value
Share
Value
Share
Total Western Riverside County
Peak Period Vehicle Trips
-659,273
Less Internal/External Peak Period
Vehicle Trips
Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips
Internal to Western Riverside
2,589,234
County
441,747
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between
TUMF Zones
2,147,487
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within
TUMF Zones
L
1,243.9

41.1 %
1,786.0

58.9%
TUMF Future Network Lane -Miles
3,029.9
441,747
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between
441,747
100.0%
0 O.O�o
TUMF Zones
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within
TUMF Zones (as share of intra-
2,147,487
882,332

41.1 %
1,265,155

58.9%
zonal trips)
2,589,234
Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips
1,324,079

51.1%
1,265,155
Assigned
Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No -Build scenario; TUMF Nexus Study Exhibit H-1 WRCOG 58 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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 growth in daily VMT and the non -home -based growth in daily VMT represent 22.3% of the total future growth in daily VMT, as shown in Table 5.4. Appendix J includes the RivCoM outputs used to develop the trip purpose summary in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 - Daily VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2018 - 2045) 2018 EXISTING
2045 NO -BUILD

DAILY VMT

DAILY VMT

VEHICLE TRIP PURPOSE

DAILY VMT

DAILY VMT
GROWTH
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
43,227,904

77.7%
Residential Uses
Non -Home -Based Trips
12,372,533

22.3%
Non -Residential Uses
Based on RivCoM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023 and RivCoM Year 2045 No Build Scenario, November 2023
WRCOG 59 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

6.0 FAIR -SHARE FEE CALCULATION
The fee amounts, by type of development, that are justified to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on transportation facilities in Western Riverside County are quantified in this section. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $5.28 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals $382.9 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development represent $646.9 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $4.24 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region and will be captured through the TUMF Program.

By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their "fair share" of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system.

Of the $4.24 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 77.7% ($3.30 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 22.3% ($946.5 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development.

6.1 Residential Fees
The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new residential development through the TUMF is $3.30 billion. Since this future transportation system improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through the Year 2045, the fee will be spread between the residential developments projected to be constructed between 2018 and 2045. The projected residential growth from year 2018 to 2045 is 257,826 households (or dwelling units) as is indicated in Table 2.3.

Different household types generate different numbers of trips. To reflect the difference in trip generation between lower density "single-family" dwelling units and higher density "multi -family" dwelling units, the TUMF was weighted based on the respective trip generation rates of these different dwelling unit types. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, single family dwelling units are those housing units with a density of less than 8 units per acre while multi -family units are those with a density of 8 or more units per acre. According to the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS forecasts included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to constitute 65.0% of the growth in residential dwelling units in the region between 2018 and 2045.

Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11 th 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 60 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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
$15,476
Single -Family
397,407
564,898
167,491

0.99 165,816

78.6%
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 61 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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 - 1 1'" Edition (2021), and were weighted based on a calculated value of trips per employee as derived from the WRCOG 62 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

employee conversion factors and ITE typical trip generation rates per square foot of development, before being assigned to the non-residential categories as follows:

Industrial - 0.6 PM peak hour trips per employee, Retail - 1.8 PM peak hour trips per employee, Service - 1.2 PM peak hour trips per employee, and Government/Public -

2.1 PM peak hour trips per employee12. These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new 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
Trip
Percentage
Change in
Non -Residential Sector
Employment
Generation
Trip Change
of Trip
Square Feet of
Fee/SF
Change
Rate per
Change
Gross Floor
Employee
Area
$2.33
Industrial
76,581

0.6 45,949

15.1 %
61,489,565
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 (111" Edition) (September 2021).

WRCOG 63 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

7.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the ongoing TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include:
➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing because of future new development.
➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development.
➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program.
➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel.

The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources.

Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in Western Riverside County in rough proportionality to the cumulative impacts of future residential and non-residential development in the region. The respective fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type
Units
Development
Change
Fee Per Unit
$15,476
Total Revenue
($ million)
Single Family Residential
DU
167,491
$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 64 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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 65 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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 Bara'as 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 A-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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 Valle
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 Wa enen
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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
A-2 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

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-Fle'ter
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 Valle
David Chantaran su
City of Murrieta
Alma Robles
City of Norco
Kenneth Phun 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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
A-3 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

WRCOG Public Works Committee
Art Vela
City of Banning
Robert Vestal
City of Beaumont
Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
Stuart McKibben
City of Can on Lake
Savat Kham hou 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 Valle
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
Cit 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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
A-4 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

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
Cit 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
Cit of Menifee
Launa Jimenez
Cit of Moreno Valle
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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
A-5 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

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.

WRCOG 8-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9. 2024

EXHIBIT B-1
Western Riverside Countv Population. Households and Emplovment (20181 - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Base Year SED Type/Zone
Central
I Northwest Pass
San Jacinto
I Southwest Total
Population
Total Population
1 408,2601
777,9001 98,6881
187,6771
432,9151 1,905,440
Households
Single -Family
83,1421
152,8971
24,9371
38,8881
97,5431
397,407
Multi -Family
26,8891
63,5911
8,6611
26,0551
31,9701
157,166
Total Households
110,0311
216,4881
33,5981
64,9431
129,5131
554,573
Employment
Farming, 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
Manufacturing
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
Transportation, 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 Hospitality
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
290,1091
30,2691
34,7061
130,624
570,420
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

EXHIBIT B-2
Western Riverside Countv Population. Households & Emplovment (20451 - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Horizon Year SED Type/Zone Central I Northwest Pass
San Jacinto
I Southwest Total
Population
Total Population
1 594,6781 925,2281 158,0401
289,4391
566,4911 2,533,876
Households
Single -Family
133,5071
181,8271
43,9881
70,7131
134,8631
564,898
Multi -Family
53,5551
79,3591
14,3621
43,6541
56,5711
247,501
Total Households
187,0621
261,1861
58,3501
114,3671
191,4341
812,399
Employment
Farming, 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
Manufacturing
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
Transportation, 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 Hospitality
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 T
161,639
380,3601
50,043
64,613
189,7871
846,442
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

EXHIBIT B-3
Western Riverside Countv Population, Households and Emplovment (2018 to 2045 Chanael - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED Type/Zone
Central I Northwest Pass San Jacinto I Southwest Total
Population
Total Population
1 186,4181
147,3281
59,3521
101,7621 133,5761
628,436
Households
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
Em to ment
Farming, 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
Manufacturing
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
Transportation, 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 Hospitality
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
90,2511
19,774
29,907
59,163
276,022
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

Exhibit B-4a - TUMF 2024 Nexus Update
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Em to ment 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%
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
308,7031
482,9581
174,255
56%
TUMF Government/Public Sector
18,5691
30,6401
12,071
65%
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Exhibit B-4b - TUMF 2016 Nexus Update
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Em to ment 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%
Single -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
877.

TUMF Industrial
120,736
201,328
80,592
67%
TUMF Retail
65,888
101,729
35,841
54%
TUMF Service
253,3721
528,09,21
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%
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
-317
TUMF Industrial
80,592
76,581
-4,01 1
-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

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 b0-D OJD
42-D. DY,
KOICO
2WO1
1000
Qo�
,gr v ti fie:- :s
41 A
e
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 Household Type
❑ Single -Family
❑ Multi
Employment Sectors
❑ Industrial
❑ Service
❑ Retail
❑ Government/Public Sector
WRCOG B-7 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

EXHIBIT B-4e
Difference in Population, Households and Employment Growth in Western Riverside County TUMF 2016 Nexus Update Comparison to TUMF 2024 Nexus Update 20,000
0 -20,000
-40,000
-60,OOC
-80,00[
-100,001
-120,00
-140, OC
Employees
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 Household Type
❑ Single -Family
■ Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
Industrial
Service
Retail
Govemment/Public Sector
WRCOG B-8 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

EXHIBIT B-5a
TUMF Non -Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence Summary

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two Digit Code
NAICS Three Digit Code
TUMF Category
Employment Cate ories
NAICS Code NAICS Title
NAICS Code NAICS Title
Industrial
Farming, Natural Resources
and Mining
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
111 Crop Production
112 Anal Production and Aquaculture
113 Foreimstry and Logging
114 Fishing, Huntinq 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 Buildinqs
237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
238 Specialty Trade Contractors
Manufacturing
31-33 Manufacturing
311 Food Manufacturinq
312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturinq
313 Textile Mills
314 Textile Product Mills
315 Apparel Manufacturing
316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturinq
321 Wood Product Manufacturing
322 Paper Manufacturinq
323 Printing and Related Support Activities
324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturinq
325 Chemical Manufacturinq
326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturinq
331 Primary Metal Manufacturinq
332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturinq
333 Machinery Manufacturing
334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturinq
335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturinq 337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturinq
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturinq
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 Siqhtseeinq Transportation
488 Support Activities for Transportation
491 Postal Service
492 Couriers and Messengers
493 Warehousin qnd Storq e
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 Non -Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence Summary TUMF

