Nexus Report
Executive Summary
ES. 1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, an increasing number of proponents of public and private Developments Riverside County have been required to obtain Incidental Take permits from the Wildlife Agencies for impacts to Endangered, Threatened, and rare Species and their Habitats resulting in costly delays in public and private Development projects and an assemblage of unconnected Habitat areas. This piecemeal and uncoordinated effort to mitigate the effects of Development also does not sustain wildlife mobility, genetic flow, or ecosystem health, which require large, interconnected natural areas.1 Thus, a comprehensive coordinated regional effort is needed to mitigate the effects of Development on Species and their Habitats.
ES. 1.1. PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATION FEE NEXUS REPORT
The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee Nexus Report (the "Nexus Report") was prepared to document and establish the legal and policy basis by which a mitigation fee, pursuant to "The Mitigation Fee Act" (California Government Code Section 66000, et seq.), to finance habitat acquisition and other appropriate uses in connection with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Plan (the "MSHCP") may be imposed on new development in the MSHCP Plan Area.
ES. 1.2. PARTICIPATION IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS FEE NEXUS REPORT
In April 2003, the "Administrative Review Draft Mitigation Fee Nexus Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan" (the "Administrative Review Draft") was transmitted to the County and circulated to the Cities via the various technical advisory committees ("TACs") of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG") and presentations were made by County staff and their MSHCP consultant team to various WRCOG committees. In May 2003, based on comments received on the Administrative Review Draft document, the "Revised
Administrative Review Draft Mitigation Fee Nexus Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan" (the "Revised Administrative Review Draft") was prepared and circulated. Once again, County staff and the consultants assisting with preparation of the MSHCP and the Nexus Report presented the Revised Administrative Review Draft document to the WRCOG City Manager and Planning Director's TAC. In fact, several meetings were held with the Planning Director's TAC in which the City's planning directors had a number of comments and suggestions with respect to the Nexus Report (particularly regarding the fee calculation methodology and development horizon used in the Nexus Report). In addition to presenting the Administrative Review Draft and Revised Administrative Review Draft Nexus Report to the WRCOG TACs, presentations have also been made to the MSHCP Advisory Committee and at City Council meetings or study sessions for several of the Cities.
ES. 1.3. ORGANIZATION OF THE MITIGATION FEE NEXUS REPORT
The Nexus Report is organized in several sections as follows.
- Introduction - presents an introduction to Riverside County, the Riverside County Integrated Project, and the fee amounts documented in the Nexus Report.
- Riverside County Integrated Project ("RCIP") - presents a summary of the three RCIP components: General Plan, Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process ("CETAP") and the MSHCP.
- Existing Setting - presents a summary of the existing environmental, biological, and transportation setting of Western Riverside County.
- Mitigation Fee Justification Study - presents the analysis required under the Mitigation Fee Act in order for the County and Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, and Temecula to adopt a mitigation fee (the "Local Development Mitigation Fee" or "LDMF") to finance a portion of the MSHCP.
- MSHCP Funding/Financing of the Conservation Area Assembly and Management
- - presents a summary of the MSHCP implementation costs and an analysis of the funding sources available to finance the MSHCP.
- Recommendations - presents the consultant's recommendations regarding the Local Development Impact Fee to be adopted.
- Other Funding Issues - presents a summary of FESA requirements, the adequacy of MSHCP funding, and the long term financing approach for management activities.
ES. 1.4. RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Riverside County, the fourth largest county in California, is located in the southern portion of the state and is bordered by San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties on the north, Arizona on the east, San Diego and Imperial Counties on the south, and Orange County on the west. The geography of Riverside County supports a diversity of natural habitat and biological resources that includes deserts, mountains, deep valleys, forests, and rich agricultural lands in addition to a variety of established and/or growing urban, suburban and rural communities of agricultural lands, lands devoted to mineral extraction, and recreational areas.
The San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains roughly divide Riverside County into eastern and western portions, with each area possessing distinct physical characteristics. The smaller western portion of the County is approximately half the size of the eastern portion of the County and is bounded by the Santa Ana Mountains and Cleveland National Forest on the west and the San Jacinto Mountains and the San Bernardino National Forest on the east. The western portion of the County has experienced great population growth with residents concentrated in the incorporated cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, and Temecula. Of Riverside County's 24 cities, only these 14 Western Cities would participate in the subject MSHCP.
ES. 1.5. RIVERSIDE COUNTY GROWTH TRENDS
Riverside County is one of the fastest growing areas in the State. Between 1994 and 1999, the population in Riverside County increased by approximately 96,000 new residents.2 Results of Census 20003 indicate that Riverside County was home to over 1.5 million people and approximately 585,000 dwelling units in 2000. Projections developed for the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) estimated that approximately 1.67 million persons would reside in nearly 558,000 dwelling units in the unincorporated areas of the County by 2040. Accommodating Riverside County's projected population increase will require the development of thousands of acres of undeveloped land.
Conflicts over species conservation threaten the ability of local jurisdictions to plan for and develop necessary infrastructure to provide for a high quality of life as well as accommodate and maintain economic development in Riverside County. Additionally, conflicts over conservation of species and their habitat threaten to fracture species habitats rather than conserve them. Continuation of the current piecemeal process of endangered species protection would likely preclude the possibility of creating a sustainable conservation area that will protect endangered, threatened, and other species and the habitats upon which they rely.
ES. 1.5.1. Riverside County Integrated Project
Riverside County undertook a unique and comprehensive planning effort, the Riverside County Integrated Project ("RCIP"), which consists of three integrated plans that provide for future planning, transportation, and conservation needs for the County. These plans are listed below and summarized in Section 2:
ES. 1.6. RECOMMENDED FEE AMOUNTS
Table ES-1 presents the Local Development Mitigation Fee amounts to finance the habitat acquisition and other appropriate costs as documented in more detail in Section 4 of this report. The fee amounts in Table ES-1 do not reflect the application of any outside funding sources that may be available to fund a portion of the MSHCP program costs as discussed in Section 5 of the Nexus Report.
ES. 2. RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT (RCIP)
The County Board of Supervisors and the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") initiated the Riverside County Integrated Project ("RCIP") in 1999 in order to comprehensively plan for the demands of the projected population growth, encourage economic development, create new jobs, and provide for the timely construction of infrastructure. A primary objective of the RCIP is to accommodate projected population growth in the County by focusing development within areas that will be readily accessible to public infrastructure, will provide a good quality of life for future residents, and will minimize environmental impacts, including impacts to sensitive habitats, endangered species, and aquatic resources. The RCIP is discussed in Section 2 of the Nexus Report.
ES. 2.1. GENERAL PLAN
The 2002 Riverside County General Plan5 (the "General Plan") consists of separate elements6 addressing: land use, circulation, multipurpose open space, safety, noise, housing, air quality, and administration which articulate the vision, issues, and County policies regarding the appropriate type and intensity of land use for every parcel within unincorporated Riverside County as the blueprint for the future of Riverside County. The General Plan is the foundation for growth and land-use-related decision-making with respect to public and private development, within unincorporated Riverside County and expresses the community's goals regarding the manmade and natural environments.
