Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) - Nexus Report-2 | Transportation and Land Management Agency Riverside County TLMA

Volume 1 - The Plan

Volume 2 - The MSHCP Reference Document

Volume 3 - Implementing Agreement

Volume 4 - Final EIR/EIS

Volume 5 - Final Responses to Comments

Nexus Report

NEXUS REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
	ES.1 Introduction
	ES.2 Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP)
	ES.3 Existing Environmental, Transportation, And Biological Setting of the MSHCP Plan Area
	ES.4 Mitigation Fee Justification
	ES.5 MSHCP Funding/Financing of Conservation Area Assembly And Management
	ES.6 Recommendation
	ES.7 Other Funding Issues
Some documents are in Adobe Acrobat Reader (.PDF) format. You may download the free software by CLICKING HERE.

1) INTRODUCTION

1) INTRODUCTION
	1.1 Purpose of the Mitigation Fee Nexus Report
	1.2 Participation in Preparation of This Fee Nexus Report
	1.3 Organization of the Mitigation Fee Nexus Report
	1.4 Riverside County
	1.5 Riverside County Growth Trends
		1.5.1 Riverside County Integrated Project
	1.6 Recommended Fee Amounts
Some documents are in Adobe Acrobat Reader (.PDF) format. You may download the free software by CLICKING HERE.

2) RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT (RCIP)

2) RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT (RCIP)
	2.1 General Plan
		2.1.1 Area Plans
		2.1.2 Foundation Components
	2.2 Community Environmental and Transportation Acceptability Program (CETAP)
		2.2.1 Regional Planning Context
		2.2.2 The Winchester to Temecula Corridor
			2.2.2.1 Transportation Benefits from the WT Corridor
		2.2.3 The Hemet to Corona/Lake Elisore Corridor
			2.2.3.1 Transportation Benefits from the HCLE Corridor
		2.2.4 San Bernardino to Moreno Valley Corridor
		2.2.5 Orange County to Riverside County Corridor
		2.2.6 Relationship Between CETAP and MSHCP
	2.3 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
		2.3.1 Introduction to the MSHCP
		2.3.2 Goals of the MSHCP
		2.3.3 History of Habitat Conservation Plans in Western Riverside County
		2.3.4 Regulatory Context
		2.3.5 Conservation Biology Principles Incorporated in the MSHCP
		2.3.6 Description of the MSHCP Conservation Area
			2.3.6.1 The MSHCP Plan Map
		2.3.7 Permitted Activities/Allocable Uses
			2.3.7.1 Covered Activities Outside Criteria Area
			2.3.7.2 Agriculture
			2.3.7.3 Covered Activities Within Existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands Area
			2.3.7.4 Covered Activities Inside Criteria Areas
	2.4 MSHCP Conservation Area Assembly
		2.4.1 Development Review
		2.4.2 Local Permittees' Acquisition of Additional Conservation Lands
		2.4.3 Caltrans Acquisition of Additional Conservation Lands
		2.4.4 State Parks Acquisition of Additional Conservation Lands
	2.5 Relationships and Differences Between RCIP Components
Some documents are in Adobe Acrobat Reader (.PDF) format. You may download the free software by CLICKING HERE.

3) EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND BIOLOGICAL SETTING OF THE MSHCP PLAN AREA

3) EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND BIOLOGICAL SETTING OF THE MSHCP PLAN AREA
	3.1 Environmental Setting
	3.2 Transportation Setting
	3.2.1 Existing Street and Highway System
	3.3 Biological Setting
	3.3.1 Bioregions
	3.3.2 Vegetation Communities
Some documents are in Adobe Acrobat Reader (.PDF) format. You may download the free software by CLICKING HERE.

