Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/9/2008 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.B. 01/09/2008 16:39 FAX 949 752 0597 .IDTP IRVINE U002 Jackson I DeMarco I Tidus Petersen I Peckenpaugh A LAW CORPORATION January 9, 2008 Diol 949 851.7a09 Email mstaples@jdtplaw.cvm Reply to; Irvine Offiaa File No: 5767144246 ID m t emu' VIA FACSIMILE - v Mx. James Thompson City Clerk .k, City of Palm Splings 3200 past TahgUhV Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Re. January 9,2008, City Council Agenda Item 1(S): PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION TO FUND THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITE COACHELLA'VALLEY MIJLTIEPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Dear Mr. 'Thompson This letter is submitted on behalf of our clients Century Homes Communities; Century Crowell Communities L.Y.; and"The Falls at Mountain Gate Palm Springs Ventures, T,I.0 (collectively"Century"), We appreciate the City's ongoing cooperation in discussing Century's development plans in light of the recently-adopted Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSITCP"). We understand that tonight, the City Council will consider adopting a fee ordinance pursuant to the MSHCP. You may recall that, in our comments to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and the City prior to adoption of the MSHCP, we pointed out that the impact fees as proposed by the MSHCP do not comply with applicable legal requirements, For example, the MSHCP fees can properly be imposed only on those development projects that impact the species to be conserved_ Howeve, the proposed MSHCP lee would apply much more broadly to all development projects within the MSTICP Plan Area on land that is not acquired for the Conservation Area, regardless of the actual biological resources on the project site. Such a fee program is outside of the United Stales and California Constitutions, and provisions of the California Government Code, that require: a"rational nexus" between the impacts generated by the development and the exactions that can be imposed (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1997) 43 U.S. 825)_ There also must be a"rough proportionality" between the amount or type of exaction and the development's generation of demand for the public facilities that will be paid for by the mitigation payments (Dolan v. City of Tigard(1994) 512 U.S. 374; Govt. Code §§ 66000, et seq.). Mitigation payments such as the proposed MSHCP fee may be subject to higher scrutiny where they arc imposed on an ad hoc basis pursuant to negotiations between the government and the land developer, as would be the. Irvine Office Westlake Village Office 4 2030 Main Street,Suite 1200 2815 Townsgate Road,Suite 200 www.jdtplaw,eorn Irvine,California 92614 Westlake Village, California 91361 t 949.752.8585 t 949.752.0597 t 805.230.0023 f 805.230.0087 01/09/2006 16:40 FAX 949 752 0597 JDTP IRVINE U 003 Mr. James Thompson City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs January 9, 2008 Page 2 case with the MSHCP's HANS process (see, Ehrlich v. City of Culver City ( 1996) 12 C:al.4th 854). We suggested that the whole concept of financing the land acquisition component of the MSHCP nods to be studied much more thoroughly As discussed in comments on the MSHCP prior to its adoption, the MSHCP substantially underestimates the acquisition and program costs of the MSHCP. With the amount of private land that the MSHCP says must be purchased, the development fees will not be a sufficient funding source, and the other potential funding sources are speculative. We request that the City Council wait to adopt any fee ordinance until after the resource agencies have approved the MSHCP_ This will provide an opportunity for CVAG and the other participating public agencies to evaluate the MSI ICP's property acquisition and funding program in light of all of the final approvals and without the time pressures that attended the original adoption of the MSHCP. We look forward to continuing an open dialog with the City to address Century's comments on the MSHCP, including its comments on the MSHCP's fee program, and how Century might participate in achieving the City's habitat conservation goals. Very truly yours, Michele A. Staples MAS:sh cc: Douglas C. Holland, City Attorney (Palm Springs) 7fi?234.2 fpAAM SAR iy c+ U v w k ROdeo dew vt CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: January 9, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ("MSHCP") FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Department of Planning Services SUMMARY The request is to establish the development mitigation fee associated with the recently- approved Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"). The draft ordinance would establish the fee and the draft resolution would establish the fee amount. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony. 2. Introduce for first reading Ordinance No. "AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN". 3, Adopt Resolution No. "ADOPTING THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE SCHEDULE APPLICABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY". ITEM NO. City Council Staff Report January 9, 2008 CVAG Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan—Fee Ordinance & Resolution Page 2 of 4 BACKGROUND: As a Permittee under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP") the City recently approved the MSHCP, the Implementing Agreement ("IA") and the CEQA Responsible Agency Findings to effectuate the Plan. The next step in implementing the MSHCP is to approve the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF, or "Fee") on new development in order to meet the conservation goals set forth in the MSHCP. The Fee will be the primary source of funding for the MSHCP's habitat acquisition program. The Fee is a development impact fee under California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. which allows cities and counties to charge new development for the costs of mitigating associated impacts. The legal and policy basis to support the Fee's adoption by local agencies is provided in the Local Development Mitigation Fee Report, ("Nexus Study"), dated January 15, 2007 and prepared by MuniFinancial for CVAG (see attached). The Fee is also necessary because the Wildlife Agencies require that sufficient funding be provided to support implementation of the MSHCP. The Fee will only be used for land acquisition and related costs. New development affects the environment directly and cumulatively, through construction activity and the activities of development-related population growth. The MSHCP has demonstrated that all new development projects on vacant or partially vacant lands — regardless of location — will have direct and cumulative impacts on 1) species, 2) existing or potential habitat and 3) natural communities. New development also creates a demand for, and benefits from, new public infrastructure. Finally, according to the MSHCP, no further habitat conservation would be needed in the Plan Area, except to mitigate the impacts of new development. Consequently, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for habitat conservation and residential and nonresidential development throughout the Plan Area. The MSCHP has calculated a proposed Local Development Mitigation Fee of $5,730 per acre, with a per unit fee for residential development based on average densities per acre. For example, the residential fee per unit for a density of 0-8 units per acre would be $1,284. The fee schedule in 2008 dollars is as follows: Cost Per Average Acre Lot Size Fee Residential 0 - 8 Units Per Acre $ 5,730 0.22 $ 1,284 8.1 - 14 Units Per Acre 5,730 0.09 533 14.1+ Units Per Acre 5,730 0.04 235 US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game 2 p. 001000? City Council Staff Report January 9, 2008 CVAG Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan— Fee Ordinance & Resolution Page 3 of 4 Cost Per Average Acre Lot Size Fee Nonresidential Commercial $ 5,730 NA $ 5,730 Industrial $ 5,730 NA $ 5,730 The proposed fee schedule presented above represents a reasonable approach to the fair allocation of costs across all new development. The Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) will monitor the implementation of the residential fee approach over time and propose adjustments to the categories if conditions warrant. The fee ordinance provides 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 is also a provision for the fee to be reevaluated and revised should it prove to be insufficient in mitigating the impacts of new development. As required by state law, the CVCC will update the Nexus Study at least every five years and more often, if necessary, to ensure that the Local Development Mitigation Fee is adequate over the life of the acquisition program to fund the necessary land acquisition and land improvement- All LDMF revenue and habitat acquisition expenditures will be accounted for in a Land Acquisition & Improvement Fund, managed by the CVCC. The projected revenue from the Local Development Mitigation Feet is anticipated to be approximately $516,802,000 (nominal dollars) over the first 50 years of Plan implementation3. Local Permittees, including the City of Palm Springs, intend to generate funds for Plan implementation from sources in addition to the Local Development Mitigation Fee. These sources may include limited to landfill tipping fees, transportation project mitigation from CVAG, Caltrans and other agencies, and mitigation funds for regional infrastructure projects. CVAG and CVCC staff will be available to assist the Local Permittees with development of administrative guidelines for the LDMF program. FISCAL IMPACT: Implementation of the MSHCP is designed to be self-funding from the Local Development Mitigation Fee, tipping fees and infrastructure mitigation payments from CVAG, Coachella Valley Water District, Caltrans, and Imperial Irrigation District. No assessments are required of the Permiftees. x Table 5-2b of the MSHCP s For purposes of projecting revenue, the MSHCP assumes that the fee increases 3.29% annually (Table 5-3c of the MSHCP). 3 City Council Staff Report January 9, 2008 CVAG Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan--Fee Ordinance & Resolution Page 4 of 4 The projected revenue from the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be approximately $516,802,000 over the first 50 years of Plan implementation, based on the January 2007 Nexus Study. Local Permittees intend to generate funds for Plan implementation from additional sources, as described above. Assuming an annual increase in land value of 3.29%, the total cost for the land acquisition program over 30 years is estimated to be $526,705,000. CVCC proposes to complete the acquisition program in 30 years to minimize costs and potential land use conflicts. ai "wing,4nServices Thomas J. Wil on, ❑ir t& of Plan Assistant City on, Dev't Services David H. Ready, City M g r ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance to Establish the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee 2. Draft Resolution to Adopt the Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule 3. Local Development Mitigation Fee Report, dated January 15, 2007 ("Nexus Study") 4 ORDINANCE No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ADDING CHAPTER 8.95 TO THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN City Attorney's Summary This Ordinance establishes a mitigation fee program that will require new development to fund a portion of the cost of administering and implementing the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, including the acquisition and conservation of private land. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 8.95 is added to the Palm Springs Municipal Code to read: Chapter 8.95 MSHCP MITIGATION FEE Sections 8.95.010 Short Title 8.95.020 Findings 8.95.030 Administrative Authority 8.95.040 Definitions 8.95,050 Mitigation Fee 8.95.070 Payment of the Mitigation Fee 8.95.060 Imposition of the Mitigation Fee 8.95.080 Refunds 8.95.090 Accounting and Disbursement of Collected Mitigation Fees 8.95,100 Automatic Annual Fee Adjustment 8.95.110 Exemptions 8,95.120 Fee Credits and Waivers 8.95.010 Short Title. This Chapter shall be known as the "Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee Ordinance." 8,95.020 Findings. City Council finds and determines: A. In order to implement the goals and objectives of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan ("MSHCP") and to 000065 mitigate the impacts caused by new development in the City, lands supporting species covered by the MSHCP must be acquired and conserved. B. The Mitigation Fee (the "Fee") provided in this Chapter is necessary in order to supplement the financing of the acquisition of lands supporting species covered by the MSHCP and to pay for new development's fair share of this cost. C. The appropriate source of funding for the costs associated with mitigating the impacts of new development to the natural ecosystems and covered species within the City, as identified in the MSHCP, is a mitigation fee paid for by residential, commercial and industrial development. The amount of the Fee is determined by the nature and extent of the impacts from the development to the identified natural ecosystems and the relative cost of mitigating such impacts- D. The Fee does not reflect the entire cost of the lands which need to be acquired in order to implement the MSHCP and mitigate the impact caused by new development. Additional Revenues will be required from other sources. The City finds that the benefit to each development project is greater than the amount of the Fee to be paid by that project. E. The MSHCP and Mitigation Fee Nexus Report, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's office, provide the basis for the imposition of the Fee on new developments. F. The use of the Fee is apportioned relative to the type and extent of impacts caused by the development. G. The costs of funding the proper mitigation for natural ecosystems and covered species identified in the MSHCP which are impacted by new development are apportioned relative to the type and extent of impacts caused by the development. H. The facts and evidence provided to and considered by the City Council establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for preserving the natural ecosystems and covered species identified in the MSHCP, and the impacts to such natural ecosystems and species created by the types of development on which the Fee will be imposed; and that there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use and the types of development for which the Fee is charged. This reasonable relationship is described in more detail in the MSHCP and Mitigation Fee Nexus Report. L The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to finance the acquisition of the lands to protect natural ecosystems and covered species, as set forth in the MSHCP, are reasonable and will not exceed the reasonably estimated total of these costs. J. The Fee shall be used to finance the acquisition of lands and certain improvements necessary to implement the goals and objectives of the MSHCP- K. To ensure fair implementation of the development impact fees established in this Chapter, it may be necessary for the City to defer or waive such fees in special cases as may be permitted in accordance with procedures and guidelines established by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission. L. Even though second units on existing single family lots may also contribute to the need for acquisition of lands necessary to implement the MSHCP, the City refrains from imposing the Fee on such development at this time, and in this regard finds that second units. 000006 (1) provide a cost effective means of serving development through the use of existing infrastructure, as contrasted to requiring the construction of new costly infrastructure to serve development in undeveloped areas; and (2) provide relatively affordable housing for low and moderate income households without public subsidy. 8.95.030 Administrative Responsibility. The City Manager shall be responsible for the administration of this Chapter and shall have the authority to adopt administrative procedures consistent with the provisions of this Chapter for the purpose of implementing the provisions of this Chapter. 8.95.040 Definitions. As used in this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings: "Certificate of Occupancy" means a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City in accordance with all applicable ordinances, regulations, and rules of the City and state law or such other authorization of the City's Building Official allowing a building to be occupied. "City Manager" means the City Manager of the City or the City Manager's designee. "Coachella Valley Conservation Commission" means the governing body established pursuant to the MSHCP that is delegated the authority to oversee and implement the provisions of the MSHCP. "Conservation Areas" has the same meaning and intent as such term is defined and utilized in the MSHCP. "Credit" means a Credit allowed pursuant to Section 11 of this Chapter, which may be applied against the Fee paid. "Development Project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development pursuant to the issuance of a building permit by the City pursuant to all applicable ordinances, regulations, and rules of the City and state law. "Development Project Area" means the area, measured in acres, from the adjacent road right-of-way line to the limits of project improvements. Development Project Area includes all project improvements and areas that are disturbed as a result of the project improvements on an owner's Gross Acreage, including all areas depicted on the forms required to be submitted to the City pursuant to this Chapter and/or other applicable development ordinance or regulation of the City. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Development Project Area is the area upon which the project will be assessed the Mitigation Fee. "Final Inspection" means a Final Inspection of a Development Project as defined by the building codes of the City. "Gross Acreage" means the total property area as shown on a land division map of record, or described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area shall be bounded by road right-of-way and/or legal property lines. "Mitigation Fee" or "Fee" means the development impact fee imposed pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. "Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan" or "MSHCP" means the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, adopted by the City Council on October 3, 2007. 'Residential Unit' means a building or portion thereof used by one family and containing but one kitchen, which unit is designed or occupied for residential purposes, including single- family dwelling, multiple-family dwellings, and mobile homes on permanent foundations, but not including hotels and motels. "Revenue" or "Revenues" means any funds received by the City pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of acquiring and preserving vegetation communities and natural areas within the City and the region which are known to support threatened, endangered or key sensitive populations of plant and wildlife species. 8.95,050 Mitigation Fee. A. To assist in providing Revenue to acquire and conserve lands necessary to implement the MSHCP, the Fee shall be paid for each Residential Unit, Development Project or portion thereof to be constructed within the City. Five categories of the Fee are defined and include: (1) Residential Units, density less that 8.0 dwelling units per acre; (2) Residential Units, density between 8,1 and 14.0 dwelling units per acre; (3) Residential Units, density greater than 14.1 dwelling unites per acre; (4) commercial acreage; and (5) industrial acreage. Because there can be mixed traditional commercial, industrial and residential uses within the same project, for Fee assessment purposes only, the Fee which is applicable to commercial or industrial development projects shall be applied to the whole project based upon the existing underlying zoning classification of the property at the time of issuance of a building permit. The fees are calculated using an Equivalent Benefit Unit methodology. A fee schedule which contains the Fee which is applicable to one of the five Fee categories shall be adopted by resolution ("Resolution")- B. The amount of the Mitigation Fee for a commercial or industrial development project required to be paid shall be based on the acreage to be developed and shall be calculated on the basis of the Development Project Area, in accordance with the following: 1. The Development Project Area shall be determined by City staff based on the subdivision map, plot plan, and other information submitted to or required by the City. 2. If the difference between the net acreage, as exhibited on the plot plan, and the Development Project Area is less than one-quarter acre, the Fee shall be paid on the full Gross Acreage. 3. An applicant may elect, at his or her own expense, to have a Development Project Area dimensioned, calculated, and certified by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The engineer or land surveyor shall prepare a wet-stamped letter of certification of the Development Project Area dimensions and a plot plan exhibit thereto that clearly delineates the Development Project Area. Upon receipt of the letter of certification and plot plan exhibit, the City shall review the submitted documents. If the Development Project Area dimensions, the letter of certificate and the plot plan are acceptable to the City, the City shall calculate the Mitigation Fee required to be paid based on the certified Development Project Area. If the Development Project Area dimensions, the letter of certification, or the plot plan are not acceptable to the City, the applicant shall perform such actions as directed by the City in order to resolve any deficiencies perceived by the City. 4. Where construction or other improvements on Development Project Area are prohibited due to legal restrictions on the Development Project Area, such as Federal Emergency Management Agency designated floodways or areas legally required to remain in their natural state, that portion of the Development Project Area so restricted shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the Mitigation Fee. 8.95.060 Imposition of the Mitigation Fee. Notwithstanding any other provision of the City's Municipal Code, no permit shall be issued for any Development Project except upon the condition that the Mitigation Fee applicable to such Development Project has been paid in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 8.95.070 Payment of the Mitigation Fee. A. The Mitigation Fee shall be paid in full at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Residential Unit or development project or upon Final Inspection, whichever occurs first. No Final Inspection shall be made, and no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued, prior to full payment of the Fee. However, this section shall not be construed to prevent payment of the Fee prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit or Final Inspection. B. The Mitigation Fee shall be assessed one time per lot or parcel, except in cases of changes in land use. The Fee required to be paid when there is a change in land use shall be reduced by the amount of any previously paid fee for that property. No refunds shall be provided for changes in land use to a lower fee category. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to provide documentation of any previously paid Fee. C. The Mitigation Fee for commercial and industrial development projects shall be paid in its entirety for the Development Project Area and shall not be prorated. D. The Mitigation Fee required to be paid under this Chapter shall be the Fee in effect at the time of payment. E. There shall be no deferment of the Fee beyond Final Inspection or issuance of certificate(s) of occupancy. F. Notwithstanding anything in the City's Municipal Code, or any other written documentation to the contrary, the Mitigation Fee shall be paid whether or not the Development Project is subject to conditions of approval by the City imposing the requirement to pay the Fee. O. If all or part of the Development Project is sold prior to payment of the Mitigation Fee, the Project shall continue to be subject to the requirement to pay the Fee as provided herein. H. For development projects which the City does not require a Final Inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Fee shall be paid prior to any use or occupancy. I. For purposes of this Chapter, congregate care residential facilities and recreational vehicle parks shall pay the commercial acreage Fee. 8.95.080 Refunds. There shall be no refund of all or part of any Mitigation Fee paid under this Chapter, except in cases of overpayment or miscalculation of the applicable Fee. Only in cases of overpayment or miscalculation of the Fee will the person or entity that paid the Mitigation Fee be entitled to a refund. 8.95.090 Accounting and Disbursement of Collected Mitigation Fees. A. All fees paid pursuant to this Chapter shall be deposited, accounted for, and expended in accordance with Section 66006 of the Government Code and all other applicable provisions of law. B. Subject to the provisions of this section, all Fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be remitted to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission at least quarterly, and will be expended solely for the purpose of acquiring and preserving vegetation communities and natural areas within the City and the region which support species covered in the MSHCP in accordance with the provisions of the MSHCP C. The City may recover the costs of administering the provisions of this Chapter using the Revenues generated by the Fees, in an amount and subject to the rules and regulations established by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission. 8.95.100 Automatic Annual Fee Adjustment. The Fee established by this Chapter shall be revised annually by means of an automatic adjustment at the beginning of each fiscal year based on the average percentage change over the previous calendar year set forth in 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. The first Fee adjustment shall not be made prior to a minimum of ten (10) months subsequent to the effective date of this Chapter. The Fee, as revised annually, shall be compiled by the Director of Finance and shall be included in an annual report to the City Council pertaining to the accounting for the MSHCP Fee as required by Government Code section 66006. 8.95.110 Exemptions. The following types of construction shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter: A. Reconstruction of a Residential Unit or commercial or industrial building damaged or destroyed by fire or other natural causes. B. Rehabilitation or remodeling to an existing Residential Unit, commercial or industrial building, and additions to an existing Residential Unit or commercial or industrial building. C. Secondary Residential Units, constructed on developed residential property and meeting all state and City requirements for such units. Q�aQ�� D. Existing improvements that are converted from an existing permitted use to a different permitted use, provided that no additional area of the property is disturbed as a result of such conversion. E. Development within a Development Project Area that was being improved or had been improved prior to the effective date of this Chapter. F. Construction of a family Residential Unit upon property wherein a mobile-home, installed pursuant to an installation permit, was previously located prior to the effect date of this Chapter. G. Guest dwellings as defined in Palm Springs Zoning Code. H. Kennels established in connection with an existing single family Residential Unit and as defined in the Palm Springs Zoning Code. 8.95.120 Fee Credits and Waivers. The City may grant to owners or developers of real property, a Credit against the Fee that would otherwise be charged pursuant to this Chapter, for the dedication of land determined to be necessary for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area. The amount of the Credit granted shall be determined by an estimate of the fair market value of the land dedicated. Any Credit granted by the City shall be given in stated dollar amounts only. An applicant for a proposed development may apply for Credit to reduce the amount of the Fee required to be paid prior to approval of the development. Any Credit granted and the amount of the Fee to be paid shall be included as a condition of approval for the development. If an applicant has received the development approval from the City and has not previously applied for a Credit to reduce the amount of the Fee required to be paid, an applicant may apply for such Credit prior to issuance of a grading permit for the development. Any Credit granted and the amount of the Fee required to be paid shall be included as a condition of approval on the grading permit issued for the development. Section 2. This Ordinance and the various parts, sections, and clauses thereof, are hereby declared to be severable. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Ordinance, or its application to any person entity is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall affect only such part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Ordinance, or person or entity; and shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provision, parts, sentences, paragraphs, sections, or clauses of this Ordinance, or its application to other persons or entities. The City Council hereby declares that this Ordinance would have been adopted had such unconstitutional or invalid part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Ordinance not been included herein; or had such person or entity been expressly exempted from the application of this Ordinance. Section 3. Ordinance No, also known as the Fringe Toad Lizard Mitigation Fee Ordinance, is hereby repealed. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon issuance of the appropriate permits authorizing take in connection with the MSHCP by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game, including, without limitations, the 000011 incidental take permits for covered species pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act and section 2800 of the California Fish and Game Code or on the sixty-first (6155) day after adoption, whichever event occurs last. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, this day of 2007 by the following: Steve Pougnet, Mayor ATTEST- James Thompson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Douglas Holland, City Attorney 000K2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ADOPTING THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE SCHEDULE APPLICABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs ("City") finds that the ecosystems of the City, Coachella Valley and surrounding mountains located in central Riverside County, and the vegetation communities and sensitive species they support are fragile, irreplaceable resources that are vital to the general welfare of all residents; and WHEREAS, these vegetation communities and natural areas contain habitat value which contributes to the City's and the region's environmental resources; and WHEREAS, special protections for these vegetation communities and natural areas must be established to prevent future endangerment of the plant and animal species that are dependent upon them; and WHEREAS, adoption and implementation of Ordinance No. _, "An Ordinance To Establish A Local Development Mitigation Fee For Funding The Preservation Of Natural Ecosystems In Accordance With The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan" (the "Ordinance") and this Resolution will help to enable the City to achieve the conservation goals set forth in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"), adopted by the City Council on October 3, 2007, to implement the associated Implementing Agreement executed by the City Council on October 3, 2007, and to preserve the ability of affected property owners to make reasonable use of their land consistent with the requirements of applicable laws, which could include the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEO ), the Federal Endangered Species Act ("FESA"), the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA") and the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act ("NCCP Act"); and WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of the Ordinance and this Resolution is to establish a Local Development Mitigation Fee to assist in the maintenance of biological diversity and the natural ecosystem processes that support this diversity; the protection of vegetation communities and natural areas within the City, Coachella Valley and surrounding mountains located in central Riverside County which are known to support threatened, endangered or key sensitive populations of plant and wildlife species; the maintenance of economic development within the City by providing a streamlined regulatory process from which development can proceed in an orderly process; and the protection of the existing character of the City and the region through the implementation of a system of reserves which will provide for permanent open space, 000013 Resolution No. Page 2 of 5 community edges and habitat conservation for species covered by the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, as a Member Agency of Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"), the City participated in the preparation of a certain "Local Development Mitigation Fee Nexus Report", dated January 15, 2007 ("Nexus Report") prepared pursuant to California Government Code, Section 66000 et seq., the Mitigation Fee Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Nexus Report, and hereby finds that future development within the City will substantially adversely affect the natural ecosystems and covered species within the City, as identified in the MSHCP, and that unless such development contributes to the cost of acquiring land to preserve these natural ecosystems and covered species, the conservation goals of the MSHCP will not be met; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Nexus Report proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the cost of implementing the MSHCP and mitigate the impact caused by new development; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council adopts the Nexus Report, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's office, and the findings contained therein which provide additional support for the fees adopted by this Resolution; and WHEREAS, in addition to the foregoing, the City Council hereby adopts in their entirety the findings contained in Section 2 of the Ordinance and any fees adopted by this Resolution shall be based on these findings, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66016, 66017 and 66018, the City has: (a) made available to the public, at least ten (10) days prior to its public hearing, data indicating the estimated cost required to provide the facilities and infrastructure for which these development fees are levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide those facilities and infrastructure; (b) mailed notice at least fourteen (14) days prior to this meeting to all interested parties that have requested notice of new or increased development fees; and (c) held a duly noticed, regularly scheduled public hearing at which oral and written testimony was received regarding the proposed fees. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings- The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as findings in support of this Resolution. The findings contained in both the Nexus Report and Section 2 of the Ordinance are also adopted herein as findings in support of this Resolution. SECTION 2- Definitions. The terms of this Resolution shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in Section 4 of Ordinance No- Resolution No. Page 3 of 5 SECTION 3. Fee Schedule. There is hereby adopted the following fee schedule for the Local Development Mitigation Fee: (1) Residential, density less than 8.0 dwelling units per acre — $1,284 per dwelling unit (2) Residential, density between 8.1 and 14.0 dwelling units per acre — $ 533 per dwelling unit (3) Residential, density greater than 14.1 dwelling units per acre — $ 235 per dwelling unit (4) Commercial - $5,730 per acre (5) Industrial - $5,730 per acre SECTION 3. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby finds that in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and Public Resources Code section 21166. SECTION 4. Severability. This Resolution and the various parts, sections, and clauses thereof, are hereby declared to be severable. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected thereby. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Resolution, or its application to any person entity is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall affect only such part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Resolution, or person or entity; and shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provision, parts, sentences, paragraphs, sections, or clauses of this Resolution, or its application to other persons or entities. The City Council hereby declares that this Resolution would have been adopted had such unconstitutional or invalid part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Resolution not been included herein; or had such person or entity been expressly exempted from the application of this Resolution. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon issuance of the appropriate permits authorizing take in connection with the MSHCP by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game, including, without limitation, the incidental take permits for covered species pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act and section 2800 of the California Fish and Game Code. However, in no event shall this Resolution take effect prior to sixty (60) days after the date of its adoption. ADOPTED this xxth day of Month, Year. David H. Ready, City Manager �� � �1� Resolution No. Page 4 of 5 ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk COOKS Resolution No. Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No- _ is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California 00091, 7 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS JANUARY 15, zoa7 0- MuniFinancial Oakland Office 1700 Broadway,6"Floor Anaheim, CA Phoenix,AZ Oakland, California 94612 Industry, CA Seattle,WA Tel: (610)832-0899 Jacksonville, FL Temecula, CA Fax.(510)832-0898 Lancaster, CA Oakland, CA www.muni.com TAEILE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................IV Introduction iv Plan Area Land Use iv Need for Habitat Conservation iv Cost of Habitat Conservation v Cost Allocation and Fee Schedule v Mitigation Fee Act Findings A Implementation vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 Habitat Conservation Planning Process 1 MSHCP and the Incidental Take Permit 2 Local Development Mitigation Fee 2 CHAPTER 2. PLAN AREA LAND USE...................................................... 4 Plan Area Boundaries 4 Existing Land Use 6 New Development within the Plan Area 7 CHAPTER 3: NEED FOR HABITAT CONSERVATION ................................ 10 Habitat Conservation Goals 10 Covered Species and Natural Communities 10 Identifying the MSHCP Reserve System 11 CHAPTER 4: COST OF HABITAT ACQUISITION....................................... 15 Amount of Habitat Acquisition 15 LDMF Financing Plan 16 Financing Alternatives 22 CHAPTERS: COST ALLOCATION AND FEE SCHEDULE........................- 24 New Development Acreage 24 Net Land Acquisition Costs Per Acre 24 Fee Schedule 25 CHAPTER 6: MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ....................................... 28 Purpose of Fee 28 Use of Fee Revenues 28 Benefit Relationship 29 Burden Relationship 29 Proportionality 30 CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION............................................................ 31 JgMuniFinancial i Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments Adoption of LDMF By Local Permittees 31 Adoption of Administrative Guidelines 31 Programming Revenues and Projects 31 Annual Inflation Adjustment 32 Reporting Requirements 32 APPENDIX: GASH FLOW ANALYSIS.....................................................A-1 ®MuniFhandal ii 000020 LIST ❑- TABLES Table F.1: Fee Schedule (2008 dollars)................................................... ..................................vi Table 2.1: Plan Area Existing Land Use..................................................... .....................................7 Table 3.1: Covered Species Under the MSHCP......... ........................... ......................................12 Table 3.2: Natural Communities Included in the MSI-ICP..........................................................13 Table 4.1: MSI ICP Restive System............................... ..... .................................... ....... ............16 Table 4.2: Land Acquisition&Improvement Fund Total Revenues &ENpenditutcs (nominal dollars)........................................................... ................ ............... .. ........... ..17 Table 4.3: MSI3CP Rcserve System Local Pemuttees Land Acquisition Costs........................20 Table 4.4:Average Cost Per Acre....................................................................................................21 Table 5.1: Covered Species and Natural Commutunes Found In Urban Areas.......................24 Table 5.2: Cost Per Acre (2008 dolhrs)....--........................-----........---........----------------------------------25 Table 5.3: Fee Schedule (2008 dollars)....... ........................ ...... ....................................................26 Table A-1: Land Acquisition &Improvement Fund..................................................................A-2 MMuniFnsridal fti 000021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Since 1994 local, state, and federal agencies responsible for regulating development and protecting habitat in the Coachella Valley have been participating in an extensive and comprehensive planning process. This planning effort has produced the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (MSIICP). The policy objectives of the MSHCP arc (1) to conserve adequate habitat in an uzzfragmentcd manner for the most effective preservation of species and the conserved natural communities, and (2) to simplify compliance with environmental laws by providing an efficient and streamlined regulatory approach One of the primary requirements of the MSHCP is the establishment of a Reserve System of lands to provide habitat for Covered Species and the conserved natural coinmunities. An additional purpose is the monitoring and management of the Reserve System. A Local Development Mitigation Fcc (LDMF) imposed on new development projects will be a primary source of funding for the habitat acquisition program under the MSHCP. This report documents the legal and policy basis to support adoption of the LDMF by Coachella Valley tides and the County of Riverside. PLAN AREA LAND USE The Coachella Valley is a broad, low elevation, northwest-southeast trending valley comprising the westernmost lunits of the Sonoran Desert. The Valley is located in the ceattal portion of Riverside County, approximately 100 miles east of Los Angeles. The Plan Area boundaries include approximately 12 million acres. Growth protections were based on an extrapolation of prior rrends based on an analysis of information from the California Department of Resources Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and building perrrnt data by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). CVAG calculated that the rate of development in the Plan Area has averaged 1,370 acres per year based on development over the period 1988 to 2004. The L DMF analysis assumes that this historical average annual rate will continue through the 50- yeai planning hommri (for the acquisition program) of the LDMF Financing Plan. At tl-iis rate a total of 68,500 acres will be developed (50 years x 1,370 acres per year). NEED FOR HABITAT CONSERVATION Identifying the MSHCP Reserve System was the result of an extensive and comprehensive analysis conducted by an inter-agency planning team and led by CVAG. The planning team used the best available scientific and commercial data standard to develop the MSHCP. The planning team developed a list of 27 Covered Species and 27 natural communities to provide habitat for the Covered Species. This planning process resulted in the identification of 746,600 acres across 21 conservation areas, from which the MSHCP Reserve System will �MuniRnancial T iv DDOD2? Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments be established. The Reserve Systcm ensures the conservation of these species and natural communities as new development occurs. Without new development there would be no need to establish the Reserve System because the loss of existing habitat would not occur as a result of development activities. COST OF HABITAT CONSERVATION Of the 746,600 acres in the Conservation Areas, a rnasrmurm of 22,660 acres may be developed, resulting in a Reserve System of 723,940 acres. As of November 2006, lust over three-quarters of the MSHCP Reserve System, or 557,100 acres, had already been conserved. Complementary Conservation and state and federal contributions to MSHCP implementation will conserve an additional 51,840 acres from November 2006 forward. An additional 7,800 acres are in areas where the only Conservation Objective is maintaining the fluvial sand transport function through flood control standards and other regulatory mechanisms; these 7,800 acres will not be acquired. This leaves 107,200 attics to be conserved. Of this, 10,800 acres are non-Pcrr nttec public and quasi-public lands, and 7,500 acres are Permittee-owned lands that will be conserved in perpetuity under the MSHCP. As of November 2006, this left 88,900 acres remaining to be acquired or otherwise conserved by the Pemuttees. The LDMF will be the primary funding source for this habitat acquisition program. The primary objective of the LDMF Financing Plan is to demonstratc that sufficient funding is available for the habitat acquisition program. A financial model was used to calculate the level of the LDMF needed to fuUy fund the habitat acquisition program after deducting other anticipated revenues and interest earnings on fiend balances. All LDMF revenue and habitat acquisition expenditures would be accounted for in a Land Acquisition & improvement Fund. The Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC), a joint powers authority that is being created to implement the MSHCP, would manage the Fund as part of these responsibilities. CVCC would stop collecting LDMF revenue and would terminate the Fund after the 50-year planning horizon, assuming the acquisition program has been completed. Othcr key objectives of the Financing Plan include purchase of all habitat conservation lands as soon as feasible within 30 years while LDMF revenue will continue for 50 years. This approach requires a financing mechanism. The MSHCP Endowment Fund would provide this financing as needed during the 30-year arquisitiora period, with finds repaid over the following 20 years to match the 50-year planning hor17011. COST ALLOCATION AN© FEE SCHEDULE Table EA presents the Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule for the MSHCP iu 2008 dollars, the first year that the fee is anticipated to be collected. The fee would be imposed per dwelling unit for residential land uses and per acre for nonresidential land uses. MMuniFnandal v 090023 Local Development Mitigation Alee Coachella Valley Association of Governments Table E.1 . Cost Per Acre (2008 dollars) 2008 2008-2037 Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue' $ 7,850,000 $235,500,000 Total Acres z 1 370 41,100 Cost Per Acre $ 5,730 $ 6,730 Net revenue required from development mitigation fee revenue in real 2008 dollars. The 2008-2037 revenue estimate excludes the fee revenue needed to repay the Endowment loan during the 2038-2057 period. Y Acres of new development. Source,MuniFinanaal MITIGATION FEEACT FINDINGS L)evclopment impact fees' are one-time fees', typically paid when a building permit is issued, unposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). The five statutory findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for adoption of the LDMF are summoned in Chapter 6 and supported in detail by the tcmaindet of the report. IMPLEMENTATION The mitigation fee would be collected at time of grading, building, or other appropriate permit issuance. To implement the fee this report recommends C VCC do the following: • Assist Local Pennittces in adopting an ordinance and resolution imposing the LDMF on new development and that includes an inflation adjustment to the fee; • Wotk with Local Pernuttees to develop administrative gutdchncs for the LDMF ptogtam. • Program fee revenues to specific acquisition projects and related expenditures, including administrative costs; • Alter the scope of the planned acquisition or related improvement costs from those shown in this report if appropriate; however, all expenditures must continue to fund expansion of the inventory of land conserved for habitat under the guidelines of the MSHCP. • Identify an appropriate inflation adjustment and rccalailate the fee annually for each Local Penmittee to adopt. ZMuniFinancial vi Q �C C )7 CHAPTER 1 : INTR❑DL1CT1❑N This chapter provides background on the Coachella Valley habitat conservation planning process that led to the need for a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF). This report differs from the January 12, 2006 draft p5miarily because of the following changes in assumptions: • Land acquisition needs were reevaluated resulting in the planned acquisition of additional acreage. • An updated market study has resulted in higher land cost estimates. • The City of Desert Hot Sprint has chosen not to participate in the MSHCP. This report rherefore reflects new development projections excluding the City of Desert Hot Springs HABITAT C❑NSERVATI❑N PLANNING PR❑LESS Since 1994 local, state, and federal agencies responsible for regulating development and protecting habitat in the Coacbclla Valley have been participating in an extensive and comprehensive planning process. The purpose of this process is the preparation of a plan for multiple species habitat conservation that simultaneously allows continued economic growth from private development and associated public infrastructure projects. Approval of the MSHCP by state and federal wildlife agencies will allow the loss of natural communities and taking of species incidental to development and infrastructure projects, provided the mitigation and other measures set forth in the MSHCP are satisfied. Thus planning effort has produced the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The policy objectives of the MSHCP arc (1) to conserve adequate habitat in an unfragmented manner for the effective preservation of species and the conserved natural communities, and (2) to simplify compliance with CEQA, CESA, NCCP Act, FESA, NEPA, and other laws by providing an efficient and stzeamltned regulatory approach. The agencies that have participared in the MST-ICP include: • Local government - cities in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County, and five special districtsi; • Regional agencies - Coachella Villcy Association of Governments (CVAG); • Stare agencies - California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Department of Parks and Recreation, Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy (CVMC)Z and California State Department of Fish and Game (CDFG);and i In addition to Rivemde County, local agencies include the nuts of Cathedral City, Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinti, Palm Dcscrr, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mifige, as well as the Coachella Valley Wirer District, Imperial Irrigation Disrriet, Rivenndc Counry Flood Control and Warer Conservadon Distrier, Riverside Counry Regional Parks and Open Space District, and Riverside Counry Waste Resources Minigemenr District. INMuniFinancial Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments Federal agencies - U.S. Fish and Wtldlifc Service (USFWS), U.S- Buteau of Land Management,U.S. Forest Service,and National Parks Service. Implementation of the MSHCP will fully mitigate the impacts on Covered Species and conserved natural communities from new development and associated public infrastructure projects in the Coachella Valley MSHCP AND THE INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT Adoption of the MSHCP would enable the Wildlife Agencies (CDFG and USFWS) to grant it Permit for the Take of Covered Species ("Perrnit ).3 Permittees will include the local govetninents in the Coachella Valley listed above ("Local Perinittees") and the three state agencies (excluding CDFG) listed above ("State Peri-ittees"). "Covered Species" include species that are endangered, threatened, of special concern, or otherwise covered by the MSHCP. "Conserved natural communities" refers to those natural communities protected under the MSHCP pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2002. This type of perinit is often referred to as an "Incidental Take Permit" in that it enables the Pernvttee to engage in an otherwise lawful activity that, as an attendant impact, causes the loss of Covered Species. The Permit would also allow limited take of habitat and species for scientific purposes,also known as "scientific take The Pemut will enable the Pctznittccs to allow or engage in activities that result in the loss of Covered Species and the conscrved natural conunuruties without implementing mitigation requirements beyond those required by the MSHCP. For example,local governments VFW be able to apptovc new development and the state will be able to construct highway inftastructure in the Coachella Valley. As long as the Permittccs remain in compliance with the MSHCP they will be able to conduct these types of activities without developing and implementing additional project-specific mitigation measures with respect to the Covered Species and conserved natural communities, except as may be required by the MSHCP. Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) is a joint powers authority that is being created to implement the MSI ICP. Failure to adequately implement the MSHCP, such as not acquiring the lands accessary to protect habitat (described below), could result in the Wildlife Agencies suspending or revolting the Permit. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE The primary requirement of the MSHCP is the establishment and ongoing management of a Reserve System of lands to provide habitat for Covcrcd Species and the conserved natural communities. Much of this MSHCP Rescrve System already exists. Portions of it will be established through Complementary Conservation efforts and contributions by state and federal agencies. Substantial lands remain to be purchased from private landowners to 2 CVMC prepared the MSHCP under conuaci in CVAG,and wiil also be a Perminee. 3 The permit would be granted by USFWS undcr the Federal Endangered Species Act, Secuon 10(a), and by CDFG under the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, Cahforrua Fish and Game Code Section 2855- IffiIYluninnancial Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments complete the Reserve System as part of the Pcrmittccs•' mitigation. The Local Pernuttees arc responsible for this habitat acquisition program. A Local Development M Ligation Fee (LDMF) unposed on new development projects will be a primary source of funding for the habitat acquisition program under the MSHCP. This report documents the legal and policy basis to support the adoption by local agencies in the Coachella Valley of die LDMF, q type of development impact fee under California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. The fee would be adopted by Coachella Vallcy tides and the County of Riverside and collected from new development under their jurisdiction within the Plan Area. The LDMF is necessary for issuance of the Permit because the Wildlife Agencies require that the Local Pemnittees identify sufficient funding for implementation of the MSHCP. A primary benefit to new development from the LDMF is avoidance of the process to determine mitigation for impacts to Covered Spccics and habitat on a project-by-project basis. Implementation of the MSHCP provides a comprehensive approach to mitigation for such impacts for new development throughout the Coachella Vallcy. Without the Pen-nit new development in the Coachella Valley would face a significant constraint because projects could have to gain separate approval from CDFG and the USFWS before proceeding. Project-by-projcct regulatory approval for habitat mitigation would add substantially to the dine and cost of the development process. In addition, the MSHCP provides a basis for rroidgadng the impacts to Covcrcd Species and conserved natural communities associated with the development of public infrastructure necessary to serve new development. MMuniFnandal _.__ 3 CHAPTER 2 : PLAN AREA LAND USE This chapter describes the boundaries of the area covered by the MSHCP (the "Plan Area"), existing land use, and estimates of growth within the Plan Area. PLAN AREA BOUNDARIES The Coachella Valley is a broad, low elevation, northwest-southeast Trending valley comprising the wesrernmost hrnits of the Sonoran Desert The Valley is located in the central portion of Riverside County, approximately 100 miles east of Los Angeles. The Plan Arca encompasses the Coachella Valley and the surrounding mountains up to the tidgcIme. The Plan Area extends west to Cabazon where it is bounded by the range line coininon to Range 1 Lust and Range 2 Fast. This is approximately the Init of the Sonoran or Colorado Desert in the San Gorgonio Pass area To the east the Plan Area extends to the range lie common to Range 13 Last and Range 14 Fast. Either the ridgeline of the Little San Bernardino Mountains or the boundary line with San Bernardino County where the ridgeline extends north of the county line define~ the northern boundary. On the south, either the ridgeline of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains or the boundary line with San Diego or Imperial Counues forms the Plan Area boundary. Figure 1 presents a generalized map of the Plan Area. The map indicates how areas were analyzed to develop the MSHCP Reservc System. The Reserve System is the MSHCP preferred alternative and rcprescnts dic enure area necessary to protect the Covered Species and the conserved natural communities identified in the MSI-ICP (sce Chapter 4 for more explanation). The categories of land identified on the map include: • .Agruultural Land: bands currently primarily used for agricultural production. Because agricultural lands provide biological value for Covered Species,including habitat patches and foraging habitat, conversion of this land to urban use would result in a loss of habitat under the MSHCP. • Modeled Species Habitat: Lands that were modeled using physical data analyzed as map layers with a geographical information system (GIS). The purpose of the modeling was to assess the relative biological value of lands within the Plan Area and assist in developing the MSHCP Reserve System. Substanually all of the MSPICP Reserve System is identified as part of these modeled habitats. Due ro the great effort involved in mapping and modeling vacant parcels within The urban areas, these lands were excluded from the CVMSHCP analysis, though These parcels do contain habitat. MMuniFnancial Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments Figure 1 �j `. ,.• rn,. � � C 1�iN n �•41�. ��. nr4A Sf Salton Sea Plan Area Context Map Coachella Valley MSCHP/NCCP KIA Agricultural Land Developed Areas Indian Reseryation Lands Modeled Species Habitat - Natural Communities without Modeled Habitat RMuniFinancial Local Development Mitigation ree Coachella Valley Association of Governments • Natural Communities without Modeled Habitat: Lands that contain natural communities but were not modeled during the planning process because either (1) They are Indian Reservation lands not subject to the MSHCP, (2) they are already protected habitat and arc included in the MSI-ICP Reserve System, or (3) nor part of the MSHCP. • Developed Areas Urban and Rural): Lands that are developed and vacant or partially vacant lands within developed areas These vacant or partially vacant lands represent current or potential habitat for Covered Species and the conserved natural communities identified in the MSHCP. As the map indicates, substantially all the land within the Coachella Valley was subject to modeling to assist in making a comprehensive determination regarding which lands' should be included in the MSIICP Reserve System. EXISTING LAND LJsE The Plan Area boundaries include approximately 1.2 million acres, or approximately 1,885 square miles. Table 2.1 summarizes the existing acreage within die Plan Area by land use. The acreage indicated as Urban and Rural in the table corresponds to the Developed Areas shown in Figure 1. The MSHCP Reseivt System will be composed of much of the Open Space and Private Conservation Lands plus some Public and Private Non-Conservation Lands to be acquired with handing from the LDMF and other sources. Indian Reservation lands are included in the Plan Area but not subject to the MSHCP, reducing the total area covered by the MSHCP to approxanatcly 1.1 million acres. MMuniFinancial Local Development Mitigation Fee Coacbella Valley Association of Governments Table 2.1: Plan Area Existing Land Use Percent of Total Acres Plan Area Urban 67,400 5.9% Rural, Rural Residential 12,500 1.1% Agriculture 84,900 7.5% Lake(includes Salton Sea)' 43,500 3.8% Reservoirz 800 0.1% Wind Energy Uses 4,400 0.4% Quarry 900 0.1% Landfill 400 0.0% Public and Private Non-Conservation Lands3 320,600 28.2% Open Space-Public and Private Conservation Lands" 601,000 52.9% Total Area Covered By Plan 1,136,400 100.0% Indian Reservation Lands(Not Covered By Plan) 69,600 Total Plan Area 1,206,000 Includes Salton Sea and other natural water bodies `Includes Lake Cahuilla, Whitewater River recharge ponds,and other artificial water bodies. 'Includes pnvate lands which are pnmanly undeveloped and public lands used for non-conservation purposes. Public lands are owned by Riverside County, County Flood Control,Metropolitan Water District, the State Lands Commission,cities, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Coachella Valley Water Disblct U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the US m6tary Includes public lands dedicated to open space and conservation purposes and private lands owned by land trusts or conservation organizations, or protected by a censervanon easement or deed restriction Source:Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan,MuniFinancial NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PLAN AREA With the assistance of data developed by Coachella Valley Association of Covemmcats (CVAG) staff, MuruFinancial cmmated the total amount of new development anticipated within the Plan Area. These projections arc used by the LDMF Financing Plan to allocate habitat acquisition program costs to new development and to calculate the Local Development Mitigation Fee (sce Chaptcz 4). Planning Horizon The LIMP Financing Plan uses a 50-year planning horizon to estimate future growth and assumes that the fee could be discontinued after that time. The Financing Plan assumes a 30- year land acquisition program followed by a 20-year arnortization of tcmaining program costs. The selection of a planning horizon considered that the MSHCP provides a comprehensive approach to mitigating habitat impacts from new development in the Coachella Valley. The Lust acre and last acre of new development benefit equally from the MSHCP. More IMMuniFnandal 7 ®� '� Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments importantly, the size of the MSHCP Reserve System is unaffected by the level of new development and habitat acquisition program costs are fixed. If habitat acquisition costs were spread across all new developmcnt through build out of the Plan Area then the Local Permittees would nor fully fiend the MSHCP until construction of ,,the last home" in the Coachella Valley. This approach would result in a planning horizon of over a hundred years given recent development trends and the amount of land available for development 4 This is not a practicable planning horizon for the following reasons: • Permit Term: The Wildlife Agencies will issue the Permit for a 75-year period so the planning horizon for the LDMF should not extend beyond that time frame. • Permit Compliance: The habitat acquisition program needs to be accomplished within a reasonable period of time, preferably long before expiration of the Pemut. Otherwise, the Wildlife Agencies could determine that the Pci=rnittees are not fully funding their obligations under the MSHCP and therefore arc not in compliance with the Permit. Non-compliance would constrain economic development within the region by requiring each development project to separately mitigate habitat nmpacis. • Land acquisition cost inflation: Acquiring land sooner rather than later will reduce total costs by limiting the impact of land price inflation. Land, particularly residential land, often increases faster than the average price inflation of all goods and services as development in a region intensifies. Consequendy, early funding of the habitat acquisition program will reduce the total real (inflation-adjusted) cost of the program. • Lost Conservatton Opportumries: Given current development pressure, if land acquisition is not completed within the first 30 years, development within the conservation areas could impede establishment of the reserve system. • Experience with Other Public Facility Financing Plans: Public facility master plans and associated financing plans typically use a 20- to 30-year planning horizon because this is a reasonable period for estimating growth, planning improvements, and amortizing capital costs. Growth factors such as land, water, and other physical resource constraints, the availability and cost of infrastructure, and local land use policy are difficult to predict over long periods. Science, technology, and public policy can change the improvements needed to accommodate growth. Finally, the public financial markets typically do not extend financing for public infrastructure beyond 30 years. A 50-year planning horizon was selected given these considerations. The 50-year horizon, though longct than most public facility financing plans, is less than the 75-year term of the Permit.Tlvs difference represents a conservative approach by providing a 25-year cushion in case additional revenues are needed to complete the habitat acquisition program at the end of the 50-year planning horizon. At that point the Local Pernurtees (Coachella Valley cities 4 The amount of undeveloped land avwlablc fnr development is defined by land use polices Contained In [he existing General Plans of cities and the Countywitivn the Plan Area MMuniFnaridal 8 ©� Q Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments and the County) could continue to collect the fee from new development until all habitat acquisition program costs are funded. This approach also does not unfairly burden near-term development with the entire cost of the program because it spreads costs over such an extended (50-year) period. In sum, a 50-year planning horizon, by being reasonable, conscrvativc, and flexible ensues that the Permittces can provide the maximum practicable funding and benefit to comply with the Permit through fully funding of the MSI ICP. Growth Projections Growth projections were based on an extrapolation of prior trends based on an analysts of information from the California Department of Resources Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and building permit data conducLcd by the Coachella Vallcy Association of Governments (CVAG). The estimate of acres developed per year was based on historical development during the period of 1988 to 20N for the Plan Area. This time period is a reasonable basis for projection purposes because it captures the volatility of development during periods of recession and expansion. The Plan Area analyzed excluded Indian Reservation land. Geographical Information System (GIS) coverages of Riverside County by the California Department of Resources Farnnand Mapping and Monitoring Program provided data for the 1988 to 2004 period. This data shows different types of agricultural uses as well as developed areas. Based on the analysis described above, CVAG cstimaLcd that the tatc of development in the Plan Area excluding Tndian Rcscivation land has averaged 1,370 acres per year The LDMF analysis assumes that the historical average annual rate will continue through the 50-pear planing horizon of the LDMF Financing Plan. At this rate a total of 68,500 acres will be developed (50 years x 1,370 acres per year). The current Central Plans of the Coachella Valley cities and the County of Riverside have sufficient undeveloped land zoned for urban uses within the Plan Area to accommodate this level of development. The development projection of 68,500 acres is the total amount of development that the LDMF Financing Plan asstunes is subject to and will pay the fee. However, the fee may be increased or extended if necessary to fully fund the habitar acquisition program,as mentioned above. SMUniFinandal .9 000033 CHAPTER 3 : NEED FOR HABITAT CONSERVATION Identifying the MSIICP Reserve System was the result of an extensive and comprehensive analysis conducted by an inter-agency planning team and led by CVAG. The planning team used the best scientific standard and conunercial data available to develop the MSHCP. This chapter describes bow the planning team identified lands to include in the MSIICP Reserve System. HABITAT CONSERVATION GOALS The MSHCP was developed to achieve the following habitat conservation goals: • Reptesent native ecosystem types or natural cotrununities across their natural range of variation in a system of conserved areas. • Maintain or restore viable populations of the species included in the MSHCP so that incidental take permits can be obtained for currently listed species and non- listed species can be covered in case they are listed in the future. • Sustain ecological and evolutionary processes necessary to maintain the viability of the natural communities and habitats for the species included in the MSHCP. These three goals were used to guide the development of the MSHCP Reserve System. A fourth objective of the MJ-ISCP is to manage the system adaptively to be responsive to short-term and long-term environmental change. The management costs will continue in perpetuity and will be funded by earrings from an endowment. The LDIVIF will not fund these costs and these costs are nor part of the analysis contained in this report. Development impact fees arc a one-time revenue source paid as new development occurs and therefore are ill suited to fund consistent, ongoing costs such as habitat management, species monitoring, and administration. The endowment is funded by contributions from state and local agencies and revenue associated with landfill tipping fees and interest earnings on the E dowmcnt Fund balance. COVERED SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES The planning team developed an initial list of 52 species to consider protecting under the MSHCP. These species were identified as either endangered or threatened by the Wildlife Agencies, or at risk for becoming listed as threatened or endangered. Through the planning process this list was reduced to 27 Covered Specics. Species were clirninated from the final list for reasons such as a lack of known locations in the Plan Area and insufficient data to facilitate conservation planning. Table 3.1 lists the 27 Covered Species and identifies the rcASOn for their inclusion in the MSHCP. The Plan Area contains 46 natural communitics. The 27 natural communities included in the MSHCP Reserve System are those needed to provide habitat for the Covered Species. Table 3.2 lists the natural communities protected by du MSIICP Rescrve System. Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments IDENTIFYING THE M S H C P RESERVE SYSTEM The MSIICP planning team collected information on each Covered Species' life history, habitat, ecological requirements, overall range, distribution, threats, and conservation needs. The team gathered similar information on the composition and distribution of natural communities and on existing conservation areas, topography, watersheds, ecological processes, roads, and current land uses. The team then had maps prepared of the natural communities and species' habitat distribution. T'hcsc maps became die basis of for identifying lands with the highest biological resource value; ro include in the Reserve System. For each Covered Species for which sufficient inform9tion was available, core habitar areas werc delineated with unfragmcntcd habitat that contained intact ecological processes large enough for self-sustaining populations of species. Areas needed to maintain essential ecological processes, core habitat, biological corridors, and linkages wctc also identified. The following measures of adequacy were used to determine the habitat necessary to preserve Covered Species and the conserved natural communities and identify lands to be included in the MSIICP Reserve System. • Size of habitat patches. For each Covered Species, dic planning team assessed whether a conservation area provided core habitat. The Core IIabitat concept was not applied to species that were considered to occur as mctapopulations. These species are the burrowing owl, Le Conte's thrasher, Yuma clapper rail, California black rail, riparian bird species, and southern yellow bat- A conservation area was not deemed inadequate because of the lack of tort habitat for these species. The concept of core habitat was not used with natural communities. • The number of core habitat areas protected in conservation areas for each Covered Species. Where possible, the planning team sought to conserve a minimum of three core habitat areas for each Covered Species. In some casts, mote than three core habitat areas for a Covered Species occurred in the conservation areas. In other instances, fewer than three core habitat areas for a Covered Species occurred in the Plan Area �MuniFnancal1 Bugg 3 Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments Table 3A: Covered Species Under the MSHCP Plants Mecca aster, aylorhiaa cognata (NS) Coachella Valley milk etch,Astragalus lenlrKinosus var. coachellae (FE) Triple-nbbedmilkvetch, Asiragalim Iricarinarus (FE) Orocopia sage, Salvia greatae (NS) Little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus, Linanthus maculahrs (or Gilia maculala) (NS) Invertebrates-Insects Coachella Valley giant sand-treader cricket, lblucrobaenetes valgum Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket, gtenopelmalus cahudaumis Fish Desert pupfish, Cyprinodon macularfns (FE/SE) Amphibians Arroyo toad,Buie californicuv (FE/CSC) Reptiles Desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii (FT/ST) Flat-tailed homed lizard, Phrynosoma mcalhr (CSC) Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Uma inornata (FT/SE) Birds Yuma clapper rail, Ralhis longirostris yumanensiv (FE/ST/SFP) California black rail, Laferallus jamaicensis (ST/SFP) Burrowing owl,Athene cuniculoria (CSC) Southwestem willow flycatcher, .Empidonm traillii exlrmus (SE/FE) Cnssal thrasher, Toxostoma crissale (CSC) Le Conte's thrasher, Toxosmma leconlei (CSC) Least Bell's Hrco, Vireo bellii pusillus (FE/SE) Gray vireo, Vireo vicirtior (CSC) Yellow warbler, Dendroica petechia brewsteri (CSC) Yellow-breasted chat, /eteria virens (CSC) Summer tanager, Piranga rubra (NS) Mammals Southern yellow bat, Lasiurus ega or xanthmus (NS) Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel. Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus (CSC) Falm Spnngs pocket mouse, Perognaihus longunembris bangs, (CSC) Peninsularbighom sheep, Ovis conadensis nelsoni (FE/ST/SFP) Key. FE Federal Endangered CSO Species of Special Oancem(a state list of species that are at risk) FT.'Federal Threatened NOS No Official Status(LISFAlS,CDFG and the Scientific Advisory Conmlttee SE State Endangered that assisted in preparing the m.SHCPrecomrend inclusion of these species ST State Threatened because of the probability of them being placed on an official list. SC State Candidate SFP State Fully Protected Source.Coachella Valley Association of Govemmvmn ,Coachella Valley Multiple species Habitat Conservation Plan/Nafural Community Conservation Plan, Table 3-1 SMuniFinancial u~ -12 0 0 0 0 Local Development Mitigation Fee Coacbella Valley Association of Governments Table 3.2: Natural Communities Included in the MSHCP Active desert dunes Stabilized and partially stabilized desert dunes Active desert sand fields Ephemeral desert sand fields Stabilized and partially stabilized desert sand fields Stabilized shielded desert sand fields Mesquite hummocks Sonoran creosote bush scrub Sonoran mixed woody and succulent scrub Mojave mixed woody scrub Desert saltbush scrub Desert sink scrub Chamise chaparral Redshank chaparral Semi-desert chaparral Interiorlive oak chaparral Cismontane alkali marsh Coastal and valley freshwater marsh Southem arroyo willow riparian forest Sonoran cottonwood-willow riparian forest Mesquite bosque Desert dry wash woodland Desert fan palm oasis woodland Southern sycamore-alder riparian woodland Arrowweed scrub Mojavean pinyon juniper woodland Peninsular juniper woodland and scrub Source:Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Coachella ValleyMultlple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, Table 3.3. • Representative range of environmental conditions, including temperature, moisture, and elevation gradients, under which the species or natural community occurs in a viable population. For each Covered Species, Elie planning team assessed whether the conservation areas included other conserved habitat that provided for the conservation of the range of environmental conditions in which the species occurs in the Plan Area. • Essential ecological processes. Thcse could include hydrological processes (both subsurface and surface), blowsand movement, erosion, deposition, substrate development, soil formation, and biologicnl processes such as reproduction, pollination, dispersal, and migration. The planning team assessed the conservation areas to evaluate whether the essential ccolo7ical processes OMuniRnancial �� 13 00 l0 0 3 7 Local Development Mitigation Fee Coacbella Valley Association of Covernmenrs necessary to sustain the Covered Spcctes and the conserved natural communities present were included in die conscrvauon areas. + Biological corridors and linkages. For each Covered Species, the planning team assessed whether connectivity of the population in each conservation area was maintained with populations in other cons-crvation areas and to populations outside the Plan Area to the maximum extent feasible. This planning process temlted in the identification of 746,600 acres' across 21 conservation areas. Within the conscrvauon areas, the MSHCP allows a maximum of 22,660 acres to be developed, leaving 723,940 acres to comprise the MSHCP Reserve System.5 The Reserve Systein ensures the conservation of these species and natural communities as new development occurs. Without new development there would be no need to establish the ].reserve System because the loss of existing habitat would not occur. Ncw development has both direct and cumulative impacts on the need for habitat conservation. Direct impacts occur from the development of vacant and partially vacant land within the Plan Area because these lands contain habitat for Covered Species. Cumulative impacts occur as a result of development over time and across the Plan Area by reducing the total amount of available habitat and thus the viability of Covered Spccics. 5 Development that is consistent with maniunning certain conservation objectives is also allowed within 7,800 acres dcsignarcd as Eluvlal sand transport areas. MMuniFnandal 14 0 0 0 3 u CHAPTER 4: COST OF HABITAT ACQUISITION This chapter describes the cost of the habitat acquisition program and presents The Financing Plan for completing the program during the 50-year planning horizon. If no new development occurred within the Plan Area then there would be no take of Covered Specks' habitat and no need for mitigation. Thus, new devclopment is solely responsible for and benefits entirely from these costs. AMOUNT ©F HABITAT ACQUISITION Table 4.1 presents a suTomary of the land acreage that wtll comprise the MSHCP Reserve System described in the last chapter. Of the 1.2 million acres in the Plan Atea, 723,940 acres will be preserved as habitat. Seventy-seven percent or 557,100 acres of the deserve System has already been set aside. Complementary Consetvation and state and federal contributions to MSHCP implcmcatatton will conserve an additional 51,540 acres from November 2006 forward. The remaining amount of 115,000 acres includes 10,800 acres of non-Permittce public and quasi-public land, and 7,800 fluvial sand transport areas where acquisition is not required. Approximately 7,500 acres is Perminee-owned land that will be conserved in perpetuity though the MSHCP, ]caving 83,900 acres as of November 2006 that must be acquired from willing seller private landowners, or odicmisc conserved. The LDMF will be The primary funding source for this habitat acquisition program. LDMF FINANCING PLAN The primary objective of the T,DMF Financing Plan is to demonstrate that sufficient funding is available for the habitat acquisition program. The Financing Plan is based on a financial model constnicred to estiimate annual revenues and costs for the Land Acquisition & Imptovement Fund. The model was used to calculate the level of the LDMF needed to fully fund the habitat acquisition program after deducting other anticipated revenues and interest earnings on the Fund balance. Implementation of the MSHCP includes other costs such as land management, habitat monitoring, and administtation that are in addition to the habitar acquisition program. As discussed in the lasr chapter these other costs are riot included in the calculation of the LDMF because they axe ongoing costs ill suited to funding with one-nine fee revenue tied to the rate of new development. Funding in perpetuity after Year 75 for these costs would come from earnings generated by in T3ndowmcnt Fund. All LDMF revenue and habitat acquisition expenditures would be accounred for in the Land Acquisition & Improvement Fund. CVCC would manage the Fund as part of its responsibilities to implement The MSHCP. The Fund would unable CVCC; to comply with a provision of the Fee Mitigation Act described in Chapter 6 that requires development impact fees to be placed in a separate account. CVCC would stop collecting LDMF revenue and would terminate the fund after 50 years, the planning horizon discussed in Chapter 2. fMuniFnancial S5 0© � Local Development Mitigation Fee Coacbella Valley Association of Governments Table 4.1 , MSHCP Reserve System Acres Conservation Areas Total 746,600 Potential Development Within Conservation Areas 22,660 MSHCP Reserve System Total 723,940 Existing Conservation Lands (as of November 2006) 557.100 Land to be Conserved(as of November 2006) 166,840 Future Complementary Conservation (as of November 2006) 29,990 State and Federal Contribution To Plan Implementation (as of November 2006) 21,850 Conservation of Lands Owned By Non-permittee Public or Quasi-Public Entities' 10 800 Conserved Land Not Responsibility of Local Permittees 62.640 Remaining Lands to Be Conserved By Local Permittecs 104,200 Local Permittee Responsibility Conservation of Existing Local Permittee Lands 3 7,300 Conservation of Fluvial Sand Transport Area° 7,800 Subtotal Local Permlttee Responsibility 15,300 Remaining Lands To Be Acquired By Local Permittees 88,900 ' Lands set aside for conservation purposes and owned by federal,state,and local agencies and non-profit organizations a Lands currentlyowned byentlties such as local utilities that the MSHCP estimates w it be conserved through the regulatory process as those entities seek approval to Conduct various activities on their lands 9 Lands currently owned by Local Permdtees that they mil set aside for conservation ' Lands that,rhrough land use regulation,will be required to maintain their natural function as fluvial sand transport areas. Source,Coachella ValleyAssoclation of Governments, Coachella Valley Mulbiele Species Habitat Conservation PlaniNatural Community Conservation Plan, Table 4-1. Another key objecnve of the Financing Plan is purchase of all habitat conservation lands as soon as financially feasible within 30 years. Given the current development pressure, if land acquisition is not completed within the first 30 years, important resources may become developed, or surrounded by new development to the extent that the land may become isolated and unsuitable habitat. The only approacb that allows acquisition over a shorter period than the planning horizon for new development is to use some type of financing mechanism. The Endowment Fund would provide this financing is needed during the 30- year acquisition period, with funds repaid over the following 20 years to match the 50-year planning horizon. ',fable 4.2 summarizes total revenues, expenditures, and otbet assumptions for the Land Acquisition & Improvement Fund in nominal dollars based on the LDMF Financing Plan. The Financing Plan assumes that Local Permittees will begin to impose the LDMT on new development in fiscal year 2007-2008 (2008). The Land Acquisition&Improvement Fund 1s assumed to terminate 50 years later at the end of 2057. See Table A..1 in the Appendix for the cash flow detail. MMuniFiinancial 16 �i Local Development Mitigation Fee Coacbella Valley Association of Governments Table 4.2: Land Acquisition & Improvement fund Total Revenues & Expenditures (nominal dollars 2008-2067 Revenues Development Mitigation Fee Revenue $516,802,000 Endowment Loan Proceeds 67,580,000 Regional Road Project Mitigation 21,819,000 Regional Infrastructure Mitigation 48,500,000 Interest Earnings _30,929,000 Total Revenues $685,630,000 Expenditures Land Acquisition $526,705,000 Land Improvement 9,080,000 Administration Land Acquisition Manager(contract) 5,963,000 Administration (program-wide share) 18,602,000 Endowment Lcan Repayment 125,280.000 Total Expenditures 685,630,000 Ending Fund Balance $ - Source:Appendix Table A.1;MuniFinancial The following sections describe the revenues and cspcnditures included in the LDMF Financing Plan and lisred in Table 4 2. Revenues t-.ACAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE REVENUE 1,DNT revenue would provide the majority of funding for the habitat acquisition psogram- The Financing Plan generates LDMF revenue by mtildplying the per acre fee by the estimated acres of new development. Fee revenue is projected to increase at 3.29 percent anuually to equal the estimated rate of land price inflation during the land acquisition period from Years 1 to 30 (see Expen&tures - .Land Acgutstttan, below). The inflation Tart of 329 percent is only an estimate, and the acrual increase will be based on cconorruc indicators evaluated as implementation proceeds. Once all land acquisition has been completed in Year 30 the only Financing Plan cost is for repayment of the Endowment Fund loan. The fee is adjusted to generate revenues sufficient to fund the Endowment Fund loan rcpeymcnt in years 31 through 50 (scc Expenditures - Endowment Loan Repayment, below). 17 �MumFnancial Local,Deoelopment,tY1-itigation.Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments Actual fee levels may vary depending on the rare of development, aclval land pt-icc inflation and loan repayment obligations. ENDOWMENT LOAN PROCEEDS To complete habitat acquisition in the first 30 years the Land Acquisition and Improvement Fund must borrow from the Endowment Fund. The financial model draws funds from the Endow-ment Fund as needed to maintain a positive fund balance in any given year. The Land Acgtusition and Improvement Fund repays this loan With interest in Years 31 through 50 (see Expenditures-,Endowment Loan Repayment, below). REGIONAL ROAD FROJECT MITIGATION Measure A is a half-cent sales tax approved by Riverside County voters to fund transportation projects. Thirty million dollars of Mcasurc A funds are dedicated to fully mitigate the direct,indirect, and cumulative effects of transportation projects on the Covcred Species and the conserved natural communities. Of this amount $21,819,000 will be contributed to the Land Acquisition and Improvement Fund- Measure A is anticipated to fiend this contribution during the first fcw years of the Financing Plan. These bond proceeds cannot be increased for inflation. REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE MITIGATION This revenue source is generated by two public agencies in connection with mibgatioo of infrastructure projects. The first agency is the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) CV'vVD is anticipated to acquire 550 acres for the MSHCP Reserve System in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area. The acquisition would mitigate habitar impacts of the Whitewa ter River Flood Control Project and is estimated to cost $20,625,000. This acquisition is anticipated to occur as soon as practicable upon adoption of the MST-ICP. The cost estimate is based on the current mid-range market value per acre fot the Thousand Palms area of $37,500 (see discussion and table under Expenditures-Land Acquisition,below)- The second agency is the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans has an obligation to acquire 5,791 acres of habitat to mitigate nun-interchange highway projects in the Coachella Valley. For the purposes of the Financing Plan, Caltrans is assumed to acquire 1,930 acres in Financing Plan Years 5 and 10, and 1,931 acres in Year 15. Acquisition costs per acre are assumed to be the same average cosy for all acquired acres in the year of acquisition. The actual phasing of the funding for This obligation by Caltram on an annual basis is not material to the Financing Plan because the mitigation is based on a given amount of acreage to be acquired, not on a specific amount of revenue to be contribured. INTEREST EARNINGS The Fee Mitigation Act described in Chapter 1 requires that interest earnings on development impact fee revenues be credited to the same fund in which the fees are deposited and expended for the same purposes. The Financing Plan assumes an interest rate of 5.73 percent on fund balances, a rate similar to that earned by the State's Local Agency Investment Fund during the relatively stable interest rate period of the 1990s. SMuniFinancial is BOOM Local Development Mitigation Pee Coachella 'Valley Association of Governments Expenditures LANo Acne ui5rrION The total estimated cost of the remaining land to be acquired by Local Permittees is $583.7 million in 2008 dollars. These estimates are based on an independent study that relied on current sales and listings of comparable properties- (A Market Study of Land Values,Related to Several Areas of Prospecnve Acquisition, Associated with the Coacbella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Scarcella, September 2006). The study estimated low, tnid,and high range market values per acre for each of 20 conservation areas within the Plan Area. Estimates were made of the percentage of land to be acquired at each market level in each conservation area. Thcsc costs exclude transaction costs (see below). Table 4.3 on the Following page details land acgtusidon amounts and estimated purchase costs by conservation area within the MSHCP Reserve System. ZMureFnancial 19 090, 043 Loca117evelapmentMitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments Table 4.3; MSHCP Reserve System Local Permittees Land Acquisition Costs ($2006) A 8 C D E F G H•Ax BxE I=Ax CxF J=Ax DaG K=H+I+J Cost Per Acre($20061 Percent of Total Acres Total Cost Total Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High Grand No. MSHCP Designation Acres Range Range Range Range Range Range Range Range Range Total 1 Cabazon 2,140 S 500 S 7,000 $13,500 70% 20% 10% 5 749,000 $ 2,996,000 S 2,889,000 3 6,634,000 2 Stubbe&Cottonwood Canyons 1,830 Soo 6,950 13,400 40% 46% 155/ 366,000 5,723,000 3,678,000 9,767,000 3 Whitewater Canyon 740 400 4,000 6,500 20% 805Y 0% 59,000 21358,000 - 2,427,000 4 Snow Creek/Windy Point 1,340 500 1,850 3,200 40% 20% 40% 268,000 496,000 1,715,000 2,479,000 5 Highway 111/1-10 360 2,500 10,625 16,750 20% 60% 20% 180,000 2,295,000 1,350,000 3,825,000 6 Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo 6,970 1,500 25,760 60,000 55% 30V 551. 