With respect to the Nexus Report, two features of the General Plan are germane to the determination of the mitigation fee amount: Area Plans7 and the land use Foundation Components. Each of these features is discussed in Section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, respectively.
ES. 2.2. COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROGRAM (CETAP)
The Community Environmental and Transportation Acceptability Program ("CETAP") component of RCIP identifies regional transportation corridors to meet the future transportation needs of Riverside County. CETAP goes beyond a typical circulation element8 in that it recognizes that transportation occurs between the various jurisdictions in Riverside County (i.e. unincorporated and incorporated areas) as well as between Riverside County jurisdictions and neighboring counties. CETAP is a multi-modal planning effort consisting of highway options, transit, and other forms of travel demand management and goods movement.
CETAP proposes two different corridors within Riverside County: a Winchester to Temecula corridor (the "WT Corridor") and a Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor (the "HCLE Corridor"). CETAP also proposes two "bi-County" corridors, the San Bernardino to Moreno Valley corridor (the "SBMV Corridor") and the Orange County to Riverside County corridor (the "OCRC Corridor"). The CETAP corridors are discussed in detail in Section 2.2 of the Nexus Report.
ES. 2.2.1. Relationship between CETAP and MSHCP
The MSHCP (discussed in Section 2.3) is expected to address the cumulative and growth facilitating effects of the CETAP corridors on endangered species, and to facilitate requisite environmental clearances for such corridors. The route location decisions for the CETAP corridors will support and guide land use planning in western Riverside County. Due to the rapid pace of development in Riverside County, opportunities are being lost to conserve land for regional transportation facilities. The timely conservation of right-of-way helps ensure that needed transportation infrastructure will be available in the future to support the economy of Riverside County and provide and/or improve access to jobs; existing, planned, and future home sites; serve existing and future schools; shopping; and other daily activities. Similarly, the timely preservation of the requisite Habitats as mitigation for transportation will ensure that ESA conditions are met before adequate conservation and linkage options are precluded. The decision of where to locate the transportation corridors also informs government agencies, landowners, and residents so that timely land use policy decisions can be made and appropriate development standards can be implemented.
ES. 2.3. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
ES. 2.3.1. Introduction to the MSHCP
The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (the "MSHCP") involves the assembly and management of a conservation area for the conservation of natural habitats and their constituent wildlife populations for over 100 listed and unlisted species (the "Covered Species"). The MSHCP establishes a framework for complying with State and federal endangered species regulations in addition to accommodating future growth within the Cities and unincorporated portions of western Riverside County. Thus unlike the proposed General Plan, the MSHCP covers only the western portion of the County and includes both unincorporated and incorporated areas.
The provisions of the MSHCP will provide mitigation for future impacts of planned urban, rural, and regional infrastructure development on the species identified in the MSHCP. The MSHCP will allow participating jurisdictions (Riverside County and each of the 14 Cities in the western portion of the County) to "take" (permit the loss of) the plant and animal species identified in the MSHCP through the agencies' local land use planning and development review processes. The Permittees will have the authority to grant Third Party Authorization to private developers, provided the terms of the MSHCP are satisfied. The intent of the MSHCP is to provide the documentation necessary for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") and California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") to grant "take authorizations" pursuant to the federal and State endangered species acts for otherwise lawful actions (e.g., permitted development that may incidentally take or harm individuals of the species or their habitats covered by the MSHCP). These take authorizations would be granted in recognition of the mitigating effects of the coordinated conservation system planned by the MSHCP.
The precise boundaries of the proposed 153,000 acre Additional Conservation Area Lands are not specifically identified in the MSHCP, but are generally targeted for acquisition in the Criteria Areas. The conservation area and the biological objectives are enumerated by Area Plan Sub-Unit Cell Grouping and ultimately on a cell-by-cell9 basis. The conservation of 153,000 acres is anticipated to occur over the first 25 years of the program and when completed, must be in a configuration to, and include the vegetation communities that provide for the conservation of Covered Species.
Covered Activities, which are summarized in Section 2.2.7 of the Nexus Report and Volume I of the MSHCP and discussed in greater detail in Section 7, include but are not limited to: public and private development, two internal regional transportation facilities,10 two regional transportation facilities to facilitate movement from Riverside County to adjacent counties,11 safety improvements on existing roads, the Circulation Elements of the Permittees, maintenance and construction of flood control facilities, single-family homes on existing legal parcels within the Criteria Area, existing agricultural operations, up to 10,000 acres of new agricultural activity within the Criteria Area, and compatible uses in the conservation area. The MSHCP has a provision for the inclusion of special districts and other non-Permittee entities in the permit with a certificate of inclusion.
ES. 2.4. MSHCP CONSERVATION AREA ASSEMBLY
Funding for local acquisition of Additional Conservation Area Lands (56,000 acres) will be provided through the local funding program, which is discussed in Section 5 of the Nexus Report. Table ES-2 summarizes the expected assembly of the Additional Conservation Area Lands.
The Local Implementation Plan utilizes the HANS Process12 as the primary mechanism for implementing the MSHCP. The local conservation of Additional Conservation Area Lands will occur under HANS using either the general approach of dedications of land provided through the Cities' and County's Development Review process for new Development, or through the application of incentives using the approach of the acquisition of lands from willing sellers, or a combination of the two approaches.
The Local Implementation Plan has four approaches that will assist in obtaining conservation lands: Development Review, Local Permittees' Acquisition of Additional
Conservation Area Lands, Caltrans Acquisition of Additional Conservation Area Lands, and State Parks Acquisition. Table ES-3 presents the anticipated results of the four implementation approaches, which are discussed in Section 2.4.
ES. 2.5. RELATIONSHIPS AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RCIP COMPONENTS
The Hearing Draft General Plan Circulation Element includes proposed CETAP corridors as part of its roadway and highway system. The MSHCP provides comprehensive mitigation for the project specific cumulative, and indirect impacts resulting from Development of the proposed Hearing Draft General Plan land uses and transportation facilities (including CETAP corridors) within the western portion of the County. The MSHCP also includes CETAP corridors as permitted activities where they cross MSHCP preserve Conservation Area areas.
The three components of RCIP cover different areas of the County. The General Plan, which contains a circulation element that provides for internal transportation facilities, covers all unincorporated lands within Riverside County's corporate boundary except March Air Conservation Area Base, Indian lands, and lands owned by the State and federal governments. The MSHCP covers both unincorporated and incorporated areas in western Riverside County, since the Cities are participating in the program. CETAP addresses specific transportation corridors in western Riverside County.
ES. 3. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND BIOLOGICAL SETTING OF THE MSHCP PLAN AREA
ES. 3.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Variation in topography, soil, and climate across the elevational range of the MSHCP creates habitats for a wide variety of animals and plants, including many that are rare or endemic to Southern California. Thirty-nine species indigenous to western Riverside County have special status under FESA and/or CESA. These include species that are listed as "endangered" or "threatened" under FESA or that have been "proposed" or are "strong candidates" for such listing.