4) MITIGATION FEE JUSTIFICATION

4) MITIGATION FEE JUSTIFICATION
	4.1 Historical Context for Mitigation Fees
	4.2 Requirements to Establish a Development Impact Mitigation Fee
	4.3 The Fee as One Component of the Overall Financing Program
	4.4 Purpose of the Fee (Government Code Section 66001(A)(1))
	4.5 The Use to which the Fee is to be put (Government Code Section 66001(A)(2))
	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))
	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))
	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))
		4.8.1 Local Acquisition and Other Appropriate Costs
			4.8.1.1 Existing Local Acquisition to the MSHCP
		4.8.2 Probable Overall Value Methodology
		4.8.3 Eligible Uses of the LDMF
			4.8.3.1 Land Acquisition Costs
			4.8.3.2 Other Appropriate Costs
			4.8.3.3 Total Cost to be Financed Through Mitigation Fee Program
		4.8.4 Area over which the LDMF is to be imposed (Why a Regional Fee?)
		4.8.5 Development Horizon Used in the Nexus Report
		4.8.6 Existing Deficiencies
		4.8.7 Calculation of Mitigation Fee Amounts
			4.8.7.1 What Type of Fee Methodology is Appropriate for the LDMF?
			4.8.7.2 Gross Acreage Based Fee Methodology
			4.8.7.3 Density Methodology
			4.8.7.4 Equivalent Dwelling Unit - Population And Employee Based
			4.8.7.5 Equivalent Benefit Unit Methodology
Some documents are in Adobe Acrobat Reader (.PDF) format. You may download the free software by CLICKING HERE.

5) MSHCP FUNDING/FINANCING OF CONSERVATION AREA ASSEMBLY AND MANAGEMENT

5) MSHCP FUNDING/FINANCING OF CONSERVATION AREA ASSEMBLY AND MANAGEMENT
	5.1 Overview of the MSHCP Funding Plan
	5.2 Estimated Program Costs of MSHCP Implementation
		5.2.1 Acquisition Costs for Additional Conservation Area Lands
		5.2.2 Conservation Area Management Costs
		5.2.3 Adaptive Management Costs
		5.2.4 Biological Monitoring Costs
		5.2.5 Program Administration Costs
		5.2.6 Summary of Local Program Costs
	5.3 Funding Sources for Program Costs
		5.3.1 Mitigation for Regional And Local Infrastructure
			5.3.1.1 Transportation Infrastructure
			5.3.1.2 Regional Infrastructure
			5.3.1.3 Regional Utility Projects
			5.3.1.4 Local Public Capital Construction Projects
		5.3.2 Landfill Tipping Fees
		5.3.3 Summary of Funding Sources
	5.4 Comparison of Program Costs with Anticipated Revenue Sources
	5.5 Local Development Mitigation Fees
Some documents are in Adobe Acrobat Reader (.PDF) format. You may download the free software by CLICKING HERE.

6) RECOMMENDATIONS

Some documents are in Adobe Acrobat Reader (.PDF) format. You may download the free software by CLICKING HERE.

7) OTHER FUNDING ISSUES

7) OTHER FUNDING ISSUES
	7.1 Fesa Requirements
	7.2 Adequacy of Funding
	7.3 Long-Term Financing for Management
Some documents are in Adobe Acrobat Reader (.PDF) format. You may download the free software by CLICKING HERE.

APPENDICES

APPENDICES
Appendix A	Definitions Used in the Fee Nexus Report
Appendix B	Limited Appraisal Consultation (not posted on the Web but hard copies can be viewed at your local library or purchased at Riverside Blue Print.)
Appendix C	Acres of Privately Owned Property within the Criteria Are by Area Plan
Appendix D	Summary of RCIP Database
Appendix E	Backup Data for EBU Fee Derivation
Some documents are in Adobe Acrobat Reader (.PDF) format. You may download the free software by CLICKING HERE.