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two Digit Code
NAICS Three Digit Code
Category
Em to ment Cate ories
NAICS Code NAICS Title
NAICS Code I NAICS Title
Service
Information
51 Information
512 Motion Picture and Sound Recordinq 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 Admstrative and Support Services
562 WasteiniManagement and Remediation Services
Education and Health Services
61 Educational Services
611 Educational Services
62 Health Care and Social Assistance
Ambulatory Health Care Services
H6621
22 Hospitals
623 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities
624 Social Assistance
Leisure and Hospitality
71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and Related Industries H7711
12 Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
713 Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation Industries
72 Accommodation and Food Services
H721 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, Grantmakinq, Civic, Professional, and Similar Organizations 814 Private Households
Government/Public
Sector All
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 1-5b
TUMF Category SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two DkR Code NAILS Three l) Cade NAILS Sk Dial Code Em b m¢nI G.M Orr¢b
NAICS Cud¢ NAICS TRI¢ NAICS Cud¢ NAICS idk NAICS Code I NAICS TRI¢ Industrial
Farming, Natural Resolmeb
and Mining
11 A vl-Rure. Forestry. Fishing and HunHn.
111 Crop Production
111110
Sava... Farmina
111120
Oilseed (a%Ce.1 Servo ) FOnnng
111130
Dry Pea and Bean Fannin.
111140
Wheat Fannin
111150
Cam Farmina
111160
Rice Fannin.
111191
Oilseed and Groin Combination Fann-
111199
All Other Grain Fannn.
111211
Potato Fannin.
111219
Other Venetable lexcept Potatol and Melon Fo-na
111310
Oran.. Groves
111320
Citrus lexcept Cahoot Groves
111331
Apple Orchards
111332
Grape Vineyards
111333
Sin —berry Foam
1113N
Berry lexcept Sin —beryl FOnal
111335
Tree Nut Farmina
111336
Fruit and had, Not Combinofion Fannin
111339
Other Nandi— Fruit Fannin.
111411
Mushroom Production
111419
Other Food Crops Grown Under Cover
111421
NurSOry and Tree Production
111422
Floriculture Production
111910
Tobacco Farnino
111920
Cotton Fannin.
111930
So .... ne Fannin.
111940
Hav Farmina
111991
Su —Beet Fannin.

Peanut Foam
111992
99E
All Other Miscellaneous Crop Fannin.
112 Anlmcl Praduolbn and A. —oft.
112111
Beef Cattle Ronchinn and Fannin.
112112
Cattle Feedlots
112120
Dairy Cattle and Milk Production
1121M
DUOFPUrpose Cattle Ranchin. and FamYn
112210
Hon and No Fannin.
112310
Chicken E.a Production
112320
Broilers and Other Meet Type Chicken Production
1123M
Turkey Production
112340
Poultry Hatcheries
1123%
Other Foully Production
112410
Sheep Fannin.
1124M
Goat Fannin.
112511
Fnfish Fonninn and Fish Hatcheries
112512
Shellfish Fannin
112519
01her Apuacultore
112910
Apiculture
112920
Horses and Other Eavine Reduction
1129M
Fur-Beanna Animal and Rabbit Production
112990
All Other Animl Production
113 Famshv and Lagging
113110
l ndaarTract Operations
113210
Forest Nueenes and Gathenna of Forest Products
113310
I LO.nin.
114 Fishing. Hunting and Trap.l..
114111
Fnfish Fshina
114112
Shellfish Fishin
114119
Other Merine.Fahin.
114210
Huntina and Trappin
115 Sapped A.HvHks fur Agielfil. anpmshv
d F
I15111
Cotton Ginnina
115112
Soil FepaTHon, Plontinn, and Cullvatinn
115113
Crop H... And, Primaniv by Machine
115114
Postharvest Crop ACIiAles lexcept Cotton Ginnin.l
115115
Farm Labor Contactors and Crew Leaders
115116
Fenn Mene.enent Services
115210
Support Activities for Animal Production
115310
Support Activities for Fareslry
21 Mining. Quap 1— and CHI and Gas
Edn—(ion
211 041 and Gas EninmHOn
211120 Crude Petroleum EKhacHon
211130 Neturol Gas Fxl0Chun
212 Mining (except DII and Gas)
212114
Surface COOT Minin.
212115
Und—mund Coal Minina
212210
Iron Ore Minina
2122M
Gold Ore and Silver Ore Minina
212230
Capper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Minin.
2122%
Other Metal Ore Minin.
212311
Dimension Stone Mininn and Quaninn
212312
Crushed and Broken Limestone Minina and Quonvin
212313
Crushed and Broken Granite Mininn and Quanyian
212319
Other Crushed and Broken Stone Minin and Quamnn.
212321
Construction Sand and Gravel Minin.
212322
Industrial Sand Minina
212323
Kaolin, Clay, and CeramiC and Refractory Minerals Mininn 212390
Other Nonmetallic Mineral Minin and Quarryin
213 Sapped A.HvHbs for Mining
213111
Dnllin. Oiland Gas Wells
213112
$uppOrt Activitie3 for Oil and GOS OperOROnS
213113
1 Support Activities for Coal Minina
213114
Slrc 00 AClivitieS for Metal Minin.
213115
Support Activities for Nonmetallic Minerals fexcept Fudd Minina

NMF Cdegory

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two DR111 Code
NAICS Three DIgH Code 1 NAILS Six DISK Code
Birplin,ment CeN oriel
NAICS Code I NAICS Hie
I NAICS Code I NAICS idle I NAICS Code I NAICS Hie
321 Wood Product Manotacluring
321113
Sawmills
321114
Wood Preservation
321211
Hardwood Veneer and Plywood Manofoclol
321212
SoftWeed Veneer antl Ptvwood Manufacturing
321215
Engineered Wood Member MonWoctoring
321219
Recall Wood Protloct Manufacturing
321911
Wood Window and Door Monofoclol
321912
Cot Stock, Feral Lumber, and Planing
321918
Other Millwork 1inclodinn FIOOdnnl
3219M
Wood Container antl Pallet Manufoctorina
321991
Manofociored Home Nubile Hamel Manofactodna
321992
Prefabricated Wood Buildina Manofacodna
321999
All Other Miscellaneous Wood Protloct Monofactol
322 Paper MgnutacNMg
322110
Polp Mills
3221M
Paper Mills
322130
Panel Mills
322211
Cortugatetl and Sold Ricer Be, Manufoctorina
322212
FOldina Papal BOx Monofocfodng
322219
Other Paperboard Container Manofactodna
322220
Paper Ban and Coated and Treated Paper Monofactol
3222M
Stationery Product Manofacodng
322291
Sanitary Paper Protloci Monofocfodnn
322299
All Other Converted Paper Protluct Manufacturna
323 Printing ind R¢lot¢d Soppod A<fiNN¢E
323111
Comercial Printing (except Screen and B—ol
323113
Commmercial Screen Ninfinn
323117
1 Books Printing
323120
1 Sopped ACfivifies for Pdntinn
320 Petroleum and Cod Produch Mgnutadudng
324110
1 Petroleum Refineries
324121
1 Asphalt Paving Mix tore and Block Manufacturing
324122
Asphalt Shl le and Coale Meta l$Manolactrl
324191
Petroleum Lubricafina oil and Grease Manofoctonng
324199
1 All Other Police— and Coal Product, Manofactodna
MIS Chemical Manu Wrl-
325110
Petrochemical Me ofocNnna
3251M
IndusNal Gas Manufacturing
325130
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Monofoclol
3251W
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manofactodna
325193
Ethyl Alcohol Manofactodna
325194
Cvclic Cmtle, Intermediate , and Gom antl Wood Chemical M... factunna 325199
All Other Basic Omonic Chemical Manofociodnn
325211
Plastics Material antl Resin Manofactodna
325212
SvnihefiC Rubber Mormfo odnn
3252M
Artificial antl Synthetic Fibers and Rohl MaNfoctonna
325311
Nltrooe— Fertilizm Manofoctol
325312
Phwahafic Fertilizer Manofactodna
325314
FertifMr IMixinn Onhl MonofOCNdna
325315
Compost Manufacturing
325320
Pesticide and Other AnriCOlfural Chemical Manofactodna
325411
Medicinal antl Botanical ManufacNnnq
325412
PhonnaCeWical Preparation Monefociol
325413
In -Vino Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
325414
Biolonicol NOdoct lexcept Diormostic) Manofactodna
325510
Paint and Coafina Manufacturina
325520
Adhesive Manof-torinn
325611
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturna
325612
Polish and Other Sanifatlon Good Monefactomn
325613
Surtace Acfive Agent Manofactodna
325620
Toilet Pmporotion MonofOCNnna
325910
Prinfinq Ink Manufacturna
325920
F.I sivas Man fociodnn
325991
Custom Com-ondina of Poll Resins
325992
Phoi—phis Him, Paper, Plate, Chemical, and Copy Toner Manofactodna 325998
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation MaNfactunng 326 Plink. and Rubber Produch MendacNdng
326111
Plastics Be. and Pouch Manofactodna
326112
Plastics Pockal Flm and Sheet linclodinn Tamil Monofoclodnn 326113
Unlaminatetl Plastics Film and Sheet lexcept P—o-inal MaNfoctonna 326121
Unlaminafed Plastics Prefile Shope Monofactol
326122
Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fittng Manufoctonna
326130
Laminated Pestles Plate, Sheet fexceof POckoninal, and Shope MonofocNnna 326M
POIvsNrene Foam Protluct Manufacll
3261X
Urethane and Other Foam Prodoct except PONsfyrenel Monefacfonna 3261W
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
326191
Plastics Poll H.Iom MonofocNrina
326199
All Other Plastics Protluct Manofactodna
326211
Tin ManWOCtodnn lexcept Rafae nnl
326212
Tire Reheatling
326220
Robber Ond PIa5lics Hoses and BOldnn ManofOCtonna
326291
n
Rubber Protluct Maufacturing for Mechanical Use
326299
All Other RobberPredoct Monufactol
=7 Nonmetallc Minerd Product ManutacIel
327110
POhery, Ceramics, and Pembina Fxfone MonWO met
3271M
Cl- Building Material and Refractories MaNfocturaa
327211
Flat Ga. Manola<todnn
327212
Other Pressed and Blown Glass antl Glassware MaNfactunna 327213
Glass Container Manof-to nn
327215
Glass Product MaNfactunna Mote of Porch asetl Glass
327310
Cement Monufoctul
3273M
Ready -Mix Concrete Manufacturing
327331
Concrete Block and Brick MonufacNdnr
327332
Concrete Pipe MaNfactunna
327390
Other Concrete Protluct Manofactodna
327410
lime Manufacturna
3D420
Gypsum Noduct MonufocNrina
327910
Abrasive Product Manufactunn
327991
Cut Stone and Stone Noduct Monofoclonna
327992
Ground or Treated! Mineral antl Earth Manufacturing
V7 93
Minaret Wool Monofoclonna
327999
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Protluct MaNfoctunna