ES. 3.2. TRANSPORTATION SETTING
The existing circulation and transportation system serving the proposed MSHCP Plan Area consists of a series of separate modes of travel and goods movement that include passenger vehicles and truck freight, transit, passenger and freight rail, passenger and cargo air, non-motorized systems (bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and equestrian facilities) and major utility corridors.
Travel occurs within the Plan Area and between the Plan Area and Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial and Kern Counties as residents and businesses from Riverside County commute to places of employment and economic activity as well as between the western and eastern portions of the County. Due to the interrelationship of employment, housing and services, and the low average density of existing land uses, the private automobile is the dominant mode of travel within the proposed Plan Area, with transit representing less than two percent of all trips made in the County. The Plan Area's industrial and agricultural economies depend on safe and efficient movement of goods and people and an extensive network of low volume rural roads in sparsely settled areas are maintained to service goods movement and the agricultural industry. Large trucks are the primary means of transporting such goods. Freight rail and non-motorized transportation (e.g. bikeways, pedestrian facilities, and equestrian amenities) are also prevalent in the Plan Area.
ES. 3.2.1. Existing Street and Highway System
The Plan Area's highway network includes three interstate routes (I-10, I-15, and I-215), several State Routes (SRs 60, 71, 74, 79, 91, 243, and 371), and County roadways, roadways within each of the Cities.
ES. 3.3. BIOLOGICAL SETTING
This section summarizes the biological setting in which the MSHCP Conservation Area will be assembled. The reader is referred to Volume II of the MSHCP13 for a detailed discussion of the plants and wildlife in the Plan Area.
ES. 3.3.1. Bioregions
The Plan Area encompasses seven distinct bioregions: Santa Ana Mountains, Riverside Lowlands, San Jacinto Foothills, Agua Tibia Mountains, Desert Transition, San Bernardino Mountains, and San Jacinto Mountains which are described in Section 3.3.1 of the Nexus Report.
ES. 3.3.2. Vegetation Communities
The MSHCP Plan Area supports the following vegetation communities: Chaparral, Cismontane alkali marsh, Coastal (Diegan and Riverside) sage scrub, Desert scrubs, Native and non-native grassland, Meadows and marshes, Montane coniferous forest, Peninsular juniper woodland and scrub, Playas and vernal pools, Riparian scrub/woodland/forests, Riverside alluvial fan sage scrub, Open water, and Woodlands and forests, in addition to agricultural, and developed land. A brief description of each vegetation community is provided in Section 3.3.2 of the Nexus Report.
ES. 4. MITIGATION FEE JUSTIFICATION
The levy of impact fees is one authorized method of financing public facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development, for an increased population. A Fee is "a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project..." 14
ES. 4.1. HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR MITIGATION FEES
Prior to World War II, development in California was held responsible for very little of the cost of public infrastructure. However, starting in the late 1940s, the use of impact fees grew with the increased planning and regulation of new development. During the 1960s and 1970s, California courts broadened the right of local government to impose fees on developers for public improvements that were not located on project sites. More recently, with the passage of Proposition 13, the limits on general revenues for new infrastructure has resulted in new development being held responsible for a greater share of public improvements, and both the use and levels of impact fees have grown substantially.
The levy of impact fees is one authorized method of financing the public facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development for an increased population. A fee may be levied for each type of capital improvement required for new development, with the payment of the fee occurring prior to the beginning of construction of a dwelling unit or retail/non-retail building (or prior to the expansion of existing buildings of these types). Fees are often levied at final map recordation, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or more commonly, at building permit issuance.
ES. 4.2. REQUIREMENTS TO ESTABLISH A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION FEE
Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code, also called the Mitigation Fee Act, requires that all public agencies satisfy the following requirements when establishing, increasing or imposing a fee as a condition of new development:
- Identify the purpose of the fee.
(Government Code Section 66001(a)(1))
- Identify the use to which the fee will be put.
(Government Code Section 66001(a)(2))
- Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development on which the fee is to be imposed.
(Government Code Section 66001(a)(3))
- Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is to be imposed.
(Government Code Section 66001(a)(4))
- Discuss how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
Section 4 of the Nexus Report has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act and establish a rational and substantial nexus between new development in the Plan Area and the imposition of a Local Development Mitigation Fee ("LDMF").
ES. 4.3. THE FEE AS ONE COMPONENT OF THE OVERALL FINANCING PROGRAM
Funding of the MSHCP will come from federal, State, and local sources. Of the 153,000 acres of Habitat to be conserved by implementation of the MSHCP, state and federal acquisition and mitigation for State Permittees will account for 56,000 acres or approximately 37% of the Additional Conservation Area Lands. Local Permittees are responsible for the remaining 97,000 acres with Local Development Review Processes expected to contribute 41,000 acres to the Conservation Area Assembly and the remaining 56,000 acres being acquired (i.e. purchased). The main funding source for these local acquisitions is the imposition and collection of the LDMF by the County and participating Cities.
In addition to land acquisition for Conservation purposes, other local program costs, which are discussed in Section 5 of the Nexus Report, include: management, monitoring, adaptive management, and administration. It is important to note that the mitigation fee will be used only for Habitat acquisition and other appropriate uses. No LDMF monies will be used for management, monitoring, or adaptive management activities. Local funding sources that may be used for management, adaptive management, and monitoring include: mitigation for regional infrastructure, landfill tipping fees, and other potential new revenue sources as discussed in Section 5.
ES. 4.4. PURPOSE OF THE FEE
(Government Code Section 66001(a)(1))
The LDMF is to be charged throughout the Plan Area to all future development within the western part of the County and the Cities in order to provide a coordinated conservation area and implementation program that will facilitate the preservation of biological diversity as well as maintain the region's quality of life. The rationale for imposing the LDMF over the entire region is the projected cumulative effect of future development that has required the preparation and implementation of the MSHCP. Each development will contribute to the need for new regional infrastructure that, in turn, will adversely affect species and habitats. Without future development, existing habitat would not be in danger of permanently disappearing, and those endangered species currently residing within that habitat could be sustained.
Future development projects that may not be located on property that is suitable for habitat purposes contribute to impacts on species because they are an interactive component of a much greater universe of development located throughout the Plan Area as enumerated below:
- Property owners and/or the tenants associated with any potentially non-habitat new development regularly utilize and benefit from regional infrastructure (e.g. public roads, flood control facilities, water and sewer facilities) some of which are located on properties that are suitable for habitat purposes.
- The property owners and tenants of the new development described in paragraph
- (1) are dependent on and, in fact, may not have chosen to utilize their development, except for residential, retail, employment and recreational opportunities located nearby on other existing and future development, some of which has been or will be located on sites that constitute suitable habitat.
- The availability of residents, employees and customers from new development occurring on non-habitat property has a growth-inducing impact without which some of the development on habitat properties would not have occurred.