6,796,000 53,843,000 17,425,000 78,064,000 7 Whitewater Floodplaln 3,940 500 5250 10,000 50% 30% 20% 965,000 6,206,000 7,880000 15,071,000 8 Willow Hole 1,960 2,500 21,250 40,000 25% 55% 20% 1,225,000 22,908,000 15,680,000 39,813,000 9 Thousand Palms 5,480 51000 37,500 70,000 40% 45% 15% 10,960,000 92,475,000 57,540,000 160,975,000 10 Edom Hill 1,860 5,000 12,500 20,000 85% 10% 5% 7,905,000 21325,000 11860,000 12,090,000 11 Indio Hills/Joshua Tree NP Linkage 1,830 1,000 15,500 30,000 75% 20% 5% 1,373,000 5,673,000 2,745,000 9,791,000 12 Indio Hills Palms 1,250 500 1,000 11500 55% 30% 15% 344,000 375,000 281,000 1,000,000 13 East Indio Hills Z690 1,000 4250 7,500 3051 55% 15% 807,000 6,288,000 3026,000 10,121000 14 Santa Rosa&San Jacinto Mtns 31,390 350 4000 50,000 50% 48% 2% 5,493,000 60,269,000 31,390,000 97,152,000 16 005 Palmas 10,570 350 1,425 2,500 90% 5% 5% 3,330,000 753,000 1,321,000 5,404,000 16 Desert Tortoise and Linkage 45,250 225 11113 2,000 65% 25% 10% 6,618,000 72,5851000 91050,000 28,253,000 17 Joshua Tree National Park 26,400 150 225 300 25% 25% 50% 990,000 1,485000 3,960,000 6,435,000 i8 Mecca HdlS/Orocopia Mountains 21970 250 1,125 2,000 60% 30% 10% 3,296000 7,415,000 4,394,000 15,105,000 19 CV Stormwater Channel&Delta 3,770 10,000 20,000 30,000 30% 30% 40% 11,310,000 22,620,000 45,240,000 79,170,000 20 West Deception Canyon 400 300 300 300 100% 0% 0% ten eon ten nnn Total 172,140 $ 63,174,000 $309,098,000 $211,424,000 $533,696,000 Acres 172,140 Average Per Acre Cost S 3,391 Note Transaction costs for appraisals,escrow fees,and elated costt not rnduded Seumc Scamella,A Market Study of Land Values,Related td Scvcnl Amos of Prospective Acquisition Assoolated whh the Coachella Valley Mulliple Species Hobitat Conservation Plan,Soptcmbr2006 MMuniFinancial 20 O w'1 w.� Local Development Mitigation Fee Coacbella Valley Association of Governments The Financing Model uses an average cost per acre multiplied by acres acquired zo estimate total costs for each year of the Financing Plan. Average per acre costs include related transaction costs for appraisals, escrow fees, and other costs that arc estimated to be approximately five percent in addition to the land purchase price. The calculation of the average cost per acre including transaction costs in 2008 dollars (the first year of the Financing Plan) is shown in Table 4.4, The Financing Plan assumes that land acquisition costs will increase at 3.29 percent annually during the 30-year acquisition period, resulting in the larger cost estimate in nominal dollars shown in Table 4.2. The Financing Plan does not increase land acquisition costs from 2006, the year the cost per acre was calculated, to Year 1, fiscal year 2007-2008. Rcccnt real estate market activity in the Coachella Valley does not support such an increase in value. CVAG expects to update this analysis periodically based on new land appraisal studies. Table 4.4. Average Cost Per Acre Average Cost Per-Acre ($2006) $ 3,391 Transaction Costs' 5.00% Average Cost Per Acre Year 1 of Financing Plan Including Transaction Costs ($2006) $ 3,560 1 Includes costs for appraisals, escrow fees,and related transaction activities Source:Table 4.3,Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, Table 5.4a,Muni Financial The Financing Plan includes an esumatc of the amount of land acquired on an annual basis over the 30-year acquisition period. The Financing Plan asstiines that as much land as possible is acquired as early as possible subject to revenue constraints. To supplement LDMF revenucs, regional road project and infrastructure mitigation payments provide revenue through Year 15 of the Financing Plan. Endowment loan proceeds supplement revenues in Years 26 through 30 To develop a financially feasible land acquisition scenario, the primary constraint was the capacity of the Endowment to lend to the Land Acquisition Fund during the latter years of the land acquisition period. The phasing assumptions meet the "Rough Propornonality" requirements of the MS1-1CP regarding the amount of habitat land conscived compared to the amount of development that occurs. Actual land acquisition costs inay turn out to be more or less than these estimates. Land price inflation may vary frorn die rate assumed here. Also, costs would be lower to the extent that land is protected through methods other than fee simple purchase, such as consctvation easements. CVAG will conduct land market appraisals and adjust the rate of increase in the LDMF discussed in the revenue section above to mirror actual cost trends and ensure that total revenues do not exceed total costs within the Land Acquisition Fund. MjWWFInancial - 21 ®DD�4� Local Development Mitigation,Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments LANDIMPROVEMENT Land improvements are one-time capital costs to under the land usable for intended conservation purposes. These costs primarily include the removal of an invasive species, the Saharan mustard, and fencing. Otbcr costs include gates, signgge, and trash removal. Ongoing maintenance costs are not included. In the first year of the acquisition program, $182,465 is allocated to land improvement. This cost is increased by 3.29 percent annually for inflation. Costs terminate at the end of the 30-year acquisition period. ADMINISTRATION CVCC will contract with CVAC for staff service for the first five years of MSHCP implementation and may continue to do so thereafter if desired. Total adiimstrauon costs for all MSHCP implctnentation acdviues' arc cstirmted to be $i429,000 annually in 2005 dollars. This amount would fund about 3.3 full-time equivalent positions for management, accounting, information technology, and related overhead costs. The LDMF Financing Plan includes $375,000 of this total amount as the share allocated to the habitat acquisition program. This share is based on total Financing Plan expcndiaires as a percent of total program-wide expenditures including the monitoring and management programs, excluding administration costs. Administration costs also include $120,000 annually for a contract Land Acquisition Manager funded solely by the Land Acquisition and Improvement Fund. All administration costs are increased 3.29 percent annually for inflation. Costs tczminare at the end of the 30-year acquisition period. ENDOWMENT LOAN REPAYMENT As discussed above the Land Acquisition and Improvement Fund would borrow from the Endowment Fund to complete land acquisition within 30 years. The Financing Plan asstunes that interest would accrue and principal payments would be deferred until the end of the land acquisition program in Year 30. In Ycar 31 repayment of the enure loan balance and accrued interest would begin in even installments over the following 20 years. Inrerest is calculated using a six percent annual interest rate. Thus repayment would be completed 50 years after the program begins. At that time the Land Acquisition and Improvement Fund could be terminated. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES As with any financing plan, there are significant uncertainties regarding revenue assumptions. There is risk of revenues not being available in the future, c.g. invesunent risk associated with endowment funding and political risk associated with fees and property-related charges. This section describes three financing alternatives to consider should revenues fall short of those projected in the Financing Plan! • Increase the Local Development Mitigation Fee: If other revenue sources are not available or if costs increase, the LDMF could be increased to cover revenue requirements. • Forma finance district: MMuniFnaridal 22 �; v Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella 'Valley Association of Governments • Benefit assessment districts allow for the imposition of annual benefit assessments on property owners commensurate with the annual costs of an identified special benefit to that property. Benefit assessments can only fund facilities or services that provide a special benefit to a distinct group of property owners that are in addition to any general benefits accruing to all ptopctty owners in a jurisdiction. An increase in property value alone does not qualify as a special benefit. Property owners must approve a benefit assessment by majority vote. Property owners can repeal an existing benefit assessment using an initiative process unless the assessment is funding repayment of debt. Benefit assessments arc often unposed as a condition of approval for development projects • The Mcllo-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 enables the formation of Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) by local agencies for the purpose of imposing special taxes on property owners. CFDs are primarily used as a way to finance public facilities with debt financing secured by a lien on property within the district, though certain ongoing public scwice costs may be funded as well. CFDs impose special taxes on property owners, not special assessments. CPT.] approval requirements make this funding source pm-narily attractive to development projects on undeveloped land. • pursue voter approved revenue sources- such as parcel taxes: Parcel taxes arc a type of excise tax on the use of property. Widely used throughout the state, these taxes are adopted as a special tax dedicated to specific purposes. All special taxes require two-thirds voter approval. Thcsc taxes are also always adopted jurisdiction-wide and not for sub-areas. Thus, the greatest challenge for This funding source is gaining countywide voter approval. The greatest advantages of a parcel tax are (1) the large and stable potential funding base from a countywide tax, and (2) the flexible use of revenues. Parcel taxes are usually Icvied as a Flat amount per parcel with variances by major land use categories. The parcel tax rate must not be correlated with assessed value to avoid being considered a property tax subject to the constraints of Proposition 13. The parcel tax on a specific property need not be correlated with the bcnef t:received by that property from the expenditure of tax revenues. MMuniFnancial 2-3 Pz 3 Local Development Mitigation Pee Coachella Valley Association of Governments CHAPTER 5 : COST ALLOCATION AND FEE SCHEDULE This chapter describes the allocation of habitat acquisition prograrri costs per acre of new development. The cost per acre is used to generate the fee schedule to calculate the >.DMF for individual development projects NEW ❑EVELOPMENTACREASE The cost of the habitat acquisition program is allocated to all 68,500 acres of new development on vacant or partially vacant land within the Plan Area (see Chapter 2). All vacant or partially vacant land represents habitat or potential habitat for one or more Covered Species,including vacant or partially vacant land within the urban areas. Loss of all such lands also represents a cumulative loss of habitat for the Covered Species. Table 5.1 lists the Covered Species and the conserved natural communities that may be found on vacant or partially vacant land in urban areas on the valley floor. When habitat conversion takes place anywhere there is an overall loss to habitat quantity and the quality of the remaining occupied or potential habitat is degraded because these areas may become even more isolated and impede species movement. Thus, all development has a direct, indirect And/or cumulative impact on the loss of habitat for the Covered Species. Table 5.1: Covered Species and Natural Communities Found In Urban Areas Covered Speclea Natural CommunWes Invertebrates-Woos Active desert dunes Coachella Valley grant sanddreader cdclict A/acrnbpenulcs Valguni Aches desert sand fields Coachella Vallcy Jerusalem cdcket. Stenopein,obs cahurlaen.51s Ephemeral assort sand fields Reptiles Stabilized and partially stabilized desert sand fields Flat-talled homed lizard, Fhrynoson,a mcahil Stabillzedshrclded desert sand fields Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Uma mornata Mesquite hummocks Buds Sonoran creosote bush scrub Bulmvwng owl, Adiene :,mcularra Sonoran mixed woody and Succulent scrub Cdssal thrasher, Toxostoma crlssalp Desert saltbush Scrub Le Contes thrasher, Toxosloma Iccontel Mammals Coachella Valley round-taded ground squinal. $pernruphaus iereucoudus chic,us Palm Springs packet mouse, Perognadtw longirnembris hangs, Seur Coacpnrla Valley Mounealn Conservancy NET LAND ACQUISITION COSTS PER ACRE The LDMF is based on the net revenue requirement for the Land Acquisition Fund. As discussed above in Chapter =4 (Expenditures - .Land Acquisition), for Years 1 through 30 revenue requirements are based on Land Acquisition Fund expenditures net of revenue from regional road project mitigation, regional infrastructure nnugation, Endowment loan IlMunpFnandal 24 Local Development Mitigation Pee Coachella Valley Association of Governments proceeds, and interest earnings. For Ycars 31 through 50 revenue requirements are based on repayment of the Endowment Loan. Table 5.2 presents the cost per developed acre for the land acquisition program in Year 1 of the Financing Plan. The amount pea: acre of $5,730 in Year 1 is based on a net revenue requirement of$7,905,000 and 1,370 acres estimated to be developed in Year 1. increased at 3.29 percent annually, this is the net revenue needed to fund land acquisition costs through year 30. The $5,730 cost per acre also equals the total LDMF net revenue requirement through Ycar 30 shown in the Appendix, Table A-1, discounted at 3.29 percent annually, And divided by the total estimated developed acreage of 68,500 acres. Table 5.2. Cost Per Acre (2008 dollars) 2008 2008-2037 Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue' $ 7,850,000 $235,500,000 Total Acres 2 1,370 _ 41.100 Cost Per Acre $ 5,730 $ 5,730 ' Net revenue required from development mitigation fee revenue in real 2008 dollars. The 2008-2037 revenue estimate excludes the fee revenue needed to repay the Endowment loan during the 2038-2057 period. z Acres of new development Source:Mum Financial In Year 31 the fee is adjusted to match the cost of repaying the Endowment loan. The fee is calculated to repay the loan based on a constant annual debt service through Year 50. FEE SCHEDULE New development will pay the LDMF over an estimated 50 years of growth representing 68,300 developed acres. Each newly developed acre has approximately the same propottionate impact by causing direct, indirect, and Cumulative impacts on species and existing or potential habitat and natural communities. New development also causes a need for and benefits from the installauon of public infrastructure,which also impacts habitat. As a result, the Financing Plan funds the mitigation of these impacts with a fee imposed per developed acre. The per acre cost from Table 5.2 provides the basis for the fee schedule. The total fee for a specific project is based on its size as measured in acres. This approach ensures a reasonable relationship between the fee for a specific development project and the impact of that project on the need for habitat protection. The fee schedule uses the per acre cost shown in Table 52 to apply to all nonresidential development projects. Fos residential development projects, the fee schedule converts the pet acre cost to a cost per dwelling unit based on the density of the project (dwc1hng units per acre). The miugation ZMtuniFinancfal 25 Local,Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments fee is based on aveta c lot size for the three residential categories 0 to 8 units cr acre 8.1 g g ( P to 14 units per acre, and 14 units and over per acre). To simplify administration of the Coachella Valley LDMF in conjunction with the Western Riverside County DMF, the same density categories and average lot size assumptions are used for this fee schedule (see Mitigation Fee Nexus Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species ldabitat Conservation Plan). Table 5.3 presents the Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule for the MSHCP in 2008 dollars.The table includes the average lot size assumpnon for each of the residential land use categories. The LDMF would only apply to new development on vacant or partially vacant land. The fee would not apply to development projects on land that is J3:c td7 developed, such as expansion and renovation projects. Table 5.3: Fee Schedule (2008 dollars) Cost