NMF Cdegory

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two Dl ff Code
NAICS Three Dl Cotle 1 NAILS Six Dtah Cod,
Em lom¢nt Cate orted
NAICS Cad* I NAICS Hie
I NAICS Code I NAICS idle I NAICS Code I NAICS Hie
331 Pdmary Metal Ma. "wd-
331110
Iran and Steel MiILt and FenOdIOY Manafa<ivnng
331210
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Ma &—nna horn Purchased Steel 331221
Rolled Steel Shope Manafa<ivnng
331222
Steel Wire Drawing
331313
Alumina Refining and Primary Alaminam Pled-tion
331314
Secondary Smelting and Alloving of Aluminum
331315
Alaminam Sheet, Plate, and Foil Monafactadng
331318
Other Aluminum Rolfr- Drawing. and Exhudina
331410
Nonfer—Metal Iaxcept Alan'invm) Smelling and Refining
3314M
Cooper Rolling, Drawina, E dlina, and Allovina
331491
Nonferaw Metal (except Copper and Alaminam) Rolling. Drawing, and Fsth dine 331492
Secondary Sal Refining, and Allovino of Nonferrous Metal lexcept Copoerand Aluminum) 331511
Iron FWndries
331512
Steel Investment Foundnes
331513
Steel Foanddes lexcept lnvadmentl
331523
Nonferrous Metal Die-Castina Foundries
331524
Alaminam Foundries lexcept Die-Costingl
331529
Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die�Costina)
332 Fabricated Metal Prodvd MondIXbdng
332111
Iron antl Steel Foraing
332112
NOnienWS Forning
332114
Custom Roll Formina
332117
Powder Metoll— Pad ManafaclrHnn
332119
Metal Crown, Closure, and Other Metal St—sna lexcept Automofive) 332215
Metal Kitchen Cookware, Utensil, COfiery, and Holware lexcept Precious) Monafoctaring 332216
Saw Blade and Hantltool ManufocWdna
332311
Prefabricated Metal 1301dinn and Component Manafo luring 332312
Fabdcated Structural Metal M.n.f.—nna
332313
Plate Work Monalach,al
332321
Metal Window and Door Manufacturina
332322
Sheet Metal Work Mandactaring
332323
Ornamental and ArchitecNral Metal Work Manufacturing
332410
Power Boiler and Heat Exchanger MOnafa<tanng
3324M
Metal Tank IHeavv, Gauge) Manufacturing
332431
Metal Can ManafaclrHnn
332439
Other Metal Container Manufacurina
332510
Harchvare Manafactarinn
332613
Santa Manufacturina
332618
Other FabriGated Wire Product Manafaclarinn
332710
Machine She.
332721
Precision Tamed H'odact Monafoclarnn
332722
Bolt, Net, Sc— Rivet, and Washer Manafactadng
332811
Metal Heal Treating
33MI2
Metal Coatina.Engraving(except Jewelry and Silverwarel, and Allied Services Manufacturers 332813
Eleckoplafinn, Plafinn, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring 332911
Industrial VaNe ManafacWdma
332912
Fluid Power Valve and Hose Fitting Monafaclarinn
332913
Plumbing Fixture Ftfimg and Trim Manufacturina
332919
Other Metal Volve and Pipe Fitting MonufocUna
332991
Ball and Roller Been-Manafactanna
332992
Small Am Ammanhon Monafactarinn
332993
Ammunition lexcept Small Ahmt Manafactadna
332994
Small Am6, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manafaclarinn 332996
Fabricated Pipe and Pipe Ftfing Manufacturing
332999
All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Monefacaring SSS Mxhlnery Mgnufadudng
333111
Form Machine, and Equipment Manafaclanng
333112
Lawn and Garden Tractor and Home Lawn and Garden Eauipment Manufacturing 333120
Conshacfion Machine, Manafaclarinn
333131
Minima Machinery and Eauipment Mcmufactunno
333132
all and Gas Feld Machinery and Equipment Monafoclaring
333241
Food Product Machinery ManufacWdna
333242
Semicandactor Machinery Manafaclarinn
333243
Sal Woodwordna. and Paper Machinery Monuf—nna
333248
All Other lndasMal Machinery Manafaclaring
333310
Commercial and Service lmdushv Machinery Monufactudna
333413
Indastdal and Commercial Fan and Blower and Air Parificafion Eauipment Mandactaring 333414
Heafing Eauipment lexcept Warm At, Pomace,) MamufacNnng 333415
Air -Conditioning and Worm Air Heal Egaipment and Commercial and Indashiol Refrigemfion Eauipment Manafa<Wnn 333511
Indastdal Mold Mamufactunna
333514
Special Die and Tod, Die Set, Jig, and F tare MonvfacWnng 333515
Cutting Tool and Machine Tool Accessory Mamuf—Tina
333517
Machine Tool Mandacarinn
333519
Rolling Mill and Other Metal Machinery Manafoctudma
333611
Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units Manafaclarinn
333612
Speed Cl— IntlasMal Hiah-Speed Drive, and Gear M... factunma 333613
Mechanical Power Transmission Eauipment Monufoctadna
333618
Other Engine Eauipment ManufocWdna
333912
Air and Gas Compressor Monafoctadng
333914
Measuring. Dispensima, and Other Pampina Eauipment M... foctunma 333921
Elevator and Movinn Stairway Monvfocianng
333922
Conveyor and Convevina Equipment Manafoctudma
333923
Overhead Traveling Crane, Hoist, and Monorail System Manufacturing 333924
Industrial Truck, Tractor. Trailer, and Stacker Machinery Manafactudaa 333991
Power -Driven Handtool Manufacturing
333992
Weldina and SOlderma Eauipment Manafoctanna
333993
Packoning Machinery Monafoclarinn
333994
Industrial Process Famace and Oven Manafactannq
333995
Fluid Power Cylinder and Actuator Manafaclarinn
333996
Fluid Power Pump and Motor ManufacWdna
333998
All Other Miscellaneous General Nwose Machinery Monafaclarian SSd Corrll and 9edronlc Pradud
Marr�Wfing
334111
Electronic Computer MOnafaclvring
334112
Compiler Storage Device Momuf—ma
334118
Compiler Tenond and Other COmpater Peripheral Equipment Monvfacirrinn 334210
Telephone Apparatus Manafoctadna
334220
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Comm,mications Eauipment Mandactaring 3342%
Other Communications Eauipment Manafactanna
334310
Aad10 and Video Eauipment Monvfocianng
334412
Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufactudna
334413
Semiconductor and Related Device Manafaclaring
334416
Capacitor, Resistor, Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Monufactudna 334417
Electronic Connector Monafoclvrinn
334418
Printed Circuit Assembly IElecth:ml Assemblvl Manafactunmq 334419
Other Electronic Component Monufoclarinn
334510
Electromedical and Elecththerepeafic Apparatus MaNfactunma 334511
Search, Detection, Navinal Gaidonce, AeronaaliCOl, and NOOfical System and Imtmoent Mandactaring 334512
Automatic Environmental Contrd Mamvf—nna for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use 334513
Inslmments and Related PwdOcts Monaacarng for MCONring, Disploymn, and Co inollinn Indashiol Process Variables 334514
Totalizing Fluid Meter and Couml Device Manafoctudma
334515
Instrtent Manafoclar nn for Measannn and Tesfing Electricity and Electrical Signals 334516
Analytical Laboratory lmgmment ManafacWdna
334517
Irradiation Appeal Monafocl,mm
334519
Other Measuring and Controlling Device MaNfoctudma
334610
Monafach,al and Reproducing Marl and Optical Media

NMF Category

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two Dlau Code
NAICS Three DIaB Cotle 1 NAILS Six DI;u Cotle
Employment COM orkd
NAICS Cade I NAICS Hie
I NAICS Code I NAICS idle I NAICS Code I NAICS Hie
424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nomd..M.