The overall goal of the MSHCP is to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystem processes while allowing future economic growth in western Riverside County. This goal is based on goals and principles stated in a Planning Agreement that was drafted between the Wildlife Agencies and participating local entities. Specifically, Section 3 of the Planning Agreement includes the following goals and principles for development of the MSHCP:
The MSHCP provides for actions that will minimize the decline of Covered Species within the Plan Area. This is reflected in the Biological Goal for each of the Covered Species to "Conserve Covered Species and their Habitats", with Conservation defined as:
"To use, and the use of, methods and procedures within the MSHCP Conservation Area and within the Plan Area as set forth in the MSHCP Plan, that are necessary to bring any listed species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to FESA and the California Fish and Game Code are no longer necessary. However, Permittees will have no duty to enhance, restore or revegetate MSHCP Conservation Area lands unless required by the MSHCP Plan or agreed to through implementation of the Plan."
As a result of the above, all development projects within the region contribute to the cumulative impacts of development that constitute one of the primary reasons for the disappearance of suitable habitat for endangered species throughout the region.
The LDMF provides funding to mitigate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to Habitat associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of certain transportation facilities needed to serve future planned development within the Plan Area. The Incidental Take permit associated with the MSHCP and the Covered Activities discussed in Section 2.3.7 will permit the construction of the public infrastructure and private projects needed to serve future development resulting from the population growth projected in the Plan Area.
The LDMF, by funding regional habitat planning and conservation of habitat in functional blocks as opposed to the current process of piecemeal ad hoc conservation, will: (1) minimize if not eliminate the uncoordinated preservation of scattered habitat areas; (2) eliminate the traditional project-by-project habitat/species mitigation process for resolving conflicts between species preservation and development in advance; (3) allow future Development to proceed in an orderly, efficient and cost effective manner; and (4) allow the County and participating Cities to better control local land use decisions and maintain a strong economic climate within the region.
The LDMF and MSHCP will help ensure habitat conservation and species protection on a basis not experienced before in western Riverside County. This level of protection provides an unprecedented level of development certainty to the County, participating Cities, state and federal wildlife agencies; development, agriculture, and environmental communities; and the public at large.
The LDMF will help reduce the need to list additional species in the future by funding the assembly of a regional conservation system to promote the biological viability and recovery of Western Riverside County's ecosystems, Habitats, and the species dependent thereupon. The comprehensive scope of the MSHCP provides a means to coordinate, standardize, streamline, and help ensure closure regarding the mitigation requirements of FESA, CESA, NEPA, CEQA, and the NCCP Act within the Plan Area.
Section 4.4 of the Nexus Report sets forth the purpose of the LDMF as required by Section 66001(a)(1) of the California Government Code.
ES. 4.5. THE USE TO WHICH THE FEE IS TO BE PUT
(Government Code Section 66001(a)(2))
The LDMF will be used for Habitat acquisition and other appropriate costs. Approximately 56,000 acres will be conserved either through direct acquisition from willing sellers or through the purchase of conservation easements or other mechanisms that results in permanent Conservation of land. The acquisition of property for the MSHCP benefits the public by providing large areas of land and thus provides a secondary benefit of enhancing the overall aesthetic value of western Riverside County.
The LDMF, as one funding source for the MSHCP, will help ensure habitat conservation and species protection on a basis not experienced before in western Riverside County. The regional conservation system assembled with LDMF funds was designed to promote the biological viability and recovery of Western Riverside County's ecosystems, Habitats, and the species dependent thereupon, which in turn may reduce the need to list additional species in the future.
The discussion presented in Section 4.5 of the Nexus Report identifies the use to which the fee is to be put as required by Section 66001(a)(2) of the California Government Code.
ES. 4.6. DETERMINE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEE'S USE AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP)
(Government Code Section 66001(a)(3))
As thoroughly discussed in Sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the Nexus Report, all types of Development will have an impact on Covered Species and Habitat because it is the depletion of land in its natural state and the introduction of inhospitable land covers that severely impacts the viability and conservation of species and thus increases the probably for extinction.15 Of particular importance are the cumulative impacts as it is the projected cumulative effect of future development that has required the preparation and implementation of the MSHCP to protect multiple habitats and species. Each development will contribute to the need for new regional infrastructure that, in turn, will adversely affect species and habitats. Without future development, existing habitat would not be in danger of permanently disappearing, and those endangered species currently residing within that habitat could be sustained. Future development projects that may not be located on property that is suitable for habitat purposes contribute to impacts on species because they are an interactive component of a much greater universe of development located throughout the Plan Area as discussed in Section ES 4.4. The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to species and their habitat resulting from new Development are to be taken into account when determining the benefit relationship.
The regional nature of the LDMF is similar to that of the impact fees that are levied by most municipalities for purposes of funding regional roads, flood control facilities, parks and other infrastructure. Additionally, this impact is generally equalized among all types of Development because it is the conversion of land from its natural state, whether for a private development project or a public infrastructure project to serve and support the private development project, that creates the impact upon species and open space opportunities.
As set forth in Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of the Nexus Report, the LDMF will be expended to purchase Habitat lands and other authorized uses, as that is the purpose for which the LDMF is collected. The LDMF will be used to acquire the mitigation lands required by FESA, NCCP Act, and related environmental statues to provide large, interconnected natural areas to protect the Covered species and their Habitats as documented in the numerous biological studies contained in Volumes III and IV of the Draft MSHCP.
The LDMF will be used to assist in the acquisition of the mitigation lands required by FESA, NCCP Act, and related environmental statues to provide large, interconnected natural areas which will (1) protect the Covered Species and their Habitats as documented in the numerous biological studies contained in the MSHCP, and (2) sustain wildlife mobility, genetic flow, and ecosystem health, thus helping to reduce the potential for the listing of additional Covered Species.
For the reasons summarized above and set forth in Section 4.6, there is a reasonable relationship between the purchase of Habitat and all Developments in the Plan Area as required under Section 66001(a)(3) of the Mitigation Fee Act.
ES. 4.7. DETERMINE HOW THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEED FOR THE PUBLIC FACILITY AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (IMPACT RELATIONSHIP)
(Government Code Section 66001(a)(4))
As set forth in Sections 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Nexus Report, it is the projected cumulative effect of all future development that has required the preparation and implementation of the MSHCP to protect multiple habitats and species. Each development will contribute to the need for new regional infrastructure that, in turn, will adversely affect species and habitats. Without future development, existing habitat would not be in danger of permanently disappearing, and those endangered species currently residing within that habitat could be sustained.
Future development projects that may not be located on property that is suitable for habitat purposes contribute to impacts on species because they are an interactive component of a much greater universe of development located throughout the Plan Area as enumerated below:
- Property owners and/or the tenants associated with any potentially non-habitat new development regularly utilize and benefit from regional infrastructure (e.g. public roads, flood control facilities, water and sewer facilities) some of which are located on properties that are suitable for habitat purposes.
