DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION PLAN FORMAT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 1

Section 2 - OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND OF THE PLAN............................................................... 6

(a) OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................................... 6

(b) REQUIREMENTS OF MEASURE I 2010-2040............................................................................... 6

(d) THE PLAN AND LOCAL AREA TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES PLANS.................................... 8

(e) REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS NOT COVERED BY THE PLAN....................... 8

(f) CONFORMANCE TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE......................................................... 8

Section 3 - PLAN SUBAREAS AND BOUNDARIES.............................................................................. 10

(a) PLAN SUBAREAS......................................................................................................................... 10

Section 4 - GROWTH FORECASTS...................................................................................................... 11

(a) CONSISTENCY WITH SANBAG NEXUS STUDY GROWTH FORECAST DATA....................... 11

(b) GROWTH FORECAST METHODOLOGY................................................................................... 11

(d) GROWTH RATIO OF NEW DEVELOPMENT FOR MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADS...................... 14

(e) RATIO OF GROWTH OF FREEWAY INTERCHANGES AND GRADE SEPARATIONS............ 15

(f) REVIEW AND UPDATES OF GROWTH FORECAST DATA...................................................... 15

Section 5 - REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES PROJECTS............................................. 16

(a) TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES PROJECT SELECTION.......................................................... 16

(1) MAJOR ARTERIAL ROAD PROJECTS................................................................................. 16

(2) TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECTS............................................................................................... 16

(3) FREEWAY INTERCHANGE PROJECTS.............................................................................. 17

(4) RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS................................................................... 17

(b) PROJECT LISTS BY PLAN SUBAREA........................................................................................ 17

(c) PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECT LISTS....................................................................................... 17

(d) INCLUSION IN GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT........................................................ 17

Section 6 - PROJECT COST ESTIMATES........................................................................................... 18

(a) TYPES OF COSTS INCLUDED IN PROJECT COST ESTIMATES............................................ 18

(b) PROJECT CATEGORIES............................................................................................................. 18

(c) METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................................... 18

(1) MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADWAY PROJECTS......................................................................... 18

(2) FREEWAY INTERCHANGE AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS................................ 19

(3) TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION PROJECTS................................................................................. 20

(d) ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD CALCULATION AND APPLICATION......................................... 20

Section 7 - FEE CALCULATIONS.......................................................................................................... 22

(a) PURPOSE OF THE FEE.............................................................................................................. 22

(b) METHODOLOGY OF FEE CALCULATIONS............................................................................... 22

(1) CALCULATE TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATES BY SUBAREA................................... 22

(2) CALCULATE THE FAIR-SHARE CONTRIBUTION OF TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT......................................................................... 23

(3) CALCULATE PLAN SUBAREA GROWTH WITH CONVERSION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL

GROWTH FROM NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO SQUARE FOOTAGE........................... 25

(4) CALCULATE THE TOTAL VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION IN PASSENGER CAR

EQUIVALENTS (PCEs) TRIP ENDS FOR EACH TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.................... 26

(5) CALCULATE TOTAL PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PCEs) VEHICLE MILE

TRAVELED FOR EACH TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT............................................................ 27

(6) CALCULATE A “FEE-PER-TRIP”........................................................................................... 28

(7) CALCULATE SUBAREA FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................................................... 29

(8) VERIFY FEE LEVELS BY CALCULATING TOTAL REVENUE GENERATION..................... 30

(9) VERIFY PLAN GENERATES DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT......................... 31

Section 8 - NEXUS ANALYSIS............................................................................................................... 32

(a) REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE....................................................... 32

(b) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEE’S USE AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT................................ 32

(d) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEE AND COST OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................................ 32

Section 9 – PAYMENT OF PLAN FEES................................................................................................. 34

(a) FEE PAYMENTS........................................................................................................................... 34

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE OF PLAN FEES............................................................................................. 34

(d) PROTESTING FEE AMOUNTS IN A PLAN SUBAREA................................................................ 35

(e) REFUND OF FEES....................................................................................................................... 36

(f) DEVELOPER FEE CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS.................................... 36

(g) EXCLUSION FROM FEE PAYMENT............................................................................................ 38

Section 10 - PLAN ADMINISTRATION.................................................................................................. 40

(a) PLAN ACCOUNTING FUNDS....................................................................................................... 40