Goads
424110
Pnn}inq Ond Writing Paper Merchant Wholesalers
4241M
Stationery and Office Supplies Merchant Whdesalers
424130
Indastr101 and Personal Service Paper Merchant Wholesalers 424210
Cmas and Droa;isisSardine, Merchant Wholesalers
424310
Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Goods Merchant Wholesalers 424340
Footwear Merchant Wholesalers
4243X
Cloihinn and Cloihinn Accessories Merchant Wholesalers
424410
General Line Grocery Merchant Wholesalers

42.20 Packaged Frozen Ecod Merchant Wholesalers
424430
Dairy Product(except Died or Cannedl Merchant Wholesalers 424440
POdhY and POOItry Prodacl Merchant Wholesalers
424450
Confectionery Merchant Wholesalers
424460
Fah and Seafood Merchant Wholesalers
424470
Meal and .at Product Merchant Wholesalers
424480
br ah kart and Vencioble Merchant Wholesalers
424 %
Other Grocery and Related Products Merchant Wholesalers 424510
Grain and Feld Bean Merchant Wholesalers
4245M
livestock Merchant Wholesalers
424590
Other Farm Prodacl Raw Material Merchant Wholesalers
424610
Plastics Material, and Basic Fanns and Shapes Merchant Whdesalers 424690
Other Chemical and Allied Prodocts Merchant Wholesalers 424710
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Tenninah
424720
Petroleum and Pelroleam Prodacft Merchant Wholesalers lexcept Balk Stations and Temdnaul 424810
Beer and Al. Merchant Whdesalers
424820
Wine and Distilled Alcoholic Beverage Merchant Wholesalers 424910
Farm Supplies Merchant Whdesalers
424920
Book, Periodical, and Newspaper Merchant Wholes""
4249M
Flower, Nor— Stock, and Flonsh'Su..l Merchant Wholesalers 424940
Tobacco Prodacl and Electronic Cigarette Merchant Wholesalers 424950
Paint, Vamish, antl Sopdies Merchant Wholesalers
424990
Other Miscellonews Nand—ble Goods Merchant Wholesalers
4g5 Whoksde Trade Aaenh and &okeN

4.120
1 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
Tmnspodallon, Warehoudna
and MINI,,
PR uhues
u1 UNBIes
221111
HYdroelechlc Power General
221112
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation
221113
Naclear Electric Power Generation
221114
Solar Electic Power Generation
221115
Wind Electric Power Generation
221116
Geothermal Electric Power Generation
221117
Biomass Electric Power Generation
221118
Other Electric Power Generation
221121
ElecMc BOIk Power Transmission and Control
221122
Electric Power Distribution
221210
Nalaral Gas Disidbaton
221310
Water Supply and lmaation Systems
221320
Sewage Treatment Facilities
22131
Steam and Ai nditionina Supply
48-49 Transpodation and Worehoasina
d81 AYTransporl
481111
Schedued Passenger Air Tmnsporlotion
481112
Scheduled ;ht Erei Ail-Trcnsporlal
481211
NOnschadaled Chartered Poesonrior Air Transportation
481212
Nonscheduled Chartered Freiaht Air Transportation
481219
1 Other NOnschadded Air Transportation
48g IhA Transpotl n
482111 lineJ1001 RaiY0ad,
482112 Short line Railroads
463 Wafer Tronspodation
483111
Deep Sea Fei;ht Trcnsearlation
483112
Deep SOO PassengerimnsportotiOn
483113
1 Coastal and Great Lakes Al Transportation
483114
Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Tm e;oorto .,
483211
Inland Water Feiahi Tmnseartafion
483212
Inland Water POssenner Transpodation
480 Track Transportation
484110
General Freight TNckinq, LOCO1
484121
General Frei;hl Truckina,Lon;-Distance, Truckload
484122
1 General Freight TNckinq, Lonn-Distance, Less Than Truckload 484210
Used Householdand Office Goods Movina
484220
1 Specialized Freight lexcept Used Goods) TNckinq, Local 484230
Specialized Frei;ht lexcept Used Goods) Truckina, Lona-Distance 485 Tronsti and Gmand P;ssenw Tronspodotion
485111
Mhed Mode Transit SYstems
485112
COmmater Roil SYstems
485113
Buz and Other Motor Vehicle Transit Systems
485119
Other Urban Transit SYstems
485210
Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation
485310
Taxi and Ridesharing Services
485320
Unausine Service
485410
School and Employee Bos TmnsportatiOn
485510
Charter Bus Industry
485991
Special Needs TmnsportO50n
485999
All Other Transit and Ground P—maer Transportation
466 PloWine TronsporMon
486110
Pipeline transportation of Crude Oil
486210
Pipeline imnsportation of NotarOl Gas
486910
Pipeline Transportation of Renned Petroleum Produch
M6990
I All Other Pipeline Transportation
489 Scenk and SlaMseelna Transporl
48]110
48J210
48]990
Scenic and Sighheeinq Transportation, Lond
ni
Scec and Si;hheein; Trcnsparta5on, Water
Scenic and Sighiseeinq Transportation, Other
488 S—d AcflvBles tar Transpotafon
488111
Air Traffic Control
488119
Other Airport Operations
488190
Other Sopped Activities for Air Tmnsoodcton
488210
Support Activities for Rail Trcnsparlation
488310
Port and Harbor Operations
488320
Marine Caro Handlina
488330
Novi-fional Services to Shipping
4883%
Other Support Activities for Water Transportation
488410
Moto' Vehicle Towing
4884%
Other Support Activities for Road Transportation
488510
Feight Transportation AnOngement
488991
Packin; antl Cretin
488999
All Other So. 0 Activities for Transportation
491 Poda1 Servce
491110 Postal Service
492 C—lll and Messenam
492110 Loaners Ond Expess DeliveryServices
492210 Local Meszenaers and L-1 Delivery
493 Warehoasingand St.-
493110
Generd Warehousina and Samae
493120
Refrigerated WamhOosinq and Storage
4931M
Farm Product Warehousina and Stara;e
493190
Other Worehousin and Store e

TUMF Category SLAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Diall Code NAICS Three DIOII Code NAICS Six Digit Code EmOloyment Categories NAILS Cotle NAICS title NAICS Cotle I NAICS idle NAICS Code NAICS Title 1 Rebil Trade
440.9 Reldl hale
441 Mobr Vehkle and Park, Dealers
441110
New Car Dealers
441120
Used Car Dealers
441210
Recreational Vehicle Dealers
441222
Boot Dealers
441227
Mot—cle, AN, and All Other Mote, Vehicle Dealers
441330
AutOnaSve Pads and Acce—des Retailers
441340
Tire Dealers
444 Building Mat<rR1 and Gorden EaWoment
and Sal
Deol@a
444110
Home Centers
444120
Paintand W011p..a, Retailers
4 1140
I Hardware Retailers
—180
1 Other Building Material Dealers
4 1230
1 Outdoe, Power Equipment Retailers
444240
1 Nonary, Gordon Center, and Farm Supply Retailers
445 Food and Reveraae Relallers
446110
So—ork¢h and Omer Grocery Retailers fe eot COnv Ce Retailers) 445131
Convenience Retailers
446132
landing ..Chine Operators
445230
Fruit and Vegetable Retailers
446240
Meat Retailers
445250
Fish and Seafood Retailers
446291
Baked Goods Retailers
445292
Confectionery and Nut Retailers
445298
All Other $p¢Cialty Food Retailers
445320
Beer, Wine, antl Liquor Retailers
449 F—Hare, Hum@ Famishing0. 9ectranks,
and Appian—
Rebilea
449110
1 Furniture Retailers
449121
1 Floor COvanng Retailers
449122
1 Window Treatment Retailers
449129
1 All Other Home Fomishings Retailers
449210
Electronics and Appliance Retailers
455 General Merchandise Wall -
Department Stares
455211
Warehouse Clubs and Super<¢ntor,
455219
1 All Other General Merchandise Retailers
456 HeoM and Personal Care Retal
456110
Pharmacies and Drua Retailers
456120
COsmo11C5, BeenN Supplies, and Perfume Retailers
456130I
Optical Goods Retailers
456191
Food ft llhl Supplement Retailers
456199
All Other Heallh and Personal Care Retailers
45] Gasoline StaBons and Fael Dealers
45]110
45]120
457210
Gasoline Slations with on—nenceStane,
Other Gasoline Station,
Fuel Dealers
458 Clohin., CbHling A.. —ad.,, Sh— and JeweYv
Retal@rs
458110
Clothing antl Clothing Accessones Retailers
458210
Shoe Retailers
458310
Jewelry Retailers
458320
WggOgeand Leather Goods Retailers
459 SpaBna Goads, Hobbv, Musical Insrument,
Book
and Miscellaneous Retail
459110
Spooling Goods PatOilars
4591M
Hobbs, Tov, and Game Retailers
459130
Sewing, Needlework, and race Goods Retailers
459140
Musical Instrument and Supplies Retailers
459210
Book Retailers and News Dealer,
459310
Florish
459410
Office Supplies and Stationery Retailers
4594M
Gift, Novelty, and Souvenir Retailers
459510
Used Merchandise Rellers
459910
Pet and Pet Supplies Retailers
459920
Art Dealers
4599M
Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealers
459991
TObaCCO, Electronic CigoroH¢, and Other Smoking Supplies Retailers 459999
All Other Miscellaneous Retailers