- The property owners and tenants of the new development described in paragraph
- (1) are dependent on and, in fact, may not have chosen to utilize their development, except for residential, retail, employment and recreational opportunities located nearby on other existing and future development, some of which has been or will be located on sites that constitute suitable habitat.
- The availability of residents, employees and customers from new development occurring on non-habitat property has a growth-inducing impact without which some of the development on habitat properties would not have occurred.
As a result of the above, all development projects within the region contribute to the cumulative impacts of development that constitute one of the primary reasons for the disappearance of suitable habitat for endangered species throughout the region.
For reasons set forth in Section 4.7 of the Nexus Report and summarized above, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and all new development in the Plan Area as required under Section 66001(a)(4) of the Mitigation Fee Act.
ES. 4.8. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE AND THE COST OF THE PUBLIC FACILITY (HABITAT ACQUISITION) ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED ("ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY" RELATIONSHIP)
(Government Code 66001(A))
As discussed in Sections 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8 of the Nexus Report, each Development in the Plan Area impacts the supply of available land for Habitat. Moreover, each individual Development project and its related necessary infrastructure improvements, when examined along with the cumulative impacts of all development in western Riverside County, will have an adverse impact on the availability of open land, Habitat, and species in the Plan Area. Thus, imposition of the LDMF to finance the acquisition of Habitat and appropriate costs associated therewith is the most efficient, practical, and equitable method of permitting development to proceed in an environmentally responsible manner and in a manner that complies with the overall intent of RCIP and the MSHCP.
New Development impacts species and habitat directly, indirectly, and cumulatively. In fact, without any future Development, the MSHCP would not be necessary as existing habitat would not be in danger of permanently disappearing, and those endangered species currently residing within that habitat could be sustained.
ES. 4.8.1. Local Acquisition and Other Appropriate Costs
The amount of the fee is a function of the costs to acquire 56,000 acres of Habitat16 (subject to the acquisition criteria) and administrative expenses associated with implementing the MSHCP. In order to derive cost estimates that will be used to calculate the amount of the LDMF, a "Probable Overall Value" was developed for each General Plan Land Use Foundation Element.17
Existing Local Acquisition to the MSHCP
As discussed throughout this Nexus Report, the MSHCP Reserve Area includes Local Acquisitions totaling 56,000 acres of new mitigation land. As of February 2003, local sources, that is sources other than the state and federal government, have provided a total of 2,454 acres of new mitigation land, which may be applied to meeting the Local Acquisition goal of 56,000 acres, resulting in a remainder of 53,546 acres to be acquired with the LDMF. Therefore, the projected acquisition cost used in the Nexus Report is based on 53,54618 acres.
ES. 4.8.2. Probable Overall Value Methodology
In order to estimate the costs of the Local Acquisitions, an analysis was undertaken to determine probable per acre values for the Foundation Components identified in the Hearing Draft of the County General Plan.
ES. 4.8.3. Eligible Uses of the LDMF
Eligible uses of the LDMF include the acquisition of approximately 53,546 acres of Habitat and other appropriate uses, each of which are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Land Acquisition Costs
The MSHCP is an incentive and criteria driven plan in which Habitat acquisition is one of many tools that will be used to assemble the conservation area. As criteria based plan, there is no "hard-line" boundary that identifies the specific property to be conserved. Habitat acquisition will take place in accordance with the provisions of the MSHCP as both funding and appropriate land becomes available.
In order to estimate the costs associated with the acquisition of 56,000 acres of Habitat, it is assumed that Habitat will be acquired from each Area Plan in proportion to that Area Plan's share of the sum of the median number of acres within the Criteria Range for all Area Plans.
Within a given Area Plan, it is reasonable to assume for purposes of this Nexus Report, that the amount of Habitat to be acquired from each Foundation Component is in proportion to that Foundation Component's share of that Area Plan's Criteria Area.
As discussed in Section 4.8.3.1, the Probable Acquisition Cost to purchase 53,546 acres of Habitat is $876,729,808.
Other Appropriate Costs
The MSHCP will be implemented, overseen, and administered by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (‘RCA"), a joint regional authority formed by the County and the Cities. The RCA will be authorized to carry out the requirements of the MSHCP including overall program responsibility for the assembly of the Local Acquisitions; therefore costs associated with the RCA's efforts to acquire Habitat are appropriate costs and will be financed with LDMF funds. RCA's budget for the 25 year acquisition period is approximately $30 million (in 2003 dollars), which is approximately 3% of the Probable Acquisition Costs.
Total Cost to be Financed Through Mitigation Fee Program
The total cost to be financed through the LDMF program is the sum of the Probable Acquisition Costs ($876,729,808) plus the Other Appropriate Costs ($30,000,000) for a total LDMF program cost of $906,729,808.
ES. 4.8.4. Area Over Which the LSMF is to be Imposed (Why a Regional Fee?)
As stated throughout Section 4 of the Nexus Report, it is the projected cumulative effect of future development that has required the preparation and implementation of the MSHCP to protect multiple habitats and species. Without future development, existing habitat would not be in danger of permanently disappearing, and those endangered species currently residing within that habitat could be sustained.
A regional LDMF is both appropriate and justifiable since the MSHCP was designed to mitigate direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts resulting from new Development and the infrastructure necessary to support and serve such development. All new Development in the Plan Area, plus the additional roadways and public facilities needed to serve such Development impact the supply of open space and habitat on an individual and cumulative basis. Even future development projects that may not be located on property that is suitable for habitat purposes contribute to impacts on species because they are an interactive component of a much greater universe of development located throughout the Plan Area and:
Although it is far more common to deal with regionalization in relation to transportation, flood control, or other utilities, the MSHCP is no different. Every project adds trips to local roads but also to the regional transportation system. Likewise every new development project increases the demand for water or sewer capacity, libraries and other public facilities. In these instances contribution to regional needs or a regional system is well established. The impacts to habitat and species are much the same through impacts resulting from increased urbanization and from the construction of new infrastructure to meet the demands of new development. A regional approach provides equity in addressing the impacts to species and habitat of new development.
For the reasons articulated above as well as those previously articulated in Sections 2, 3, and 4, it is appropriate that all new Development participate in the mitigating these impacts.
ES. 4.8.5. Development Horizon Used in the Nexus Report
The LDMF calculations presented in the Nexus Report are based on new development projected to occur in the Plan Area in the next 25 years. The main rationale for the selection of this development horizon is the MSHCP calls for assembly of the Reserve Area within a 25 year period. In order to obtain an Incidental Take Permit ("ITP"), which will allow planned development and public infrastructure to take place within the Conservation Area, a habitat conservation plan (HCP) must be approved. Approval of an HCP requires that the applicant ensure "adequate funding" is provided. In the specific instance of the MSHCP, adequate funding includes the costs to complete the Local Acquisitions within the first 25 years after the ITP is issued, as well as, the costs for program administration, both of which will be provided by the LDMF. The other costs, adaptive management, reserve management, and biological monitoring will be funded from other sources as discussed in Section 5.