(1) DISTRIBUTION OF FEES...................................................................................................... 40

(2) INTEREST............................................................................................................................... 41

(b) PLAN REPORTS........................................................................................................................... 41

(1) SANBAG ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION PROGRAM REPORT............................. 41

(2) ANNUAL PLAN REPORTS..................................................................................................... 42

(3) FIVE YEAR REPORTS........................................................................................................... 42

(c) REFUND OF SURPLUS FUNDS.................................................................................................. 43

(d) UPDATES TO THE PLAN............................................................................................................. 43

(1) REGULAR UPDATES............................................................................................................. 43

(2) ANNEXATIONS....................................................................................................................... 43

(e) COMBINED DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION PROGRAMS WITH CITIES..................................... 43

Appendix 1 – PLAN Project List and Costs............................................................................................ 1

Additional Appendices on file at San Bernardino County Department of Public Works – Transportation, Transportation Program Management Division:

Appendix 2 - SANBAG Development Mitigation Nexus Study

Appendix 3 - Department of Public Works Project Cost Estimate Study

Section 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND OF THE PLAN – Section 2

Each local jurisdiction, including the County of San Bernardino, is required to adopt a regional transportation development mitigation program prior to November 2006. Failure to adopt a program that is compliant with the CMP may result in significant loss to the County of State Gas Tax, regional Measure I, and federal/state grant funding necessary for the ongoing maintenance of and improvements to the County Maintained Road System (CMRS).

The SANBAG Development Mitigation Nexus Study (SANBAG Nexus Study) determines the fair-share contributions from new development for each local jurisdiction. The total development fair-share of cost, or “target share amount” for which the County is responsible to generate through THE PLAN is $197 million, which includes the required SANBAG required 12.9% cost escalation factor for FY 2004/2005. This total is distributed among the PLAN SUBAREAS based upon project lists and growth forecasts.

THE PLAN is intended to generate only the development fair-share contribution of project costs as required by the CMP and is not intended to provide 100% funding for or construct all projects listed in THE PLAN. Additional regional Measure I and federal/state funds administered by SANBAG are required for full funding of projects listed in THE PLAN.

PLAN BOUNDARIES – Section 3

1. Adelanto Sphere of Influence

2. Apple Valley Sphere of Influence

3. Chino Sphere of Influence

4. Colton Sphere of Influence

5. Devore/Glen Helen Unincorporated Areas

6. Fontana Sphere of Influence

7. Hesperia Sphere of Influence

8. Loma Linda Sphere of Influence

9. Montclair Sphere of Influence

10. Redlands “Donut Hole” Unincorporated Area

11. Redlands Sphere of Influence

12. Rialto Sphere of Influence

13. San Bernardino Sphere of Influence

14. Upland Sphere of Influence

15. Victorville Sphere of Influence

16. Yucaipa Sphere of Influence

GROWTH FORECASTS – Section 4

Growth forecast data for THE PLAN is based upon the growth forecast data contained in the SANBAG Nexus Study. THE PLAN utilizes the same forecast growth data in order to remain consistent with the SANBAG Nexus Study and generate the required “target share amounts”. For residential and non-residential development, growth forecast data is projected separately in each PLAN SUBAREA to be used in calculating development impact fees. Regular review of growth forecast data is essential to the success of THE PLAN in generating a fair-share contribution of development toward the SANBAG Nexus Study “target share amount”. County Public Works will coordinate with the County Planning Department in periodic reviews and adjustment, as necessary, to the growth forecast data.

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY PROJECTS – Section 5

A list of Major Arterial Road projects was developed for each PLAN SUBAREA consisting of all County maintained roads with an existing Master Plan classification of Secondary or greater, as designated in the 1989 General Plan Circulation Element. Although not a requirement of the CMP or the SANBAG Nexus Study, County Public Works also developed a list of traffic signal projects for inclusion in THE PLAN. Traffic Signal projects were identified for construction wherever two of THE PLAN’S major arterial road projects intersect and a signal does not exist currently. The list of freeway interchange projects was compiled by SANBAG as part of its Nexus Study. The list was originally based upon the interchanges submitted by SANBAG and local jurisdictions for the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and then modified for the Nexus Study after local jurisdiction input. SANBAG also compiled a list of Railroad Grade Separation projects for inclusion in its Nexus Study. Only freeway interchange and grade separation projects on the SANBAG Nexus Study Network were included in THE PLAN.