TUMF Category SLAG RTP/SC NNAICS Two Dial, Cotle NAICS Three Wait Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title Information
51 IMormaRon
512 MOBon Plcldm and Sound R@epdng
Indu.bie.
512110
Motion Picture and Video Production
512120
Motion Piciam and Video DisMba,ion
512131
Motion Picture Theaters Iexcepf Drive-Insl
512132
Ddl Motion Pida2 Theaters
512191
Teleproduclion and Other Posipmduction Services
512199
Other Motion Piclare and Video IndasM¢s
5122M
Music Publishers
512240
Soand Recording Sinaloa
512250
Record Production and Distribution
512290
Olhe,Soand Recording Indnshies
513 Poblkhlnp lndushies
513110
NewSpOp¢r Pablishe.
513120
Periodical Publishers
513130
Book Pabfshers
513M
Directory and Maifna Lis, Publishers
513191
Goofing Card Pubfshers
513199
All Other Publishers
513210
Soflwo2 Pablishers
S16 Broad—fina and Content Providers
516110
RadiOB2adCaslino St to.,
516120
Television Broadcasfing Station
516210
Media St20ming Distribation Services, Social Nehvorks, and Other Media Networks and Content Providers 51] Telecommunlcallons
Sl Jlll
Wired Telecommunications Canters
sl Jl12
Wir.1.,Tel@aommaniaafiom Carvers(except Satellite)
S1J121
T¢I¢Communilclo sRes¢Iles
s1J122
Agent for Wireless ielecomma cafions Services
517410
Satellite Telecommanicalions
517810
1 All Other Telecommunication
518 CompuBng Inka.buclem PwAd@N,
Data ft—sinm
Web Hosting, and Related Servkes
518210 Compating inhashucNre Providers, Data Proeessina, Web Hosfina, and Related Services 519 Web Search Portal Libraries, Archives, and OPoer IMormoNon SeMces 519210 libraries and Archives
519290 Web Search Portals and All Other Information Services Financial AcfMBes
52 Rnanc@ and Ins@ran<e
521 Mont-AaModBes-Cenhal Bank
521110 MonetaN Anthorif.-Central Bank
522 Credt IntormedaBon and Reheat
ACBvlifes
522110
Commercial Banking
5221M
Credit Unions
522180
Savings) diii flon, and Other DepoolON Credit lntenhedialon 522210
Credit Card lssaina
522220
Sales Financing
522291
Consumer Lendina
522292
Real Estate Credit
522299
International, Second— Market, and All Other Nondepository Credit Interrnediafion 522310
Morfaaae and Nonmongone Loan Brokers
5223M
Financial Tmnsacdons Processina, Reserve, and Cleannahoase Acfivities 522390
OtherAclivifies Related to Credit Intermediation
523 SecerYBes. Co.l Conhacb,
and 011— Rnancial
I—,d nenh and Related ACMIBes
5231W
nenl Banking and Secudlies lntenneaiaffon
52311
Cy,ofi
Commodity Contracts Intermediation
523210
Secadfies and Comnodity Exchanges
523910
Miscellaneous Intermediation
523940
Portfolio MonOq¢m¢nl and lnveshnenl Advice
523991
Trust, Fiduciary, and Custody Activities
523999
Miscellaneous Financial lnveshnent Activities
5]A Insurance Callers and Reloled ACBHBes
524113
Direct life lnsa2nce Canters
524114
Direct Health and Medical Insurance Canters
524126
Died Property and Casualty Insarance Canters
524127
Direct Tifie Insurance Canters
524128
Other Direct l,wmnce (except Life, Hooll and Medical) Canters 5241M
Reinsurance Carvers
524210
Insarance Agencies and Brokereg¢s
524291
Claims Adiusfina
524292
PhOnnaCy Benefit Management and Other Third Party Administration Of lnsa2nce and Pension Funds 524298
All Other Insurance Related Acfivities
525 Ponds, T2d., and OMer Rnonebl
VehkleB
525110
Pension Funds
525120
HeMM and Wa.Nk. Fands
525190
OtheFinsurancevends
525910
Op¢n-End lnvesiment Fands
525920
Trusts, Estates, and Agency Account
525990
1 Other Financial Vehicles
53 Real El and Rend and Leming
531 Real i
531110
Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellinas
531120
L¢$$Ors Of Nonresidential Baildings flat Mini—ehOnses)
5311M
Lessors of Mini —rehouses and Self-Sfomae Units
531190
Lessors Of Other Real Estate Property
531210
Offices of Real Estate Aaent and Brokers
531311
Residential Property Managers
531312
Nonresidential Property Manna
531320
Offices of Real Estate Apprctsers
5313%
Other Activitm Related to Real Estate
532 Rental and Leasing Service.
532111
Passenger Car Rental
532112
Passenger Car Leasing
5321M
Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehiclel Rental and Leasing 532210
Consumor Elechonics and Appliances Rental
532281
Faunal Wear and Co,W—Rental
532282
Video Tape and Use 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 Transpar,afion Equipment Rental and Leasing 532412
Contraction, Mining, and Forestry Machinery and Egnipmenf Rental and Leasing 532420
Office Machinery and Equipment Renal and Leasing
532490
Other Commercial and IndnsM01 Machinery and Eaaipment Rental and L¢a5inq 593 Lessors of NOMinancld Inlandble
Asset feacent
Coavriahled Works)
533110
Lessors Of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets fezcepl COpynghled Workal

TUMF Category
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two.10 Code NAICS Three DIalt Code NAILS Sk Dial Code Em to merit COM on 5 NAICS Code I NAICS TN¢ I NAICS Code I NAICS I NAICS Code I NAICS Tifle PdofeulonaI and Business Sevices
54 Professional, ScienWic, and Technical
Services
541 PMeulond. SCWhi and Technical
SeMces
541110
Offices of Lawyers
5,H IM
Offices of Notaries
541191
Title Abstract and SeHlemenf Offices
541199
All Other Leaal Services
541211
Offices of Carffed Pablic Accoontonh
541213
Tax Preparation Services
541214
Payroll Services
541219
Other Ace ountina Services
541310
Archifecloral Services
5413M
Landscape Architectural Services
541330
Enninoadnn Services
541340
Drafting Services
541350
Boildinn Inspection Services
WSW
Geophysical Sorvevina and M,aaina Services
5413]0
Sarveyinn and Mapping f—at GeochydcaU Services
541380
Testing Wlaaratanes and Services
541410
Interior Design Services
5414M
Industrial Desian Services
541430
Graphic Design Services
5414%
O1hedSaecialized Desian Services
541511
Castom COmpafer Progromming Services
541512
Computed Systems Design Services
541513
COmpuler Facilities Management Services
541519
Other Computed Related Services
541611
Administrative Me oriented and General Mananement COnadfinn Services 541612
Human Resources Consultina Services
541613
Morketinn COnsultinn Services
541614
Process, Physical Distribution, and Loaistics Consulffna Services 541618
Other Mananement COnsultinn Services
5416M
Environmental Consultina Services
541690
Other Scientific and Technical Consaltinp Services
541713
Research antl Devebomenf in Nanotechnoloav
541714
Research and Development in Biotechnolonv f,eceat Nonobioiechnolonyl 541715
Research antl Devebomenf in the Physical, Enaineenna antl Life Sciences f—at Nanotechnoloav and Biofechnoloav 541720
Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Hamanities 541810
Advertisina Aaencies
541820
Pablic Relations Aaancies
541830
Media BuVha Aaencies
541840
Media Represeniafves
541850
Indoor and Outdoor Disolav Ativertisina
541860
Direct Moil Advartising
541870
Advertisina Material Distribution Services
541890
Other Services Related to Advertising
541910
Marketina Research and Public Opinion Pollina
541921
Phoionmehy $ladies, Portrait
541922
Comm cial Phofoamphv
541930
Translation and Interr/efation Services
541940
Veterinary Services
541990
AIIOIherPmfesSonal, Scientific, and Technical Services
55 Management of Companies and Enterpises
01 Management W Co—"LI antl EnMmdses
551111
Offices of Bank Holding Companies
551112
Offices Of Other HOldinn Companies
551114
Corporate, Sub did, and Regional Manaaina Offices
56 Adminishofive and Se—d and Waste
Management and Remedialion Services
561 Adminlshalive and Suaaod SeMces
561110
Office Adrninishafve Services
561210
Facilities Support Services
561311
Employment Placement Agencies
561312
Executive Search Services
561320
Temporary Hela Services
5613M
Professional Empbver Orders Ian,
561410
DOcament PmpOratiOn Services
561421
Telephone Answer -Services
561422
Telemarketinn Bpmaos and Other Contact Centers
561431
Private Mail Centers
561439
Other Business Service Centers fincludinn Copy Shops)
561440
Collection Aaencies
561460
Credit Bor —
561491
Repossession Services
561492
COun Reposing and Stenotype Services
561499
All Other Business Support Services
561510
Travel Anencies
5615M
Tour Operators
561591
Convention and Visitors Bureaus
561599
All Other Travel Adonaemenf and Reservation Services
561611
Investinalion and Personal Background Check Services
561612
Secuniv Guard, and Patrol Services
561613
Annored Car Services
561621
Secuniv Svsfems Services(exceet Locksmithsl
561622
Locksmiths
561I10
Exterminating an Pest Control Services
561720
Janitorial Services
5617M
Lands—aina Services
561740
Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services
5617%
Other Services to Buibinas and Dwellinas
561910
Pockeninn and Labefng Servi<
5619M
Convention antl Trade Show Oraanizers
561990
All Other Support Services
562 W-M Management and RemedlaRon
SeMces
562111
Solid Were Collection
562112
Hazardous Waste Collection
562119
Other Waste Collection
562211
Hazadtlous Waste Treatment and Disposal
562212
Solid Were Londfll
562213
Solid Waste Combuslars and Incinerators
562219
Other Nonhoc,rc-s Waste Treatment and Disposal
562910
Remetliation Services
562920
Materials Recovery Facilities
562991
Septic Tank and Related Services
562998
All Other Miscellaneous Waste Mananement Services