Given the current development pressure within the Criteria Area, if the Local Acquisitions are not completed in the next 25 years, important resources may become developed, or surrounded by new development to the extent that the land may become isolated from other habitats. This is significant since the loss of important habitats over the next 25 years will preclude assembly of the Conservation Area. The MSHCP calls for the Local Acquisitions to be completed within 25 years to ensure that the resources, particularly those related to linkages, are still available.
If the LDMF does not generate sufficient revenue within a 25 year period to fund acquisition of the 53,546 acres, the MSHCP will not be able to meet the FESA condition that adequate funding is provided and the ITP cannot be issued.
After assembly of the Reserve Area, the MSHCP will have ongoing financial obligations and the fee program will not end in 25 years. New Development in year 26 and beyond will still have the obligation to mitigate per CEQA, as well as, finance ongoing program administration. If revisions are made to the California Government Code at some future date, the LDMF could possibly be collected to finance adaptive management, reserve management and/or biological monitoring.
ES. 4.8.6. Existing Deficiencies
With respect to deriving the LDMF, David Taussig & Associates, Inc. ("DTA") has determined there are no existing deficiencies in habitat lands that are mitigated by the MSHCP. The MSHCP Conservation Area was neither sized nor designed to "make-up" for existing deficiencies in habitat land. Rather, the MSHCP is a prospective plan and provides mitigation for the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to Covered Species and their Habitats resulting from new Development and the additional roadways and other public facilities needed to serve such Development in the Plan Area. Therefore, the entire cost of the Local Acquisitions and program administration component of the MSHCP is eligible to be allocated to new development.
The MSHCP provides take authorization for future development. If no additional new development occurred within the Plan Area there would be no "take" of habitat and no need for the MSHCP or the LDMF. The mitigation required and provided under the MSHCP is that which is necessary to mitigate the impacts of future development. While the loss of habitat in the past may have resulted in a situation where further loss of habitat threatens the survival of many species, the fact is that if no new development or infrastructure needed to serve said new development were constructed, there would be no need to mitigate direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to the Covered Species or their Habitat.
ES. 4.8.7. Calculation of Mitigation Fee Amounts What Type of Fee Methodology is Appropriate for the LDMF?
Government Code 66000 does not specify the manner in which an impact fee must be derived. In making a determination as to the type of fee methodology to be used for a specific project, one generally starts with identifying the impacts that are being mitigated by the facility being financed with the fee revenues.
As established in the Nexus Report, implementation of the MSHCP will allow the Development of not only private projects but also the public infrastructure necessary to serve the private development. That is, implementation of the MSHCP will provide mitigation for more than the loss of biological resources. In recognition of the wide variety of impacts mitigated by implementation of the MSHCP, Section 4.8.7 of the Nexus Report derives mitigation fees using methodologies based on four different criteria - gross acreage, density, equivalent dwelling units (EDUs), and equivalent benefit units (EBUS).
Gross Acreage Based Fee Methodology
A gross acreage based fee structure is limited in the scope of its applicability since the basic assumption underlying this methodology is that every acre equally impacts the facility being financed. This methodology does not take into consideration differences in impacts resulting from differing land uses, i.e. residential vs. non-residential development, nor does it recognize that similar land uses have similar impacts irrespective of differing lot sizes.
The construction of individual single-family homes on existing legal parcels is a Covered Activity inside the criteria area.19 In permitting the development of single-family homes in the criteria area on larger lots, the MSHCP recognizes that there is some conservation value associated with single-family residential development on large lots. Therefore for purposes of the Gross Acreage Based Fee Calculation it is assumed that the LDMF will be imposed on no more than 0.5 acres of for any single-family residential unit.
Methodology Employed to Calculate an Acreage Based LDMF
1. Project the number of acres of rural, residential, commercial, industrial and business park, community center, and city mixed-use and city-special planning that will be developed in the next 25 years.
2. Divide the total cost to be financed through the mitigation fee program, $906,729,808 by the projected number of developed acres to determine the LDMF per acre.
Development Projections for the Gross Acreage Based LDMF
Table ES-4 presents the development projections (columns [1] and [2]) and the recommended per acre LDMF (column [3]).
Density Methodology
Deriving mitigation fees based on the density of residential development provides a way to quantify different land use types in terms of their equivalence to a predefined unit where equivalence is measured in terms of density, which provides a correlation to potential use or benefit. A major advantage to a density weighted ("DW") methodology when compared to an acreage based methodology, is the ability to assign identical benefits to similarly used properties, e.g. all residential property within a density rage that is typical for a certain type (i.e. single-family vs. multiple-family residential development) may be assigned 1 DW, or assign different DWs to reflect differences in land uses, e.g. residential development vs. non-residential development.
The Nexus Report proposes a DW based fee structure where DWs are a function of the expected density of residential development. Using density as the basis for the fee program recognizes, in a qualitative sense, that more land may be available for biological resources and less infrastructure may be required when more people are housed on less land. For example, a 25 home residential project with a density of 7 units per acre would require approximately 3.5 acres of land whereas those same 25 units constructed at a density of 4 units per acre would require approximately 6.2 acres. A DW based fee program also provides a means to differentiate between the impacts associated with residential and non-residential development.
Assignment of Density Weights
Under the DTA's proposed DW methodology, 1 DW is assigned to each rural residential dwelling unit and to each dwelling unit constructed on residential property with a density from 0.4 to 8.0 dwelling units ("DU") per acre (Table ES-5). Residential property developed at a density between 0.4 and 8.0 dwelling units per acre represents single-family detached residential development20 and becomes the basis upon which the impacts of other types of development are measured. Dwelling units constructed on rural residential property are assigned a DW of 1 even though they are constructed at a lower density because (i) this type of property will be developed with single-family detached residential units similar to those constructed in a 0.4-8.0 DU/acre project, and (ii) in recognition of the potential conservation value of rural development as previously discussed in the acreage based fee methodology section.
Expected development on residential property with a density between 8.1 and 14.0 DU/ acre includes attached residential units, townhouses, stacked flats and courtyard homes.21 These types of units are more densely developed than traditional single-family detached housing and thus may cause less impact to biological resources by housing more people on less land. Furthermore, trip generation rates and population per unit are generally lower than that of single-family detached units as evidenced by data compiled by the Institute of Traffic Engineers and U.S Census 2000. As indicated in Table ES-5, 0.4 DW per unit is assigned to this type of development based on the relationship of the midpoint density for residential property with a density of 8-14 DU/acre (midpoint = 11 DU/acre) compared to the midpoint density for residential property with a density of 0.4-8 DU/acre (4.2).22
A density weight (DW) is assigned to each acre of residential development with a density greater than 14 dwelling units per acre and commercial and industrial development based on actual expected density associated with residential property developed at 0.4-8.0 DU/acre. In order to determine this number, DTA divided the expected number of residential units with a density between 0.4-8.0 DU/acre by the expected number of acres for that land use. The high and very high density residential projects are assigned the same number of DWs as commercial and industrial projects since high and very high density residential projects are more similar in nature to commercial projects than to single-family projects.