PROJECT COST ESTIMATES – Section 6

Within each PLAN SUBAREA, specific projects have been identified as regional transportation facilities. The project costs associated with each project identified in THE PLAN are for additional traveled roadway only and include engineering, environmental, right-of-way, construction, and administrative overhead costs. Environmental impact mitigation such as purchase of habitat for endangered species is not included. Where another local agency shares jurisdiction with the County for a project, costs are prorated between the jurisdictions based upon actual road miles within each jurisdiction, and only the County’s share of the project cost is identified in THE PLAN.

County Public Works’ staff conducted a Project Cost Estimate Study to determine an average lane-mile cost for major arterial road improvement projects included in THE PLAN (Appendix 3). For traffic signal installation projects, costs were calculated based upon historical contracts and unit prices and fiscal year 2005/2006 engineer’s estimates for signal installation projects currently in progress but not yet awarded for construction. THE PLAN utilized SANBAG Nexus Study costs for Freeway Interchanges and Railroad Grade Separation projects.

An administrative overhead cost was calculated for major arterial and traffic signal projects consistent with the formula used for the Measure I administrative overhead rate. Currently, all indirect costs for labor, services, supplies, and overhead are paid initially out of the County Road Fund. THE PLAN will reimburse the County Road Fund for THE PLAN’S share of those indirect costs. This is consistent with existing Department policy concerning reimbursement of the County Road Fund from Measure I revenues through direct labor costs attributable to Measure I projects.

FEE CALCULATIONS – Section 7

The purpose of the fees is to fund the fair-share development contribution of improvement costs for specific transportation facilities as identified in Appendix 1 of THE PLAN. Fees are intended to generate only the development fair-share contribution of project costs as required by the CMP and are not intended to provide 100% funding for or construct all projects listed in THE PLAN. Additional regional Measure I and federal/state funds administered by SANBAG are required for full funding of projects listed in THE PLAN. Fees vary between PLAN SUBAREAS due to the unique project lists and growth projections for those unincorporated areas. In all PLAN SUBAREAS, a residential fee is required for each dwelling unit. Non-residential fees are based upon the predominate use of the building or structure and calculated on the total square footage of the building or structure. To calculate fees, the fair share development contribution of total project costs in a PLAN SUBAREA is divided by the projected vehicular trip generation attributable to new development in the PLAN SUBAREA. The fair-share fees attributable to new development for PLAN SUBAREA are summarized in the following table:

JURISDICTION	Fee for Single Family Dwelling Unit	Fee for Multi Family Dwelling Unit	Fee for Retail per square foot	Fee for Office per square foot	Fee for Industrial per square foot	Fee for High Cube Ind. per square foot
Adelanto Sphere	$0	$0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Apple Valley Sphere	$6,422	$4,449	$7.79	$8.76	$5.09	$1.48
Chino Sphere	$10,364	$7,180	$23.69	$14.30	$8.22	$2.39
Colton Sphere	$4,401	$3,049	$0.79	$5.79	$3.49	$1.01
Devore/Glen Helen	$5,565	$3,855	$3.56	$7.38	$4.41	$1.28
Fontana Sphere	$6,392	$4,428	$5.77	$6.78	$5.07	$1.47
Hesperia Sphere	$8,186	$5,671	$1.79	$11.04	$6.49	$1.89
Loma Linda Sphere	$4,120	$2,854	$0.00	$5.69	$3.27	$0.95
Montclair Sphere	$7,160	$4,961	$16.37	$9.88	$5.68	$1.65
Rancho Cuc. Sphere	$0	$0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Redlands Sphere	$7,216	$4,999	$6.63	$9.88	$5.72	$1.66
Redlands Donut Hole	$2,073	$1,436	$4.74	$2.86	$1.64	$0.48
Rialto Sphere	$6,223	$4,311	$14.22	$8.59	$4.93	$1.43
San Bernardino Sphere	$2,217	$1,536	$5.07	$3.06	$1.76	$0.51
Upland Sphere	$8,010	$5,549	$1.82	$11.05	$6.35	$1.85
Victorville Sphere	$3,886	$2,692	$1.27	$5.12	$3.08	$0.90
Yucaipa Sphere	$3,735	$2,588	$3.68	$5.13	$2.96	$0.86
Average Plan Fee	$5,057	$3,503	$5.72	$6.78	$4.01	$1.17