TUMF Non -Residential
iUMF Category
Cate o Detailed NAICS Cones ntlence
SLAG RTP/SCS NAILS Two Dtati Code NAILS Three DIaH Code NAICS Sk Dial Code Em Io m@nt Cal@ on 5 NAICS Code NAICS Till@ NAICS Code I NAICS line NAILS Code I NAILS Tate Education and Health Servkes
61 Ed@cal—I SeMeeb
611 Eoocaional Sevices
611110
Elemental and Secondary Schools
611210
Junior College,
611310
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
611410
Business and Secretarial Schools
611420
Computernaininn
611430
Professional and Manaaement Development Training
611511
Cosmetology and Barber Schools
611512
Flight Training
611513
Apprenticeship Training
611519
Other Technical and Trade Schools
611610
Hne Arts Schools
6116M
Sports and Recreation Impaction
611630
Lanage schools
611691
Ex amnaPre gamtion and Tutonna
611692
1 Automobile Driving Schools
611699
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and lnstiuction
611710
Edacafional Sapped Services
62 Health Care and S@olel Asblance
621 AmbetaloW HeoM Care Services
621111
Offices of Phv,icians lexcept Mental Health Specialisisl 621112
Offices Of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists
621210
Offices of Dentisfs
621310
Offices of Chiropractors
6213M
Offices of Oat o..fil
621330
Offices of Mental Health Practitioners f—of Physicians) 621340
Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists, and Audiologists 621391
Offices of Podial
621399
Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners 621410
Family Planninn Centers
6214M
Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers
621491
HMO Medical Centers
621492
Kidnev Dialvsi, Centers
621493
Freestanding Amball Samicol and Emergency Centers
621498
All Other Outpatient Care Centers
621511
Medical Laboratories
621512
Diagnoslic Ins-ina Centers
621610
Home Health Core Services
621910
Ambulance Services
621991
Blood and Oraon Banks
621999
All Other Miscellaneous Ambulalory Health Care Services 622 Hobpitab
622110
General Medical and Saraical Hospitals
622210
PNchiaMc and Sabshmoe Abase Hospitals
622310
1 Seecialtylf pt Psychiatric and Substance Abase)Hospitals 623 N@rsing and R@bidenRat Core PaNHieb
623110
Nursing Care Facilities (Skilled Nuning Facilities)
623210
Residental Intellectual and Developmen}al Disability Facilities 6232M
I Residential Menial Health and Substance Abuse Facilities 623311
Confining Care Retirement Communities
623312
1 Assisted JAng Facilities for the Eldenv
623990
1 Other Residential Care Facilities
624 Soclal Asdslance
624110
Child and youth Services
6241M
Services for the Ell and Persons with Disabilities
624190
Other lndividaal and Family Services
624210
CommumN Food Services
624221
Temporary Shelters
624229
Other Community Hou,ina Services
624230
Emergency and Other Relief Services
624310
Vocational RehabiHation Services

62.10 Child Care Services
leisure aria Hos (fall r
91 Ads, Entertainment, and Recoolion
711 Performina Arts, Sp hct Sports,
and Ill Indestrles
711110
Theater Companies and Dinner lheolen
7111M
Dance Companies
711130
Musical Graa. and Arl
7111%
Other Performing Ads Companies
711211
Sports Teems and Clabs
711212
Racetracks
711219
Other SeectalSocrfs
711310
Promoters of Perfarninci Ads, Seem, and Similar Events vith Facilities 711320
Promoters of Perfohninn Arts, Sports, and Similar Events vAthoat FocilNes 711410
Agents and Managers for Arl Athletes Entertainers, and Other Public Figures 711510
Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers
712 Mose@ms. Historical Sties, and Slmlar

1. lbns
]121
M
]12120
iHs=
Hstorical Sites
712130
I Zoos and Botanical Gardens
]12190
Natare Parks and Other Similar lnstihl
]15 AT@b@meth, Combing, and Recreation
lnda6M@B
713110
Amusement and Theme Parks
713120
Amusement Arcades
713210
Casinos lexcept Casino Hotetsl
713290
Other Gambina lndasfnes
713910
Got Courses and Country Call
713920
Saina Focifties
7139M
Manna,
713940
Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
713950
Bowling Centers
713990
All Other Amusement and Recreation hall

NMF Calegay

SLAG RIP/SCS
NAICS Two DlaR Code
I NAICS Three DlaR Code 1 NAILS Six DISK Code
Em b m@nt Gate Orkb
NAICSCade NAICS TRIe
NAICS Code NAICSidle NAICS Code I NAICS Hie
]2 A—hah,dallon and Food Services
721 Accommodaton
]21110
Hotek (except Casino Hotelsl and Motek
]21120
Casino Hotels
721191
Bed—dl4 eakiasl Inns
721199
All Other Tel Accommodation
721211
RV IRecreational Vehicle) Parks and Campgrounds
721214
Racrootionol and Vocofion Comes (ex f Compnroundsl
721310
Rooming and Boarding Houses Doanitcries, and Warkers Camps ]22 Food S<rvk<b and DdnMna Fbaeb
]22310
Food Service Conhacton
722320
Caterers
]223M
Mobile Food Services
]22410
Odnkinn Places (Alcoholic Beverapesl
722511
FellServiceRestaurants
]22513
UnlitedService Restauranis
722514
Cafeterias, Grit Buifeb, and Buffets
]22515
Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverane Bars
OMe SeMce
Bl OMer Servces (ez<epl W dk Admin4kaRonl
all Reoolr and Maintenance
811111
General AWomotive Repair
811114
Specialized Automotive Repair
811121
Autorl Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance 811122
Automotive Glass Replacement Shops
811191
Autorl Oil Channe and Wbdcoton Shops
811192
Car Washes
811198
All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance
811210
Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance 811310
Commercial and IndusMal Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance 811411
Home and Garden Equipment Repair and Maintenance
811412
Appliance Repair and Maintenance
8114M
Reupholstery and Wmiture R—ir
811430
Footwear and L¢other Goods Repair
811490
Other Personaland Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 812 Personal and Laand y Servlees
812111
Barber Shops
812112
Beauty Salons
812113
Nail Salons
812191
Diet and Weinht Reducinn Centers
812199
Other Personal Care Services
812210
Foam) Homes and Funeral Services
8122M
Cemeteries and Crematories
812310
COinAperated Laundries and Drycleoners
8123M
Drvcleanina and Laundry Services lexcept Cd,Operoled)
812331
linen Supply
812332
Induslrlal Launderers
812910
P¢t Core lexcapl Veterinary) Services
812921
Photofnishing Laboratories (except On�Hourl
812922
1 One -Hour Phofoliolhine
8129M
Parking Lob and Garages
812990
1 All Other Personal Services
813 Ill Granlhn lns, CNk, Protessianal,
and
SFnlor Oraankafbns
813110
Will OrnanVo on,
813211
Grantm.arre Foundations
813212
VOIOWary Hl Omanimtlore
813219
Other Grenimakina and Givina Services
813311
Human Rinhis OrnOnizofions
813312
Environment, Conservation and Wildlife Organizations
813319
Other Social Advocacy Organizations
81UIO
Civic and Social Oraanizations
813910
Business Associations
8139M
Professional Oraanizations
813930
Labor Unions and Similar Labor Organizations
813940
Political Organizations
813990
Other Similar OrganizaBons lexcept Business, Professional, Labor, and Political Ornanizations) 814 Private Households
814110 PrivOt¢ Households

TUMF Category
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two II10 Code NAILS Thee rDialt Code NAICS Six DInd Code Em la merit Cofe or s NAICS Code I NAICS Title I NAICS Code I NAICS iilb I NAICS Code I NAICS Title Govemment/Pubic
S
Gavemment
93 P.M. AdMnl*ha
921 ExecoBve, W&WHve, and OMer
General Govemment
Sapaod
921110
Executive Offices
921120
Lenis101ive BOdies
9211M
Public Finance Activities
921110
1 Execalive and Legislative Offices,Combined
9211 SO
American Indian and Alaska Native Tnbal Governments
921190
Other General GOvemment Sappod
922 JasBce, Pablk Order, and SdeN ACHWHes
922110
Loads
922120
Police Protection
M130
Lenal Coonsel and Prosecalion
922M
Correctional Institutions
MIX
Parole Offices and Probofion Offices
9221W
Fire Protection
M190
Other Jasfice, PabliC Order, and Safety ACfivifies
923 AdMni*h n d Haman Resoarce
hoarams
923110
923120
923130
923140
AdminishOi2 Of Edacalion Programs
Atlminisfrat!on of Public Health Pmarams
AdminishOfion Of Haman Ree,a Ce Programs f—et EdacafiOn, PabliC Health, and Veterans' Affairs Pronramsl Atlminisfration of Veterans Affairs
924 Adminisha ion of Environmental OodHy Pmgmms
924110 Atlminisfration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management I'marans 924120 1 Adminishalion Of ConservafiOn Programs
925 Adminlshalbn of Hoadna ho>ams. Urban Hannina, and CommanHv Devebtxnenl 925110 Adminishalion Of HOasing Ragroms
925120 Atlminisfration of Urban PI.nnind and CommuniN and Rural Development 926 Adminisho8on of Economic Programs
926110
Atlminisfration of General Economic Programs
926120
1 RegVIOHOn and AdminishafiOn Of Trarep CHOtiOn Programs 926130
Regulation antl Atlminishaton of Comrtvnicafions, Electric, Gas, and Other Utilities 926140
RegalOHOn Of Agricallarol Morkefinn and COnvradifies
926150
Reaulaton, Licensing, and Inspecfion of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors 927 Saoce Research and Technology
927110 Space Research and Technology
928 Noliond S—My and Inte—Sonol Mdre
928110 National SecunN
928120 Inlemafional Affairs
Califon a Employment Development Department IEDDI
US Censers Bamao, Nodh Amencon Indasfn Classification System INAICSI. 2022