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF FIGURES
1.1	MSHCP Plan Areas - Incorporated Cities
1.2	MSHCP Regional Location
2.1	Riverside County General Plan Land Use
2.2	MSHCP Plan Areas - Incorporated Cities
2.3	Assembly of New Conservation Lands
2.4	Criteria Area Boundaries
2.5	General Plan Circulation Element With Criteria Area
2.6	Assembly of New Conservation Lands
3.1	Existing Roadways
3.2	Bio-Regions in the MSHCP Plan Area
4.1	Assembly of New Conservation Lands
4.2	Criteria Area Boundaries
5.1	Difference in Other Program Costs and Potential Revenues (First 25 Years, in 2003 Dollars)
Some documents are in Adobe Acrobat Reader (.PDF) format. You may download the free software by CLICKING HERE.

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES
ES-1	Summary of Local Development Mitigation Fee Amounts Derived in Section 4
ES-2	Assembly of Additional Conservation Area Land
ES-3	Local Implementation Plan
ES-4	Local Development Mitigation Fee Amounts Gross Acreage Methodology
ES-5	Local Development Mitigation Fee Amounts Density Based Methodology
ES-6	Local Development Mitigation Fee Amounts EDU Methodology, EDUs Based on Population and Employment
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
ES-8	Total Local Program Costs (First 25 years)
ES-9	Mix of Anticipated Revenue Sources
ES-10	Other Program Costs versus Expected Revenues – First 25 Years
ES-11	Summary of Local Development Mitigation Fee Amounts with Application of Outside Funding Sources as Discussed in Section 5
ES-12	EBU Methodology – Average Lot Size, Trip End, and Population per Dwelling Unit Based LDMF to finance Acquisition and Administration Costs With and Without the Application of Available Funds
1-1	Summary of Local Development Mitigation Fee Amounts Derived in Section 4
2-1	Riverside County Area Plans
2-2	Daily User Benefits from WT Corridor
2-3	Daily User Benefits from HCLE Corridor
2-4	Existing Roads Within Public/Quasi-Public Lands
2-5	Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor Impacts Within Public/Quasi Public Lands
2-6	Existing Roadways Permitted to Remain in the Criteria Area
2-7	Potential Flood Control Projects Within the MSHCP Criteria Area
2-8	Assembly of Additional Conservation Area Land
2-9	Local Implementation Plan
4-1	Median Conservation Acres by Area Plan
4-2	Allocation of Local Acquisitions by Area Plan
4-3	MSHCP Criteria Area by Area Plan and General Plan Foundation Component/[1]
4-4	MSHCP Criteria Area General Plan Foundation Component Expressed as a Percentage of Area Plan/[1]
4-5	Acres of Habitat to be Acquired with LDMF Foundation Component and Area Plan/[1]
4-6	Projected Acquisition Cost
4-7	Local Development Mitigation Fee Amounts Acreage Methodology
4-8	Local Development Mitigation Fee Amounts Density Based Methodology 1
4-9	25 Year Development Projections for the EBU Based LDMF
4-10	Local Development Mitigation Fee Amounts EDU Methodology, EDUs Based on Population and Employment
4-11	Local Development Mitigation Fee Amounts EBU Methodology, Residential EBU Assignment Based Acreage, Trip Generation, and Population/Employment, Non-Residential EBU based on Residential Density
5-1	Total Local Program Costs (First 25 years)
5-3	Mix of Anticipated Revenue Sources
5-4	Other Program Costs versus Expected Revenues – First 25 Years
5-5	Acreage Methodology/LDMF set to finance Acquisition and Administration Costs Less Available Funds
5-6	Density Based Methodology/LDMF set to finance Acquisition and Administration Costs Less Available Funds
5-7	EDU Methodology – Population and Employee Based/LDMF set to finance Acquisition and Administration Costs Less Available Funds
5-8	EBU Methodology – Average Lot Size, Trip End, and Population per Dwelling Unit Based/LDMF set to finance Acquisition and Administration Costs Less Available Funds
6-1	EBU Methodology – Average Lot Size, Trip End, and Population per Dwelling Unit Based/LDMF to finance Acquisition and Administration Costs With and Without the Application of Available Funds
7-1	Rough Proportionality Schedule of Development and Conservation