NEXUS ANALYSIS – Section 8

The unincorporated communities in the urbanized areas of the San Bernardino Valley and the Victor Valley are developing rapidly. The existing County Maintained Road System (CMRS) is marginally able to handle the existing traffic, and future development within these areas will result in traffic volumes exceeding the capacity of the existing regional transportation facilities. If the capacity of the regional transportation facilities is not increased, continuing development will result in substantial traffic congestion and unacceptable levels of service. It can no longer be expected that the regional transportation facilities that will be needed for the urbanized, unincorporated areas of the San Bernardino Valley and Victor Valley can be funded fully from the traditional revenue sources that constructed the existing highway system and road network, such as the County’s share of State Highway Excise Tax (Gas Tax) and local Measure I. Supplemental funding sources must be developed if important components of the County’s transportation road system are to be constructed.

The transportation development mitigation fees generated by THE PLAN represent a potential source of supplemental funds which will be utilized to construct projects that will mitigate the impacts of development. Future development within the described benefit area will benefit from constructing the proposed transportation facilities plan and should pay for them in proportion to projected traffic demand attributed to each.

Revenues generated by THE PLAN are not intended to fund fully the cost of THE PLAN’S transportation facilities projects. Fees levels have been developed to provide for only that portion of project costs attributable directly to new development. Construction of the projects identified in THE PLAN are dependent upon receipt of additional regional Measure I funds and federal/state grant funds that are administered by SANBAG.

PAYMENT OF PLAN FEES – Section 9

Residential and non-residential fee categories will be determined based upon the Land Use Classification as defined in the County Code, Title 8: Development Code, Division 4: Land Uses, Chapter 2: Land Use Classifications. Fees do not cover the immediate local impact of a development on the County road system. A focused traffic study will still be required of a developer, and additional mitigation of immediate local impacts on the County road system may be required. Fees are effective sixty (60) days following the adoption of the PLAN Ordinance.

Upon approval of the Director of Public Works, the County may enter into a written Fee Credit agreement whereby the developer may advance money, or considerations may be accepted in-lieu of part or all of the payment of fees, for the design, land acquisition, construction, financing, or purchase of a Plan transportation facility. Improvements to a regional transportation facility by a developer must be a project identified specifically in the Project List of a PLAN SUBAREA. Upon approval of the Director of Public Works, the County may enter into a developer reimbursement agreement for the balance of project costs only after one-hundred percent (100%) of required fees have been credited to a developer.

Because THE PLAN fees are calculated based upon total estimated project costs identified in THE PLAN’S Project List, construction of transportation facilities not identified in THE PLAN are ineligible for fee credit or reimbursement from THE PLAN funds. Other provisions of the County General Plan may apply to reimbursement for construction of transportation projects not on the Plan’s Project List.

For Land Use Categories in a PLAN SUBAREA for which a fee is not established by the PLAN, developer contributions toward mitigation of impacts to regional transportation facilities shall follow the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Analysis process (CMP TIA) to determine a developer mitigation amount.

PLAN ADMINISTRATION – Section 10

All fees collected under THE PLAN will be deposited into separate accounts to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the County. Fees will be deposited into funds based upon the PLAN SUBAREA in which the development occurs and prorated among four project category funds within those subareas (Major Arterial, Traffic Signal, Freeway Interchange, and Railroad Grade Separation) based upon total project category project costs. Funds will be expended solely for the purpose for which the fees are collected and specifically for the construction of the transportation facilities projects listed in the PLAN SUBAREAS. Fees will not be used to construct any other transportation facility not expressly identified in THE PLAN.

As set forth in Appendix J.8 of the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan, the County Department of Public Works – Transportation shall submit an annual development mitigation report to SANBAG. The report shall be provided to SANBAG within ninety (90) days of the end of the fiscal year. Appendix J of the CMP, Section J.3 requires that local jurisdictions must provide for an annual review and adjustment to project cost estimates. Although not required by the CMP, the County’s annual review of THE PLAN will also include review of growth forecast data and possible addition or removal of projects. If necessary, fees will be recalculated accordingly.