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, respectively. 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. ➢ Total daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT),
➢ Total daily VMT on facilities experiencing LOSE or worse. ➢ Total daily vehicle hours of travel (VHT), and
➢ Total combined daily vehicle hours of delay (VHD)
The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values. ➢ VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume
➢ VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume ➢ V H D = VHT - (Free -flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time* Total Daily Volume) ➢ VMT LOSE or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90)13 13 LOS 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 C-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

QO
a
ST
\ _
OAN

NYON RD W U
LNE O
—
NA
tPOR
9 µEON
SA/V Tl
Y

VERSIT A
TEO
CAN ON

ARTIN LUTHER KI BLVD
i
O

R
Z
o
m
po
JO
Q2
5 _
O _ AM ST
_
HA V
S
p O
m
Q L
i
\
\
STATE WAY 79
Z o
�
O
kpy
m
PO
¢
W
2 2 ¢ p
9 O
O
o�
E�
0 O T
SM
W F
\�Q PAS
RD
F
�P
o
CALIF
h
O D
5� 0
G
0 ENM+oN�
P
O �O
Oy
0 �
0 c
PO
e O
O
S O. 1
9 GPI
U RD

S MGS RD
I
Source: Riv OM 2018 base network with updated 2021 existing TUMF network completed by WRCOG and GHD, EXHIBIT C-1
Western Riverside County
2021 Existing Network
Facility Type
LEGEND

TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Existing Facility Type
TUMF Arterials
NonTUMF Arterials
Freeways
0 3 6 9
Miles

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
1 15%

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 %
970
347o
* 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 byV/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan.

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

EXHIBIT C-3
Western Riverside County
Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 - 2045) - Daily Measures of Performance
Peak Periods Total
Dail
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
21 1 %

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%

VMTLOSE- TOTALALLFACILITIES
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%
1,01 1,931
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
127c
3776
87o
25%
* 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 trc 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 Gener< WRCOG C-5 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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 2020 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 Western Riverside
Year
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 D-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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.

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).

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 support 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 E-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

I"
DDs`
1z
2D
�D
o
ST
r
M BLVD
D D
GVO
L
•yDD�';'J D
I �
C O �
�AO z
tiR
O

RKHAM ST
f
C O
Yy Dy i
r1 m 20
0 1,V YON RD WCO�y UNE RD
LAVE
0 POft
RED" SA o,�
a ZED
DAN IV RD y
VALLEY BLVk.

O O
2 W
Y
O �

LVD / E
"MWEIgk,2%
PO
RD
L RD
JGB RD
A
O
Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2021 existing TUMF network completed by WRCOG and GHD, 2023 oi
W WI6c 6-*T 9
�E RAMSEY ST - D

N L E WESTWARD AVE Z -
AO
EXHIBIT E-1
Western Riverside County
2021 Existing Network
Number of Lanes
N
W-�— E
s
LEGEND

TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Existing Number of Lanes (Directional)
1 lane
— 2 lanes
— 3+ lanes
0 3.3 6.7 10
Miles

,^n MAl
CEN �
uIOU
a OR
_ S
BLVD
GG

ALESSAI
L ` c
a
Z 0
K� I
Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2021 existing TUMF network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS 2018 base year SED EXHIBIT E-2
Wcoo Western Riverside County
r 2018 Existing Conditions Scenario
a
u O iiFY BLVD L.,
WW Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT)
f\j YZI 14TH 5`Tk LAllfy pKWY
O y yz �P
z oN sT _ N
1 4
m E1, TST a FSr OqF E VE P •_-- — WE
0 Rti J�
m� p0
O`er
2�
OP
s�
R STATE WAY 79
qM
ipy
Q
W \
h u`-
2 O
R �o
wF F
CALIF
EN\GONE
LEGEND
�.

TUMF ZONE
_ \ Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
<10,000
10,000-20,000
20,000-30,000
/// 30,000-50,000
50,000+
0 3 6 9
Miles

\ 2ND$T _
1ST ST 2�
L� �r YUMADR 1
RAILROAD Si pJ 11
YO F-
RRD °Q-
GREEN RNE JQ' W67HST
Y E6T ST
r � h
E FOOTHILL pKy �RO
q�F
A�
SOR

DOS AGO
r°
y

CENTER ST
BUFa RSTQq�F S�3RD ST
UN IVERSITY AVE_
11A1 LUTHE1 SLVD
CF,vT�
t- ARLINGTON AVE G O IRC
¢ O
w �
AL F��nninan aI yin
I �
L)
O
~ MA$KHJ@M ST
o
I
9 T °�S
0 gOSoil, 9LF. .
vyi 9LF I._.

S
o�LF
Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2021 existing TUMF network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS 2018 base year SED �G
WILWila"Y BLVD
i
w 9
EXHIBIT E-3
Western Riverside County
2018 Existing Conditions Scenario
Level of Service (LOS)
N
W E
LEGEND

TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Peak Period LOS
LOS A or B
LOS C or D
LOS E or F
0 3 6 9
Miles

1Z
SS/
BNB..

Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2021 existing TUMF network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS 2045 horizon year SED EXHIBIT E-4
Western Riverside County
2045 Future No -Build Scenario
ige Daily Traffic Volume (ADT)
N
W_A_E
s
\
LEGEND

TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
<10,000
10,000-20,000
20,000-30,000
30,000-50,000
50,000+
0 3 6 9
Miles

\ O ND�T
ST ST 2
IF

YUALA DRY

RAILROAD ST P
GREEN RNER RD �00 w6iH Si
O E 6TH ST
� GP5
9 ? � s
H'F, 3RDLT I
UNIVERSITY AV%
MAKl N LUTHE G SLVD
CFNT r
\ RA<F�F • . ���
ARfjIJGTON AVM G O
G
E r
�E PJ
�ALFCCONna AI VD
M $SST
Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2021 existing TUMF network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS 2045 horizon year SED I
w W II .C(1N ST
EXHIBIT E-5
Western Riverside County
2045 Future No -Build Scenario
Level of Service (LOS)
N
W_�_E
S
LEGEND

TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Peak Period LOS
LOS A or B
LOS C or D
LOS E or F
0 3 6 9
Miles

O
EXHIBIT E-6
Ziverside County
F Build Scenario
Slumber of Lanes
LEGEND

TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
isting Number of Lanes (Directional)
1 lane
2 lanes
3+ lanes
0 3.3 6.7 10
Miles

a` o
P �
D1gg PO
sz
m�
0 Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2045 recommended TUMF build network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS 2045 horizon year SED EXHIBIT E-7
Western Riverside County
,5 Future TUMF Build Scenario
ige Daily Traffic Volume (ADT)
N
W-�— E
s
LEGEND

TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
<10,000
10,000-20,000
20,000-30,000
30,000-50,000
50,000+
0 3 6 9
Miles

\ O 2NDjT
1ST ST 2�

VUMADR ,
RP�LROAD ST PO Z�� /
� s
Gg-E RNER Ro �0 W6THST
E 6TH ST
T � s
C
\-A CENTE, ST
Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2045 recommended TUMF build network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS 2045 horizon year SED EXHIBIT E-8
Nestern Riverside County
ture TUMF Build Scenario
Level of Service (LOS)
N
W-�—E
s
LEGEND

TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Peak Period LOS
LOS A or B
LOS C or D
LOS E or F
0 3 6 9
Miles

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 conceptual 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 F-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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:
➢ 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);
➢ Concrete curb and gutter and associated drainage (e.g. paved roadway shoulders and/or open swale);
➢ Storm drains located within curb to curb, and associated transverse portions perpendicular to the roadway and adjoining portions longitudinal to the roadway;
➢ 14 foot paved and painted median (or dual center left turn lane); ➢ Traffic signals at intersections with state highways and other major arterials that are also on the TUMF Network;
➢ Pavement striping and roadway signing, as required;
➢ 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
6' 4' 12' 12' 14' 12' 12, 4' 6'
(Sidewalk 6,c Lane
Roadway Lanes Painted. Median
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 F-2 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

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:
➢ Sawcut of existing pavement
➢ Removal of existing pavement
➢ Roadway excavation and embankment
➢ 10" thick class 2 aggregate base
➢ 4.0" thick asphaltic concrete surface
➢ 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. ➢ Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021-2022
➢ Projects within Riverside County and Adjacent Counties ➢ Typical experience for local cities, Western Riverside County ➢ Michael Baker international (MBI), Structural Group
➢ MBI, ITS Group
➢ 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:
➢ Land acquisition
➢ Documentation and legal fees
➢ Relocation and demolition costs and condemnation compensation requirements
➢ Utility relocation
➢ 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.
➢Terrain 1: Level terrain with 0% profile grade. Construction cost is per lane mile. ➢Terrain 2: Rolling Terrain with 1.5 % profile grade. Construction cost is per lane mile.