Per Average Acre Lot Size Fee' Residential 0-8 Units Per Acre $ 5,730 0.22 $ 1,284 8.1- 14 Units Per Acre 5,730 0.09 533 14.1+Units Per Acre 6,730 0.04 235 Nonresidential Commercial $ 5,730 NA $ 5,730 Industrial 5,730 NA 5,730 per dwelling unit for residential and per acre for nonresidential land uses. Source:Table 5.2,MuniFinaneial Revenue requirements for the LDMF may vary substannally depending on economic factors discussed in Chaptcr 4 that affect the Financing Plan. Thcsc factors include, for example, land acgtusirion price inflation, inrerest rates, and the rate of new development. In particular, the Financing Plan shown in Appendix Table A.1 indicates a substantial change in revenue requirements between the land acquisition period (assumed to be Years 1 through 30) and the repayment of the Endowment loan (asstuned to be Years 31 through 50), A prior draft of this report (March 2004) showed a much less significant change between these two periods. The difference is primarily a function of the change in estimated land acquisition costs since that prior report was prepared. The proposed fee schedule represents a reasonable approach for allocating tzutigation costs as evenly as practicable across new developed acreage. The Financing Plan is constrained by (1) the policy objectives to fund land acquisition as soon as feasible within 30 years while allowing costs to be spread over a 50-year period, and (2) the lirrted financing options available. Furthermore, a5 indicated above regarding the difference between the prior and current drafts, there are significant uncertainties regarding Financing Plan assumptions. Depcoding on the actual value of these assumptions as the Financing Plan is implemented, ISMuniFinancial 26 Q Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments the allocation of costs to the repayment pcnod (Years 31 to 50) could vary substantially. In the future the CVCC may he able to access financing mechanisms in addition to the 1:ndovnxaent to more evenly spread costs- across all new developed acres through Year 50. Givcn these considerations, the fee schedule Presented here represents a tcasonable approach to the fair allocation of costs across all new development. MMuniFnandal 27 CHAPTER 6 : M/T/GAT/ON FEEACT FINDINGS Development impact fees are one-time fees, typically paid when a building or grading permit is issued, unposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of impact fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in Caltfornia Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of impact fee programs The Act requires local agencies to document five Endings when adopting an impact fee. The five statutory findings required for adoption of the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) to fiend habitat acquisition and related costs under the MSHCP are summarized in this chapter and supported in detail by the report that follows. All statutory references are to the Act. PURPOSE OF FEE For the first finding the agency must: Identify the purpose of the fee. (666001(a)(1)) The purpose of the LDMF is to provide a funding source from new development for the acquisition of habitat and related costs to nlitigatc development impacts and to carry forward the purposes and objectives of the MSHCP. The LDMF advances a legitimate public interest by funding habitat conservation as defined within the MSHCP. USE OF FEE REVENUES For the second finding the agency must•. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (566001(a)(2)) Ices covered by the ,requirements of the Act arc those used to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to new development. The Act defines public facilities as including "public improvements, public seivices, and community amenities." (§66000(d)). LDMF revenue will be used to provide conumu city amenities by funding acquisition of land for the conservation of habirat, and will facilitate pubhc and private project compliance with federal and state endangered species laws. LDMF revenue will provide most of the funding necessary to acquire an estimated 88,900 acres of habitat and related costs. Under the MSHCP, this habitat acquisition program provides a comprehensive approach to mitigate the loss of species and habitat caused by all XMuniFnancial 28 y Local Deuelopment Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments development in the Coachella Valley or adjacent areas. All habitat acquired with funding from the LDMF will be located within the Conservation Areas. The MSHCP represents the public document referenced in the statute above that adequately identifies the amount, type, and general location of land to be acquired with LDMF funding. The agencies responsible for implementing the LDMF (CVCC) will restrict the use of fee revenues to one-time costs associated with the habitat acquisition program. These costs include: • Land acquisition and related costs such as appraisals and title insurance; Land improvements such as fencing to protect habitat from human impacts; Administrative costs associated with management of the habitat acquisition program;and • Financing costs to enable the cost-effective purchase of large contiguous areas of habitat required by the MSHCP prior to The receipt of LDMF revenue from new development. Habitat acquisition costs to be funded by the LDMF arc described in detail in Chaplet 4 of this report, Cost of HabitatAcquwtion. BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP For the third finding the agency must: Dctcrinine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is unposed. (§66001(a)(3)) All new development within the Coachella Valley will directly or indirectly benefit £tom the LDMF by funding a comprehensive approach to habitat mitigation. The 88,900 acres to be acquired in part with fee revenues are one component of the 723,940-acre MSHCP Reserve System. The 1VISMCP Reserve System is the preftrrtd alternative representing the area necessary to protect the Covered Species and the conserved natural communities identified in the MSHCP. Fstablishinent of the MSHCP Res'crvc System will mitigate the impacts on Covered Species and conserved natural coinrnunitics of all new development and associated public infrastructure projects within the Coachella Valley for the term of the Pem-rit. Each type of project leads To the chmination of habitat. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of LDMF revenue and all types of new residential and nonresidential development throughout the Coachella Valley that will pay the fcc. The use of LDMF revenue to benefit new development is described in detail in Chapter 4 of this report, Cost of HabitatAcquisttion. BURDEN RELATIONSHIP For the fourth finding the agency must: ZMuniFnancial 29 0 Local.Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments Dctem-iinc how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on winch the fee is unposed. (566001(a)(4)) All vacant lands in the Coachella Valley, including vacant lands or partially vacant lands in urban areas, represent current or potential habitat for Covered Species and the conserved natural communities identified in the MSHCP. All new development projects on vacant or partially vacant lands regardless of location will have direct and cumulative impacts on species and existing or potential habitat and natural communities. New development also causes a need for and benefits from the installation of public infrasttucture. Without new development no further habitar conservation to mitigate for development impacts would be needed in the Plan Area- Therefore, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for habitat conservation and all types of residential and nonresidential development throughout the Coachella Valley that will pay the fcc. The need for habitat conservation was detcmuned through the MSHCP planning pxoccss using scientific standards. The MSHCP Rcservc System includes land necessary to represent a range of native ecosystem types, to maintain or restore viable populations of species, and to sustain ecological and evolutionary process necessary for maintaining the viability of habitats. Based on these standards the Reserve System only includes that amount of habitat conservation necessary to mitigate new dcvclopment impacts Habitat needs are described in more detail in Chapter 3,Need for Habitat Conservation, PROPORTIONALITY For the fifth finding the agency must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is unposed. (g66001(b)) New development will pay the LDMF over an estimated 50 years of growth representing 68,500 developed acres. Each newly developed acre has approximately the same proportionate impact by causing the direct,indirect, or cumulative, loss of an acre of habitat for Covered Species and the conserved natural communities. As a result habitat acgwsition program costs are spread as evenly as pracncablc across all developed acres. The LDMF is calculated on a per acre basis and the total fee for a specific ptojcct is based on its size as measured in acres. Thus there is a reasonable relationship between the fee for a specific development project and the direct, indirect, or cumulative impact of that project on the need for habitat protection. The fee schedule uses the per acre cost of the program to apply to nonresidential development projects. For residential development projects, the fee schedule converts the per acre cost to a cost per dwelling unit based on the density of the project (dwelling units per acre). See Chapter 2, flan Area ,Land Use, for a description of how new development is determined. See Chapter 5, Cost Allocatzon and Fee Schedule, for a presentation of the mitigation fee schedule. MMuniFnancial Local.Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments CHAPTER 7 : IMPLEMENTATION This chapter identifies responsibilities that CVCC and Local Perrnittecs should complete when implementing the LDMF program. AD❑PTION OF LID MF" BY LOCAL PERMITTEE.S Each Local Permittee must adopt an ordinance or amend an existing ordinance providing the authority to adopt the Local Development Mitigation Fec, and a fee resolution stating the amount of the fee. Tbc fee ordinance. shall become effective 60 days after adoption. However, fees shall not be collected until the MSHCP Take permit is issued or the 60-day period has been mct,whichever date 15 liter. The orchnancc should include provisions for an automatic inflation adjusunent to the fcc. CVCC could assist in this process by preparing a model ordinance and resolution for each agency to review. AD❑PTI❑N OF ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES CVCC should work with Local Pcrinitrees to develop adininistrative guidelines for the LDMF program. These guidelines would address, for example. • A definition for"vacant"land that if developed would be subject to the fee; • A method for applying the fee to development of partially vacant parcels; • Defnitions of land use categories;and • Transfer of fce tcvenues ro the Land Acquisition and Tmprovement Fund. PROGRAMMING REVENUES AND PROJECTS CVCC should program fee revenues ro its acquisition program and related expenditures. This ensures documentation of a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of mitigation fee revenues. CVCC may alter the planned acquisition or related imptovcmcnt costs from those shown in this report. However, all expenditures must continue to fund expansion of the inventory- of land conselvcd for habitat under the guidelines of die MSHCP or pay for the other costs set forth above. For a five-year planning period, the agency should allocate all existing fund balances and projected fce revenue to specific acquisitions or related improvements. The agency can hold funds in an account for longer than five years if necessary to collect sufficient funds to complete the acquisition. SMuniFinanctal 31 00 6 6 5 5 Local Development Mitigation Fee Coacbella Valley Association of Governments ANNUAL INFLATION ADJUSTMENT CVCC should identify an appropriate inflation adjustment and recalculate the fee annually for each Local Perminec to adopt. Given that the majority of costs are associated with land prices, the annual inflation adjustment could be calculated either by: • Using actual prices per acre for recently purchased habitat; or • Providing for an annual CPI adjustment based upon the Consumer Price Index for "All Urban Consumers" in the Los Angcles-Anaheim-Riverside Area, measured as of the month of December in fiscal year immediately prior to the fiscal year that the revised fee will take affect. Regardless of the calculated annual inflation adjustment, CVCC should revise the fee accordingly if it appears that total program revenues and costs will not be in balance when the Land .Acquisition and Improvement Fund is tcrizunated. The MSHCP states that the CVCC will update the Nexus Study at least every five years, and more often if deemed necessary, to ensure that the Local Development Mitigation Fee is adequate over the lift of the acquusition program to fund the necessary land acquisition and land improvement. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS CVCC should assist the Local Permittees in complying with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mttigation Fee Act. In addition to reporting on revenue and expenditure activity, the agency must identify when the other revenues in addition to the LDMF are anticipated to be available to fund the habitat acquisition program. MMuniFnanclal 3�9 APPENDIX: CASH FLOW ANALYSIS Table A.1 presents the cash flow analysis for the Land Acgiusiuon and Improvement Fund. The LDMF was calculated to resuIr in a zero ending fund balance ar the end of 50 years. MMuniFnancial A-, 0000577 Local Development Mitigation ree Coachella Valley Association of Governments Table A-1:Land Acquisition& Impr.Fund(Inflated$) FY ending June 30 2008 2009 2010 2011 2o12 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Plan Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 Beginning Fund Balance 5 - 522499,000 $30,159,000 938,142000 $36,446,000 $42,357,000 $40,5$0,000 536,703,000 534,277,000 $29,367,000 Revenues New Developed Acres 1370 1,371) 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 7,370 1,370 1370 1,370 Local Mitigation Fee perAcro' $ 5.732 $ 5919 $___ 6.113 5 6,314 $ 6,522 $ 6,737 $ 6,958 $ 7,187 5 7,49 7668 Local Development Mitigation Feo $ 7,850,000 $ 8,108,000 $ 8 375 000 $ 8,551 000 5 6 935 000 5 9 229 000 S 9 533 000 $ 9,847,000 E 10 170 000 $10,505,000 Endowment Loan Pmveed5' - - - - - - - - Regional Road PrpjectMitigation 1619000 10,000,000 10000,000 - - - - - Regional lnfrastructureMitigation 20,625000 - - - 7836000 - 9,205,000 Interest Earnings' - 1 9RQ nnn 1 79P nnn 9 1 pR no 9 nAp no -'_4'Z7 o00 2 21 B 000 1 954 no 1 BR3 on Total Revenues $30294,000 519,397,000 520,103000 310,837000 $18,859,000 $11656,000 $11,862,000 $12,065,000 $12,134,060 $21,394,000 Expenditures° Land Coat Per Acre $ 3,560 $ 3680 $ 3800 $ 3,930 $ 4,050 5 4,190 5 4,330 5 4,470 $ 4620 $ 4,770 Acres Purchased' 2,000 3.00o s,oe0 .7000 3.000 3000 3,000 3.500 3,500 3,500 Land Acquisition $ 7,120,c00 5 11,040,000 511 400,000 S11,790000 912180000 $12,570,000 $12,990,000 $15,645,000 $15,,170,000 $16,695,000 Land Improvement 182000 1BB,000 794000 200,000 207000 214000 227,000 228,000 236000 24-4000 Admmismatlpn Land Acquisition Manager(pontract) 120,000 124000 128,000 132000 136000 140,000 145000 i50,000 155,000 160,004) Administration(program-wide share) 373000 385,000 396009 411000 425,000 439000 453000 468,000 483,000 499,000 Endowment Loan Repaymen? - - - - - - _,„...__.... - - Total Expenditures $ 7 795 000 $i 1,737 C00 $12 120 009 $12,533,000 912948000 $13,363 000 $13 B09 000 E 16 491 000 $17,044,000 $17,598,000 Net Cash Flow $22,499000 $ 7,660000 $ 7 9B3 000 $(1,596,000) $ 5911000 $(1,707,000) 5(1,547,000) 5 (4426000) $ (4,910,000) 2 3,796000 Ending Fund Balance $22499,000 $30,159,000 $36,,142,000 $36,446000 $42,357000 540650,000 928,703,000 934277000 529,367000 $32163000 Note NI values:hown In cum:nt dona/5,n InGud09ln0ahon a(lbrea pzreenl annually unless ofhenvrse noted See text forexplanuon of each mupnue and cos hne xm Inflated al a 329 percent annual mte whdp land,e heing acqulmd and then bald constant at a rate sufficient to fund repayment of the Endowment Fund lean °Loan enables completion ofhobitat acguimbon-by Yensn Interest acaues on outstanding balance Pnnapal and sewed mfemst repaid dung Year 31 thmugh 50 Inrcm,-J nm l:Jn porwnf per year. Acprued Imnasf(Annual ime est Paymcno 5 - 3 - $ - A¢med Fhndpalf(Annual PdnGpal PaymanU - Tofal Accrued Lean/(Annual Loan Payment) $ - 5 - 5 - 5 - 3 S $ 9 - $ 'Based on a 5 73 percenf nitones vale applied tp the begmnmg fund'chins All expendimms except Endowment Loan Repayment mnarc4 a1 a 3 29 parent annual rate °Land abe uieshon Is pmgmmmed to be mmplprcd by Year 30 Semees Coachella valley Mountains Consonanw coached.,vapn Association or Governments Munipinanosl. C� Q G G GrC MIMuniFinancial A-2 Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments Table A-1:Land Acquisition& Impr.Fund(Inflated$) FY Ending June 70 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2025 2027 Plan Year 11 72 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 Beginning Fund Balance $$3,163,000 $30192,000 $26898,000 923,240000 $19,211,000 925,604,000 $21,$U,000 216691000 $11,547,O0o $ 9,109,000 Revenues New Developed Acres 1370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 Local Mitigation Fee per Acre' $ 792n S 8,181 S a,45n $ 8728 $ 9,015 R 9.312 $ 9.61a S 9.,e34 $ 10,261 $ 10,N Local Development Mitigation Fee $10851,000 $11,206000 211576000 $11,9$7000 S12,351,000 $12,757,000 S13,177,000 $13610,000 514,058,000 S14521000 Endowment Loan Proceeds' - - - - - - - Regional Road Project Mitigation - - - - - - - Rogional lnfmsrrYptVre Mltlgatlon - - 10 833 000 - - - - Interest Eamings3 - 1,9A0f000 1 72O nnn Ti,541LO 1 712 on n �1n,�Opp 1 457 nnn 1 2s4p00 ash no Tin nnn ,522-MM Total Revanues S72,751000 S 12,935,000 913 117 000 $13,269 000 $24 285 000 $14,224,000 S 14,401,000 $14 566,600 S14,720000 2 75 043 000 Expenditures° Land Cost Per Acre $ 4930 $ 5090 $ 5,250 $ 5430 $ 5,610 5 5,790 $ 5,Sao S 6,180 $ 6,380 $ 5,$90 Acres Purcnas8d' 3000 3,000 3000 3000 3.000 3,000 3.o00 3000 2,50p _ 2500 Land Acquisition 514,790,000 $15,270,000 S15780000 $16,290,000 S16830000 $17,370,000 