Section 2 - OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND OF THE PLAN

(a) OVERVIEW

The Regional Transportation Development Mitigation Plan of the County of San Bernardino (hereafter “THE PLAN”) has been developed to satisfy the provisions of the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Pursuant to Measure I 2010-2040, the County CMP was updated and adopted by the County Congestion Management Agency, San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), in November 2, 2005. Each local jurisdiction, including the County of San Bernardino, is required to adopt a regional transportation development mitigation program by November 2006. Failure to adopt a program that is compliant with the CMP will result in significant loss to the County of State Gas Tax, regional Measure I, and federal/state grant funding necessary for the ongoing maintenance of and improvements to the County Maintained Road System (CMRS).

(b) REQUIREMENTS OF MEASURE I 2010-2040

In November 2004, San Bernardino County voters approved Measure I 2010-2040, a half-cent transaction and use tax dedicated to countywide transportation improvements. Section VIII of the Measure I Ordinance states, “No revenue generated from the tax shall be used to replace the fair share contributions required from new development.” To accomplish this, the Ordinance requires that “each jurisdiction identified in the Development Mitigation Program must adopt a development financing mechanism within 24 months of the voter approval of Measure I” to ensure that new development contributes its fair share to the construction of regional transportation infrastructure. Included in these transportation facilities are freeway interchanges, major arterial roads, and railroad grade separations.

Further, the Measure I Ordinance requires that the cities and the unincorporated sphere of influence areas in the San Bernardino Valley and Victor Valley must adopt a mechanism to “require all future development to pay its fair share for needed transportation facilities as a result of new development pursuant to California Government Code 66000 et seq. and as determined by the Congestion Management Agency,” and to “comply with the Land Use/Transportation Analysis and Deficiency Plan provisions of the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.” The Land Use/Transportation Analysis and Deficiency Plan provisions are found in Appendix J of the CMP.

Section VIII of Measure I 2010-2040 also requires that the “Congestion Management Agency shall require fair share mitigation for regional transportation facilities through a Congestion Management Program update to be approved within 12 months of voter approval of Measure I.”

SANBAG serves as the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Agency, and as such, implements and maintains the Congestion Management Program (CMP) for San Bernardino County. As part of the CMP Update process required by Measure I 2010-2040, SANBAG developed and adopted the SANBAG Development Mitigation Nexus Study (hereafter “SANBAG Nexus Study”) which provides a framework for fair-share development contributions to regional transportation improvements.

The SANBAG Nexus Study determines the fair-share contributions from new development for each jurisdiction in the urbanized areas of the County. This includes the subareas identified in THE PLAN, which are limited generally to the spheres of influence of the cities in the San Bernardino and Victor Valleys. The County’s fair-share contributions are based upon growth projections reviewed and approved by the County Land Use Planning Department (hereafter “County Planning Department”) and specific transportation projects submitted to SANBAG by the Department of Public Works – Transportation (hereafter “County Public Works”). Projects identified in THE PLAN must be included in the SANBAG Nexus Study to be eligible to receive SANBAG regional Measure I funding or allocations of state or federal transportation funds administered by SANBAG.

The SANBAG Nexus Study determined that the total development fair-share of cost that the County is responsible to generate through THE PLAN is $197 million. For each city sphere of influence or unincorporated area within the boundaries of THE PLAN (hereafter “PLAN SUBAREA”), the fair share development contribution amounts for which the County of San Bernardino is responsible, as determined by the SANBAG Nexus Study, are as follows:

Table 2.1 – Total SANBAG Nexus Study Fair-Share Costs of New Development

JURISDICTION	Development Share of Total Arterial Cost ($Mill)	Development Share of Interchange Cost ($Mill)	Development Share of RR Grade Sep Cost ($Mill)	Development Share of Total Cost ($Mill)
Adelanto Sphere	$0.71	$0.00	$0.00	$0.71
Apple Valley Sphere	$6.42	$9.39	$0.00	$15.82
Chino Sphere	$9.08	$1.37	$0.00	$10.44
Colton Sphere	$2.81	$0.23	$0.00	$3.04
Devore/Glen Helen	$10.52	$0.00	$4.19	$14.72
Fontana Sphere	$20.31	$20.69	$0.00	$41.01
Hesperia Sphere	$9.19	$0.85	$0.00	$10.04
Loma Linda Sphere	$0.59	$5.27	$0.00	$5.86
Montclair Sphere	$5.41	$2.56	$0.00	$7.97
Rancho Cucamonga	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Redlands Sphere	$7.56	$7.43	$0.00	$14.99
Redlands "Donut Hole"	$12.98	$12.55	$0.00	$25.54
Rialto Sphere	$13.63	$12.81	$0.00	$26.44
San Bernardino Sphere	$2.69	$4.80	$0.00	$7.49
Upland Sphere	$5.65	$1.32	$0.00	$6.97
Victorville Sphere	$4.88	$0.45	$0.00	$5.33
Yucaipa Sphere	$0.64	$0.00	$0.00	$0.64
TOTAL	$113.07	$79.72	$4.19	$197.00