WRCOG F-4 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

➢Terrain 3: Mountainous Terrain with 3% profile grade. Construction cost is per lane mile.
➢Land Use 1, 2 and 3; ROW cost factor per lane mile, for Urban, Suburban and Rural areas respectively.
➢Interchange 1: Complex New Interchange/Interchange Modification. Existing complex interchange at 1-15 & SR-91 was used as a guideline for quantity assessments.
➢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.
➢Interchange 3: Major Interchange Improvement is assumed to correspond to adding 1 lane to each ramp on a cloverleaf Interchange. ➢Bridge: New Bridge cost. Construction cost is per linear foot per lane. ➢RRXing 1: New Rail Grade Crossing. Construction cost is per lane per crossing. ➢RRXing 2: Widening Existing Grade Crossing. Construction cost is per lane per crossing.
➢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 Oho grade, the excavation values are estimated based on the component type as follows:
➢ 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.
➢ Terrain 2 and 3: Excavation for one lane (16 feet wide and 4 feet deep) is assumed.
➢ 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. ➢ 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 F-5 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

➢ Terrain 1, 2 and 3: The area of clearing and grubbing is assumed to extend 16 feet for the addition of each new lane.
➢ 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.
➢ 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).
➢ 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 F-6 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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).
➢ Terrains 1, 2 and 3: It is assumed that there are 8 arrow markers, 2 Stop sign markers and 4 Bike sign markers.
➢ 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.
➢ 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 refroreflecfive 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
Interchan e
Intersection
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 F-7 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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
10% of earthwork, pavement structure, drainage,
Mobilization
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 RRXingsl 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 + 1 Oft 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 + 1Oft 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 RRXingsl 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 F-8 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

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 construction14. Similarly, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Practical Guide for Estimating (December 201 1) 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:
14 City 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 F-10 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

• Preliminary Engineering Costs (including survey/data collection, design, environmental, utilities and contract administration) - 10% to 25% of total construction CoSt15
• 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 estimation 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 development17, 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 FYI6/17- 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.
11 AASHTO Technical Committee on Cost Estimating (TCCE) AASHTO Practical Guide for Estimating (December 2011), Table 2.4. Preliminary Engineering Costs' Average Percentage Ranges (% of Construction).
16 AASHTO 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".
1' California 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. 11 California 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 F-11 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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.

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

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 Derlane mile -urban areas
Landuse 2
$420,000.00
$803,000.00
2,263,000.00
$5,440,000
ROW cost factor perlane mile -suburban areas
Landuse 3
$240,000.00
$237,000.00
$287,000.00
$490,000
ROW cost factor perlane mile -rural areas
Interchange 1
n a
43,780,000.00
50,032,000.00
$84,190,000
Complex new interchan e interchan e 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
Ma'or 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
RRXinq 1
4,500,000.00
4,550,000.00
6,376,000.00
$18,200,000
New Rail Grade Crossing er lane mile
RRXinq 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
S686.400
Infrastructure for ITS of Network roodwav se menu iDer route mile Planning
10%
10%
10%
10%
Planning, prelim nary engineering and environmental assessment costs based on construction cost only En ineerin
25%
25%
25%
25%
Project stud re art, design, permittingand construction oversight costs based on construction cost only Contin enc
10%
10%
10%
10%
Contingency costs, including TUMF program administration based on total se ment cost Administration
MSHCP
3%
5%
4%
5%
4%
5%
TUMF program administration based on total TUMF eligible network cost ITUMF component of MSHCP based on total TUMF eligible construction cost

EXHIBIT F-2
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
2024 Nexus Update Master Unit Cost Summary
I. Roadway Items
Unit
Unit Cost
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: Drainaae
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
$1,21 1.58
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
It. 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

EXHIBIT F-3
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
2024 Nexus Update Master Property 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
$1 12.89

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

EXHIBIT F-4
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 1 - Level Terrain
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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
1 $1,078,318
Maintenance of Traffic
5% of total items

1.001
$53,916
Project Cost / Lane mile $1,132,234

EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 2 - Rolling Terrain
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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
1 $1,656,133
Maintenance of Traffic
5% of total items

1.001
$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 3 - Mountainous Terrain
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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
1 $2,233,949
Maintenance of Traffic
5% of total items

1.00 $1 1 1,697
Project Cost / Lane mile
$2,345,646

EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Landuse 1 - ROW Urban areas
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
Landuse 2 - ROW Suburban Areas
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
Landuse 3 - ROW Rural areas
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)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Interchange 1 - Complex New Interchange/Interchange Modification I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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
$1,21 1.58

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 2 - New Interchange/Interchange Modification I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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
$1,21 1.58

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 3 - Major Interchange Improvement
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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
$1,21 1.58

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
Bridge 1 - New Bridge Cost
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity / lane mile
Cost / lane mile
Bridge
square foot
$400.00

12.00 $4,800
Total Items
1 + 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
RRXing 1 - New Rail Grade Crossing
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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 $1 16,628
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
RRX1ng 2 - Widen Existing Rail Grade Crossing
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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
Infrastructure for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on TUMF Network Roadway Segments I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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-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 WRCOG F-13 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

8.o MSHCP FundinglFinancing Of
Reserve Assembly and Management

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
VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-14

8.0 MSHCP FundinglFinancing Of
Reserve Assembly and Management
• Other Potential New Revenue Sources
Local 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 Angeles -Anaheim - Riverside Area, measured as of the month of December 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.

Density 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 discusses 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 VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-15

8.0 MSHCP FundinglFinancing Of
Reserve Assembly and Management
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.

Regional Infrastructure Project Contribution
Regional infrastructure prof ects 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.

Riverside County's 1/2 cent sales tax for Transportation In 1988, Riverside County voters approved a measure to increase local sales tax by'/2 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).

VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-16

8.0 MSHCP FundingiFinancing Of
Reserve Assembly and Management
Regional Utility Projects
\�F cauNr
KC
�ti�Ec.�_ ��o�t
11111
As Riverside County's population doubles over the next 25 years, new regional utility infrastructure will be required. 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 utilityproj ects 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 underthe 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 proj ects 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.

VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-17

8.0 MSHCP FundingiFinancing Of
Reserve Assembly and Management
Landfill 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 Districts. 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 Riverside 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.

VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-18

8.0 MSHCP FundingiFinancing Of
Reserve Assembly and Management
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 rights 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.

Potential 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.

VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-19

8.0 MSHCP FundinglFinancing Of
Reserve Assembly and Management
TABLE 8-5

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

Cities and County
$539.6M
Approval of County Ordinance
County
Development Mitigation Fees
Approval of City(ies) Ordinance
Cities
Density Bonus Fees
$66M
Approval of General Plan
County
Public Funding Sources
Local Roads
$121 M
Approval of Measure A, local agreement on
RCTC/County
allocation
Other Transportation
$250M
% of new road construction
RCTC/County
Other infrastructure Projects
$unknown
Project -by -project negotiation
County and Cities
El Sobrante Landfill
$90M
In place
County
County Landfills
$10M
In place
County
Eagle Mountain Landfill
$unknown
In place pending start-up
County
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 other provisions of the MSHCP, will develop any necessary modifications to the funding mechanisms to address additional funding needs. Additionally, this annual evaluation will include an assessment of the funding plan and anticipate funding needs over the ensuing 18 months for the purpose of identifying 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.

VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-20

EXHIBIT F-6
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020
WRCOG F-14 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1330 Broadway
Suite 450
Oakland, CA 946I2
510 64I 9190 tel
Oakland EPS #171034
Sacramento
Denver
Los Angeles
www.epsys.com

Table of Contents

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

2. MSHCP POLICIES, GOALS, 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 LandDedications.................................................................................................. 20 Future Conservation Scenario................................................................................. 21

4. FORECASTS OF DEVELOPMENT, DEDICATION, FEE PAYMENT ................................................ 25 Historic Development and HCP Fees......................................................................... 25 GrowthProjections................................................................................................ 26

5. MSHCP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS.............................................................................. 31 LandCosts........................................................................................................... 31 Other Costs —Administration, Management, and Monitoring ......................................... 35 EndowmentFunding.............................................................................................. 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) FINDINGS..................................................................... 52 Purposeof Fee..................................................................................................... 52 Useof Fee Revenues............................................................................................. 53 Relationship......................................................................................................... 53 Need................................................................................................................... 54 Proportionality...................................................................................................... 54

9. FEE IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................ 56 Adoption of Revised LDMF...................................................................................... 56 Securing Supplemental Funding.............................................................................. 56 AnnualReview...................................................................................................... 56 SurplusFunds...................................................................................................... 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-2003 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

1, INTRODUCTION 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.

Z The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency is a Joint Powers Authority established in 2004 to implement the MSHCP.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 �.se 11-y'o, �M,c—.",. —slNet oIllt0.0o �MA�MDD�Ne�St.d F;,a,2io-0—

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
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:
• The need to acquire more land than originally forecast due to the lower than expected land dedication.
• The lower -than -expected levels of non -fee funding from local and regional funding sources. • The lower than expected levels of residential development. • 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 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 230-0-

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
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
Residential: Up to 8.0 dwelling units per acre $1,651 $2,234 (DUAC)
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.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 ��.Wl VPPDaa .11 �.„�Kxne ��'.o�WWMMoo���ldy �L �� O.d

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

← All documents from this meeting