It is DTA's opinion that the density weighted LDMF is superior to the Gross Acreage methodology in that one can use a project's density to differentiate between "types" of development, both residential and non-residential. A shortcoming to the density weighted fee structure is that while there is a good rationale and data to support a difference in the fee amounts between different types of residential units, unless a large number of density categories are defined, the resulting fee structure may result in large breaks between density classes.
Development Projections for the Density Based LDMF
Table ES-5 presents the development projections (columns [2] and [3]) and the recommended LDMF per dwelling unit or acre (column [4]).
Equivalent Dwelling Unit - Population and Employee Based
An equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) provides a way to quantify different land use types in terms of their equivalence of a single-family residential dwelling unit, which is assigned 1 EDU. DTA proposes an EDU based fee in which the EDUs for multi-family residential property and non-residential property are assigned based on the expected number of people per dwelling unit or expected number of employees per acre, respectively. As with the EBU based fee proposal, an EDU based fee can reflect differences in impacts resulting from different land uses and densities. Using population and employment as the basis for the fee program implies that the main benefit to new development from the MSHCP is the public infrastructure and facilities that will likely be constructed once the MSHCP is implemented. As established in Section 2 of the Nexus Report these public infrastructure facilities, particularly the transportation facilities provide significant benefit to new development.
Assignment of EDUs
Under DTA's proposed EDU methodology, a single-family residential unit ("SFR") is defined as dwelling units with a density of less than or equal to 8.0 DU/acre. SFRs, which have a population of 3.1 persons per DU (Table ES-6, column [1]), are defined as 1 EDU. Multiple-family residential ("MFR") property is defined as dwelling units with a density between 8.1 and 14.0 dwelling units. MFRs have an expected population per dwelling unit of 2.5 persons23 and are assigned 0.8 EDU per unit (Table ES-6. column [2]).24 Commercial property,25 which has an average of 20 employees per acre, is assigned 6.5 EDUs per acre26 and Industrial property, which has an average of 10.5 employees per acre, is assigned 3.4 EDUs per acre.27 Residential property with densities exceeding 14.0 DU/acre is assigned to the same land use category as commercial property since those types of high and very high-density residential projects tend to be more commercial than residential in nature.
Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) Methodology
An equivalent benefit unit (EBU) provides a way to quantify different land use types in terms of their equivalence to a predefined unit where equivalence is measured in terms of potential use or benefit. A major advantage to an EBU structured methodology when compared to an acreage, density or population based methodology, is the ability to assign identical benefits to similarly used properties (e.g. all residential property is assigned 1 EBU irrespective of lot size) or assign different EBUs to reflect differences in land uses, (e.g. residential development vs. non-residential development).
The Nexus Report proposes an EBU based fee structure where EBUs for residential development are a function of (i) the expected lot size, (ii) trip generation rates, and (iii) expected population per household. Using a weighted factor for each of these items takes into consideration that the MSHCP is providing mitigation for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. An EBU based fee program also provides a means to differentiate between the impacts associated with residential and non-residential development.
Assignment of Equivalent Benefit Units
DTA's proposed EBU methodology has four categories of property, three residential categories defined by density ranges and one non-residential category. The residential categories are: (1) Residential, density between 0 and 8.0 dwelling units per acre, (2) Residential, density between 8.1 and 14.0 dwelling units per acre and (3) Residential, density greater than 14.1 dwelling units per acre. These density ranges were selected as they generally correspond to single-family, multiple-family, and high density multiple-family residential development, respectively.
For purposes of assigning EBUs, to residential property three equally weighted components were used: average lot size, average trip ends, and average population per household. For each of these components, an EBU of 1 is assigned to each dwelling unit constructed on residential property with a density from 0 to 8.0 dwelling units ("DU") per acre since this density range represents single-family detached residential development28 and is the basis upon which the impacts of other types of development are measured (columns [2], [4], and [6] in Table ES-7). The lot size, trip end and population factors (columns [2], [4], and [6] in Table ES-7) are added together with the resulting sum (column [7], Table ES-7) being the basis for the Overall EBUs (column [8], Table ES-7).
EBUs are assigned to non-residential development based actual expected density associated with residential property developed at 0.4-8.0 DU/acre. In order to determine this number, DTA divided the expected number of residential units with a density between 0.4-8.0 DU/acre by the expected number of acres for that land use category. As indicated in Table 4-9, a total of 332,940 residential units with densities between 0.4-8.0 DU/acre are projected on 98,909 gross acres, which results in an EBU assignment of 3.4 EBUs per acre of non-residential development.
Average Lot Size
Average lot sizes were determined for each residential density range in half acre increments. For purposes of determining the lot size component dwelling units constructed on rural residential property were assigned a lot size of 0.5 acres in recognition of the potential conservation value of rural development as previously discussed in the gross acreage based fee methodology section. The average residential lot sizes are presented in column [1] of Table ES-7. Appendix E contains the worksheet with the backup data.
Average Trip Ends
Average trip ends were determined for each residential density range using trip end factors from "Trip Generation, 5th Edition" published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. For purposes of this analysis, DTA used trip generation rates for single-family detached housing (9.57 trips per dwelling unit) and apartments (6.63 trips per dwelling unit). The average trip ends are presented in column [3] of Table ES-7 with the backup data in Appendix E.
Average Population per Dwelling Unit
Average population per dwelling unit was determined for each residential density range using "Occupancy Rate per Household Unit" data from the United States Census Bureau, Census 2000 data. For purposes of this analysis, DTA used the occupancy rate for detached dwelling units for residential units with the densities between 0 and 8.0 DU/acre (3.266 people/DU). For residential units with densities between 8.1 and 14.0 DU/ac, DTA used the average of the occupancy rates for 1 attached unit in a structure through 19 units (2.639 people/DU). For residential units with densities greater than 14.1 DU/ac, DTA used the average of the occupancy rates for 19 attached units in a structure through 50 or more units in a structure (2.639 people/DU). These averages are presented in column [5] of Table ES-7 with the backup data in Appendix E.