S17,940,000 $18540,000 515,950,000 276.475,000 Land Improvement 252000 2600oo 259.000 278000 267,000 296000 306,000 316,000 328,,000 .737,000 Administration Land Acquisition Manager(contract) 165,000 170,000 776,000 182,000 188000 194,000 200,000 207,000 214,000 221,000 Administration(pmgram-wide share) 515,000 532,0ao 550,000 568,,000 587000 606,00o 626,000 647000 66e,00o 690000 Endowment Loan Repayment'Total Expenditures S15,722,000 $16,232,o0p 516,775,000 $17,318,000 $17692,000 S18466,000 $19072000 919,710000 $17,1$6000 517,723,000 Net Cash Flow S(2,971,000) S (3,294,000) $(3,5$6,000) 2 (4029000) $ 6,393000 5(4,242,000) $(4,971,000) $(5144000) $(2,438,000) $(2,560,000) Ending Fund Balance, $30,192000 $26896,000 523,240,000 919,211000 $25,604,000 321262000 $16,691,000 571,547000 $ 9,169,000 5 6429,000 A=vd lntorestr(Annoal Interest Payment) 5 - 3 - 3 - 5 - 3 - 5 - 3 - 5 - 3 A=Mod Pnnd[ fl(Annwl Pnndpal PaymonU - - --- -- -- Total Aeemed Loun/(Annuol Loan Payment) S - 5 S - 5 - S - % - S - $ � I Q c: MMuniFinancial A•3 I Local Development Mitigation Fee Coacbella Valley Association of Governments Table A-1:Land Acquisition& Impr.Fund(Inflated$) FY Ending June 30 2029 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2036 2036 2037 Plan Year 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Beginning Fund Balance $ 6,429,000 $ 3,481,000 S 266000 $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ - S - Revenues Now Developed Acres 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1370 1370 1,370 1,371) 1,370 1,370 Local Mitigation Fee per Acre $ 1n.948 S 11.3ofj S 11.680 $ 12064 $ 12,461 $ i2871 S 13,294 $ 73732 $ 14.1gg $ 14.650 Local Development Mitigation Fee $14,90,000 515492000 $16001000 $ 16,526,000 $17072„000 S17633,000 $16213000 $18,813,000 319,422,000 $20,071,000 Endowment Loan Proceeds - - 6,873000 7,392000 7645,000 7,8$3,000 8,123,000 6,394,000 8,667,000 12,593,000 Regional Road Pmject Mitigation - - - - - - - - Regional Infrastructure Mitigation - - - - - - - - - - InterestEarnings' 46P(2nn _19g_WO IEDon Tctal Revenues S15366,000 515,691,000 $22,669000 $ 23,920,000 $24,717,000 525,516000 $26,345,000 S27,207,000 528099,000 $32,564,000 Expenditures Land Cost Per Acre $ 6810 $ 7030 $ 7,269 S 7,500 $ 7750 $ 8,000 $ 81260 S 8,530 $ 8,810 $ 91100 Acres Purchasoda 2 500 2.50 3.000 300 3.000 3,000 3 020 3.000 3,000 3.40n Land Acqutsition $17,02$,000 S17,575,001) 521,780000 $ 22500000 $23250000 S24,000,000 $24780000 $29,590,000 526,430,000 S30,940,000 ' Landlmprovement 348,000 359000 371,000 353,000 396,o00 409000 422.000 436,000 450,000 465,000 Administration Land Acquisition Manager(contract) 226,000 236,000 244000 252000 259000 269,000 278,000 2417,000 298,,000 300000 Administration(Program-wide Share) 713,000 736000 760,000 78$,000 811,000 838000 $66.000 894,000 922,000 953,000 Endowment Loan Repaymen" - -- Total Expenditures 518,314,000 518906,000 $23 155 000 $ 23,920000 S24717,000 525,516,000 $25,346000 S27207GOO 528,099,000 $38,664,000' Net Cash Flow $(2,948000) $(3,21$,000) S (266,000) $ - $ - $ - S $ - $ - S - Ending Fund Balance $ 3461,000 $ 266,000 IT - S $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S Aonoon lntamst/(Annual lntamst Payment) $ - S - 5 41200o $ 681000 3 1367000 5 1970000 5 2336000 $ 2922000 S 1173000 S 4262006 A=00 P4nop31/(Annuoi P4napal Payment) - - a ,7'+ 00 14 V4 nno mlmnnnn �11y000 17 oak ODD �e,,� �4.67000 ---SZSaO400 Yotal Aoxied Loan/(Annual Loan Payment) F $ - 5 73a5 000 5 15,746000 5 23277000 $ 31,563000 S 40274,000 5 49,242000 $ SE462000 3 71,043000 Q 1 b b C7 vJ HMuniFinandal - l A-a Local.Development Mitigation,Fee Coachella Valley Association of Crov=ments Table A-1:Land Acquisition& Impr.Fund(Inflated$) FY Ending June 30 2038 2035 2040 2041 2042 2043 20" 2045 2046 2047 Plan Year 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 do Beginning Fund Balance o= - $ - $ - $ - $ - 8 - $ $ - $ - $ - Q Revenues Now Developed Acres 1,370 1,370 1,370 1370 1370 1,370 1,370 1,371) 1,370 1,370 Local Mitigation Fee per Acre 1 0 4 572 S d 572 4,572 S 4,572 $ q,5j2 $ 4,5 S d 4Z7 S 4,572 $ 4 572 $ 4. ,7? Local Development Mitigation Fee ,000 S 6,264000 S 6,264000 $ 6264000 S 6264,000 S 6,264,000 S 6,264,000 S 8,,254,000 S 6,264,000 $ 6264,000 Endowment Loan PrOceedS� - - - - - - -Regional Road Project MitigationRegional Infrastructure Mitigation - - - - - - - Intere3tEamingsnTotal Revenues �4,000 S 6264,000 $ 6,254,000 $ 6264000 $ 6,254,000 S 6264000 $ 6,264,000 S 6264000 S 6264,000 $ 6,264,000 Expentldures' Land Cost Per Acre Acres Purchased' Land Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - S - § $ - a - $ Land Improvement - AdmrmStiation Land Acquisition Manager(centraco Administration(program-wide share) - - - - - - - Endowment Loan Repayment' 9 4,gnp 6 2R4 On n 2Fe(in pnn 6 2,34 On 9 OA4 0p1) —6,25z nnn Total Fxpendlfurns 4,000 S 6264000 $ 6,264000 S 6,264,000 $ 6,26d,000 S 6264000 $ 6,284,000 $ 6,264,000 S 6264,000 $ 6264,000 Not Cash Flow $ - § . $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - S - d Ending Fund Balance _2 Il � $ - S - $ - S - $ S - S - $ - S - AWM@dlnter dl(Annool)ntem&P,-rymcno 5 (4311000) S (4194 Coal 5 (4070000) S (3e3500n) 3 (3796000) S (3 656 600) 3 (3,494,000) 5 (3327000) $ (2151000) S (2 964 000) Avamed PeAdi,11(Annua)Pdndpal Paymenn (1 ec2 nnn) _-12-07 = (2 10a,06) . (2 261100) n•fee n001 --(2.c15.00W ) —M on n06) _(y�13me01 ry inn nnn) Total Acc =loan/(Annual Loan Payment) 3 f6Ra,000) 5 (6t264000) $ (6,764000) 5 (6264000) S (6264060) 5 (6264000) S (6,264000) $ (6 fsa 000) 5 (6254000) S (6264000) d Q r Mu ManiFinancial A-5 Local Development Mitigation Fee Coachella Valley Association of Governments Table A-1: Land Acquisition& Impr,Fund(Inflated$) FY Ending Juno 30 2040 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 Plan Year 47 42 43 44 45 45 d7 46 49 50 Beginning Fund Balance S - a - $ - $ - $ $ - 5 - $ - $ - a - Revenues New Developed Acres 1370 1370 1370 1,370 1370 1370 1,370 1370 1,370 1,370 Local Mitigation Fee perACro' 4.572 $__4,572 $ 4.572 a 4.572 S 4.572 S d,572 $ 4.572 .$ 4.579 $ 457? 4.572 Local Development Mitigation Fee $ 6,264000 $ 6,264,000 $ 6,264,000 $ 6254000 $ 5264000 S 6264000 S 6,264,000 S 6264000 $ 6,264,000 $ 6264,000 Endowment loan Proceeds' - - - - - - - Regional Read Project Mitigation - - - - Regional infrastructure Mitigation - - - - - Interest Earnings' - - - - - - - - Total Revenues $ 8,,254,000 $ 6,254,000 5 6,264000 S 6,264,000 S 6,264,000 S 6.264,000 $ 6,264,000 $ 6264000 $ 6,264,000 $ 6,264,000 Expenditures' Land Cost Per Acre Afros Purrhaseda Land Acquisition $ - $ $ - S - a - $ - $ - S Land Improvement - - - - - - - - - Administration Land Acquisition Manager(contract) Administration(program-wide share) - - - - - - - Endowment Loan Repayment .—.6,254,00 5 2a4 nnn n 254 nnn r,2R4 nnn r 2re on A 164 nnn --f�,PA4,O00 99 4,00 —6,269_000 ,5y69-atu Total Expenditures $ 6,264,000 $ 6,264,000 $ 6,264,000 $ 6264,000 S 5264,000 S 6,264,000 $ 6,264,000 S 6264000 $ 6,264,000 $ 6,264,000 Net Cash Flow $ - S - $ - $ - $ $ _ S _ 5 - S - S - Ending Fund Balance a - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - a - S - S - a - Accamd lntemsi(Annum mtemy Paymenp S R,765000) S (2,557000) S a334000) S (2098000) $ (e 84H 000) $ p5a3000) S (1303000) S (1 500 1300) 5 (569000) S (355000) Awmed Pnndpvl/(Annual Pdnopal Paymon0 cR 4oR nnm re 7n7 nnm porn nnm 1�A00) ---�4,4]anop) �(4L6110pJ 14 cRi opal (s 7sn nnm (ss7s nnm rs an4 nnn) Total Accmod Loan/(Annual Lean PaymenQ $ (6,264000) S (6,,264,000) $ (63e4000) 1 (6264000) S (6260000) S (6,264,000) 5 (6,264,000) 5 16,264,000) $ (6264000) $ is 264600) tm t J 095"MuniFnancial A-6 Local Development Mitigation Fee Coacbella Valley Association of Governments Table A-1: Land Acquisition &Impr. Fund (Inflated$) FY Ending June 30 200E-2057 Plan Yea Total Beginning Fund Balance S RevenuesL New Developed Acres 53,500 Local Midgaoon Fee per Acre' NA Local Development Mitigation Fee S 516 802 000 Endowment Loan ProceedS2 57,580,000 Regional Road Project Mtigation 21,815 000 Regional Infrastructure Mitigation 48,500,000 Interest cemingsa W3 ....30,929,000 Total Revenues $685.630 000 Expenditures' Land CoSf Per Aare NA Acres Purchased' © 88,900 Land Acquisition5526,705,000 Land Improvement 9 f)80,000 Administration =� Land Acquisition Manager(contract) 5,963,000 Administration(program-wide share) pp pp 16,602,000 Endowment Loan Repayment" 195 9Ro onn Total Expenditures 5685,630,000 Net Cash Flow $ - Ending Fund Balance $ - Total Repayment Accmetl ln[erea[/(Annuel ln(eresf PaymenQ S (53435000) Accrued Principal/(Annual PAnnpal PaymenQ (7+aea nnm Tolal Accrued Loan/(Annual Loan Payment) S (125 200 000) q d O O C: :.a �jlVluniFnanCial A-7 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION 0 CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT James Thompson, City Clerk City Council Meeting Date: January 9, 2008 Subject: CVAG Multi Species — Development of Local Development Mitigation Fees AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, Kathie Hart, CMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to each and every person on the attached list on or before December 21, 2007, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (5 notices) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Kathie Hart, CMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Desert Sun on December 26, 2007, and January 2, 2008, 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I 9 Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING 1, Kathie Hart, CMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board and in the Office of the City Clerk on or before December 21, 2007. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. p Mo allr_��I IM�� I~ Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk ®� 4, PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for Counry Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF PALM SPRINGS STATE C NIA CASE 5.1187—AN ORDINANCE AND ASSOCIATED County off Riversideerside FEE RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE-COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE_SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION-PyAN I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of years,and not a party to or interested in the Palm Springs,California,will hold a public hearing at its meeting above­entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a of January 9, 2008. The City Council meeting begins at 6:oo printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING p-m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz � COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, Canyon Way, Palm Springs. printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, The purpose of the hearing is to establish an ordinance and County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been associated fee resolution for a local development mitigation fee adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the for funding the preservation of natural ecosystems in accor- Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of dance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat California under the date of March 24,1988.Case Conservation Plan. Number 191236;that the notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project is than non pariel,has been published in each regular categorically exempt pursuant to the terms of the California and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) under Section 15313. supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: Acquisition of Lands for Wildlife Conservation Purposes, December 261",2007 January 2"",2008 'REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this matter are available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please Contact the Office of All in the year 2007 and 2008 -� the City Clerk at(760)323-8204 If you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the - -COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response-to this notice foregoing is true and correct, may be_made verbally at the public hearing and/or in writing _ before the hearing.Written comments may be made to the City - Dated at Paim-Springs,California this_-2"�,—day J Council by fatter(mail or hand delivery)to: of---- Janua ----- ,2008 James Thompson,City Clerk 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 - 5 If any individual or group challenges the action in court,issues S, nature raised may he limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, L7 r_1 or prior to the meeting. e r` "CCc An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested per. 0 sons to be heard. questions regarding this case may be direct- ed to Craig A.Ewing,Director,Planning Services Department at t ry (760)323.6245, Si neceslta ayuda con esta carts,porfavor llama a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger(760)323-6364. /S/Kathie Hart,CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk PROOF OF PUBLICATION Tits is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF PALM SPRINGS STATE oIF cALrFoaNLa County of Riverside CASE 5.1187-AN ORDINANCE AND ASSOCIATED FEE RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH A LOCAL DEVELOP 0T MITIGATION FEE FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION CF ii TURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COACHELI_A VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSER4ATI0}:PLAN I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of - - -- theCoantyaforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen -NOTICE ISHEAEBY.GIVENdfat the CnyGodncGaftheCi 01 Palm 89r6hs,Callomlia, —_ years,and not a party to or interested in the will hold a public hearing at d5 meeting of January 9,2008. TFe Cit Council meeting above-entitled matter.I am'he principal cleric of a begins at6,00p.m.in the Council Chamber atOV Hall,3200EastTal1quitCargWay, printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISH ING Palm Springs. COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in The city of Palm Springs,County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been The purpose of the hearing is to establish an ordinance and associated fee resolution for adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the a local development mitigation fee for funding the preservation of natural ecosystems in Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of accordance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. California under the dace of March 24,1988.Case Number 191236;that the notice,of which the ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed prolsa is categoncally,exempt annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)under Ssciion than non pariel,has been published in each regular 15313,Acquisrhon of Lands for Wildlife Coni Purposes and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION:The staff repot and other supporrng docu- December 26`",2007 ments regarding this matter are available for public revicvv at Cily Hall lcMeen the hours ....------- --- — --_-------- of 8:00 a m and 5 W p m.Monday through Friday.Please contact tie&rice of the City Clerk at(60)323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these -- — — — — documents All in the year 2007 COMMENTON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made�ierballyar I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the the public hearing andfor in wring belore the hearing. Written comments may be made foregoing is true and correct. to the City Council by later(mail or hand delivery)to Dated at Palm Springs,California this----270',--day — —�- James Thompson,CityCleik: of----- December---------------------------2007 3208EasiTahgdi i Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 i _ s If any individual or group challenges the aclion in court,issues rais6d may be limited to v ^� only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice of in written cori guature v spondence at,or prior to the meeting. co �n An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. L'i"' � ;W questions regarding this case may be directed to Craig A Ewing, Dirsdor, Planning a o Services Department at 171323-6245 7 CS] A U y � Si necesita ayuda con esta carte,podavor home a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede p t� w f j halter con Nadine Fri176Q 323-8364 r a 1 Kathie Hart,CMC Chief Deputy Gh)Clerk CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE 5.1187 —AN ORDINANCE AND ASSOCIATED FEE RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of January 9, 2008. The City Council meeting begins at 6.00 p.m, in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to establish an ordinance and associated fee resolution for a local development mitigation fee for funding the preservation of natural ecosystems in accordance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15313, Acquisition of Lands for Wildlife Conservation Purposes. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this matter are available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323- 8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION. Response to this, notice may be made verbally at the public hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter (mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 mast Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the meeting. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Craig A. Ewing, Director, Planning Services Department at (760) 323-8245, Si necesita ayuda con esta carts, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger (760) 323-8364. Kathie Hart, CIVIC Chief Deputy City Clerk NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS Case 5.1187 CVAG Multiple Species MR PETE MORUZZI Fees MODCOM AND PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE PHN for CC Meeting 01.09.08 HISTORIC SITE REP I I 1 PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE 5,1187 VERIFICATION NOTICE 1 I I ATTN SECRETARY MRS-JOANNE BRUGGEMANS PO BOX 2743 506 W. SANTA CATALINA ROAD PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS INDIANS I I 1 1 1 1 777 E.TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY,#301 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 Mr. Fred Bell, Executive Director SPONSORS A A A Building Industry Association 77-570 Springfield Lane, Suite E Palm Desert, CA 92211 a, ry(Cm 1 11 / It r