Table ES-7
Local Development Mitigation Fee Amounts EBU Methodology, Residential EBU Assignment Based Acreage, Trip Generation, and Population/Employment, Non-Residential EBU based on Residential Density |
|---|
| |
[1] |
[2] |
[3] |
[4] |
[5] |
[6] |
[7] |
[8] |
[9] |
[10] |
[11] |
|---|
| Land Use Category |
Average Lot Size (DUs/Acre) |
Lot Size Factor |
Average Trip Ends |
Avg. Trip End Factor (Trips/DU) |
Average Population (People/DU) |
Avg. Pop. Factor |
Total All Factors ([2]+[4]+[6]) |
Overall EBU Assignment |
Expected Dwelling Units in 25 Years |
Expected EBUs in 25 Years
[8]*[9] |
Proposed Fee per Dwelling Unit or Acre -Acquisition and Administration |
|---|
| Residential, density between 0 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre |
0.224 |
1.00 |
9.570 |
1.00 |
3.266 |
1.00 |
3.000 |
1.0 |
297,173 |
297,173 |
$2,354 |
| Residential, density between 8.1 and 14 dwelling units per acre |
0.093 |
0.42 |
6.630 |
0.69 |
2.639 |
0.81 |
1.920 |
0.64 |
11,620 |
7,437 |
$1,506 |
| Residential, density greater than 14.1dwelling units per acre |
0.041 |
0.18 |
6.630 |
0.69 |
2.250 |
0.69 |
1.560 |
0.52 |
23,207 |
12,068 |
$1,224 |
| Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
332,000 |
316,678 |
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected New
Developed
Acres in 25
Years |
|
|
| Commercial Property |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.40 |
6,888 |
23,419 |
$8,004 |
| Industrial Property |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.40 |
13,296 |
45,206 |
$8,004 |
| Non-Residential Property |
|
|
|
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
3.40 |
20,184 |
68,626 |
|
| |
| TOTAL EBUs in 25 Years |
385,304 |
|
| Cost to be Financed Through LDMF |
|
$906,729,808 |
| Cost per EBU |
|
$2,354 |
ES. 5. MSHCP FUNDING/FINANCING OF CONSERVATION AREA ASSEMBLY AND MANAGEMENT
ES. 5.1. OVERVIEW OF THE MSHCP FUNDING PLAN29
A key element of the Western Riverside County MSHCP is funding to mitigate the effects on species and habitat of state and local development projects. Public and private sources including State permit holders will provide funds in proportion to their impacts within the Plan Area. All Cities in the MSHCP Plan Area are fully participating in the financing and implementation of the MSHCP and all participating jurisdictions will adopt a uniform Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF).
The MSHCP funding plan anticipates that the MSHCP Conservation Area will be assembled by the end of a 25-year period.30 A portion of the total program costs to assemble and implement the MSHCP may be funded with available revenues from mitigation for local transportation projects, mitigation for regional infrastructure projects, and certain landfill tipping fees. Certain program costs, specifically habitat acquisition and other appropriate uses, will be funded from the LDMF. The participating Cities and the County will impose the LDMF on all new Development to support the local funding program.
For purposes of projecting both costs and revenues, no adjustment for inflation has been made.
ES. 5.2. ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS OF MSHCP IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the MSHCP entails: local Conservation Area land acquisition, Conservation Area management, adaptive management, biological monitoring, and program administration, these activities and their associated costs are discussed in Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.5. of the Nexus Report, and summarized below.
ES. 5.3. ESTIMATED REVENUE SOURCES
Table ES-9 summarizes the anticipated revenue sources, the requirements for implementation, and the responsible party for approval of implementation by private and public funding sources.
The use of a variety of funding sources ensures long-term viability of the overall funding program since a temporary revenue decline from one source may be offset by revenue increases from other sources.
ES. 5.4. COMPARISON OF PROGRAM COSTS WITH ANTICIPATED REVENUE SOURCES
Expected revenues of $461 million from mitigation for local transportation projects, mitigation for regional transportation projects, and landfill tipping fees will be used to fund a management, adaptive management, and biological monitoring, (the "Other Program Costs"). Table ES-10 sets forth the costs for these activities versus expected revenues.
As indicated in Table ES-10, there is a surplus of approximately $270.8 million. This amount is not sufficient to fund habitat acquisition and program administration, consequently, the LDMF is an essential component of the overall funding program as expected revenues from mitigation for local transportation projects, mitigation for regional infrastructure, and landfill tipping fees will not cover all of the MSHCP program costs.
If the $270.8 million difference between the Other Program Costs and Revenue Sources presented in Table ES-10 is applied to habitat acquisition and program administration, then the LDMF could be calculated to generate approximately $635.9 million instead of $906.7 million.
ES. 5.5. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEES
As described in Section 5.4, if the LDMF is set to finance $635.9 million, as opposed to the acquisition and administration costs of $906.7 million, then the LDMF may be imposed at a lower rate than indicated in Section ES 4.8.7 and Section 4.8.7. Table ES11 presents the amounts of the LDMF needed to generate $635.9 million using each of the fee derivation the methodologies described in Section 4.8.7.
ES. 6. RECOMMENDATION
With respect to the different fee methodologies presented in the Nexus Report, DTA recommends the County and Cities adopt the EBU based fee discussed in Section 4.8.7.5 at rates not to exceed those shown in column [1] and not less that those shown in column [2] of Table ES-12.
DTA is recommending these rates be adopted as the EBU approach equally weights all three of the factors associated with the impacts resulting from new development: lot size, trip generation, and population.
DTA also recommends that the County and City adopt an escalation factor in the ordinances implementing the LDMF and plan on reviewing and updating the Nexus Report every few years to make sure the fee revenues are keeping up with the costs for habitat acquisition.
ES. 7.1. FESA REQUIREMENTS
According to FESA, an applicant must develop and submit a habitat conservation plan ("HCP") to obtain an ITP. The HCP must specify (1) the likely impact from the proposed takings; (2) the steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate such impacts and the funding available for such mitigation; (3) alternative actions considered, and the reasons for not selecting them; and (4) such other measures as the Secretary may require as necessary of appropriate for the purpose of the plan. (See 16 U.S.C. Section 1539(a)(2)(A)). Upon submission of a permit application and related conservation plan, "the Secretary shall issue the permit," if he or she finds, after the opportunity for public comment, that
- the taking will be incidental;
- the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such takings;
- the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided;
- the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and
- other measures required by the Secretary will be met.
One essential condition for the issuance of the permit is contained in Section 1539(a)(2)(B) iii, which requires that the applicant ensure that "adequate funding" for the MSHCP is provided.
The MSHCP funding program, including the LDMF component as presented in Sections 4.7 and 5, was developed to ensure that adequate revenues are available to fund MSHCP implementation. Failure to provide for adequate funding as the MSHCP implementation costs occur may result in revocation of the permit.
ES. 7.2. ADEQUACY OF FUNDING
Through an annual review process the RCA will approve the use of funds and allocate available funds to the continuous benefit of the MSHCP without imposing additional obligations to Local Permittees. If a need for additional funding is projected, then local funding sources may be adjusted to cover the need for additional funding to maintain existing MSHCP standards, by identification of new funding sources to supplement existing funding, utilization of contingency funds a short-term basis, implementation of new tools to achieve conservation, and/or advancement of endowment funds on a short-term basis.
The local funding plan is intended to keep the local Conservation of Additional Conservation Area Lands to support Conservation Area Assembly roughly proportional with the amount of Development occurring in the Plan Area as discussed in Section 6.2.
ES. 7.3. LONG-TERM FINANCING FOR MANAGEMENT
When the acquisition process has been completed, funding that was earmarked for acquisition will be shifted as allowed by law to support management and monitoring programs.