THE PLAN generates the above SANBAG Nexus Study totals for Freeway Interchange and Railroad Grade Separation costs. In the development of THE PLAN, the total development contribution generated for major arterial costs above have been increased significantly by County Public Works after completion of the Department of Public Works’ Project Cost Estimate Study. Minor adjustments have also been made to the growth projections as a result of further coordination between the County Planning Department and County Public Works. NOTE: The SANBAG Nexus Study totals above include the 12.9% 2004/2005 cost escalation factor adopted by the SANBAG Board on July 5, 2006.

THE PLAN is intended to generate only the development fair-share contribution of project costs as required by the CMP and is not intended to provide 100% funding for or construction of all projects listed in THE PLAN. Additional regional Measure I and federal/state funds administered by SANBAG are required for full funding of projects listed in THE PLAN.

(d) THE PLAN AND LOCAL AREA TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES PLANS

THE PLAN is limited to regional transportation facilities, and specifically the requirements of the CMP and the SANBAG Nexus Study. In addition to THE PLAN, the Board of Supervisors has adopted local area transportation facilities plans as funding mechanisms for construction of or improvements to local roads. The local area transportation facilities plans are entirely separate from THE PLAN, as the primary intent of those plans is to construct a backbone of north/south and east/west major thoroughfares within the boundaries of an unincorporated community. THE PLAN is intended to meet the requirements of the CMP by addressing the need for increased capacity on regional transportation facilities as a result of increased vehicular traffic resulting from new development.

Where THE PLAN and local area transportation facilities plan boundaries overlap, separate fees will be required of development for the regional and local plan in the overlapping area. Because the specific projects listed in THE PLAN are unique from those found in the local area transportation facilities plans, funds from overlapping plans shall not be intermingled. Planning and programming, updates and revisions to THE PLAN may occur in conjunction with that of local transportation facilities plans in order to provide a comprehensive program to meet transportation needs in the unincorporated areas.

(e) REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS NOT COVERED BY THE PLAN

Fees required by THE PLAN only apply to development occurring within THE PLAN boundaries. For areas outside the San Bernardino Valley and Victor Valley PLAN SUBAREAS, the County shall require Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports for proposed development projects exceeding specified thresholds of trip generations. This is a continuation of a requirement established when the CMP was approved originally by the SANBAG Board of Directors in 1992. TIA reports must comply with requirements contained in Appendix C of the CMP. For Land Use Categories in a PLAN SUBAREA for which a fee is not established by the PLAN, developer contributions toward mitigation of impacts to regional transportation facilities shall also follow the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Analysis process (CMP TIA) to determine a fair-share developer contribution amount.

In the San Bernardino Valley and the Victor Valley PLAN SUBAREAS, payment of fees required by THE PLAN replaces the TIA requirements of the CMP. Payment of PLAN fees, however, does not absolve a developer from further mitigation of impacts. Additional traffic studies and contributions may be required to mitigate local impacts of a development project. For example, local traffic studies may be required to determine a development’s impact on the local road system, which may result in conditioning a development project to construct or contribute toward roadway widening, turn lanes, curb, gutter, storm drains, match-up pavement, and/or traffic signals.

(f) CONFORMANCE TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE

Pursuant to Measure I 2010-2040, the subsequent sections of THE PLAN are intended to satisfy all the requirements set forth in the California Government Code, Chapter 5, Section 66000 et seq., Fees for Development Projects (also knows as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act). Requirements include:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee.

2. Identify the uses which are supportive of the fee and the transportation facilities which will be provided with the fees.

3. Determine that a reasonable relationship exists between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

4. Determine that a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the transportation facilities and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

5. Determine that a relationship exists between the amount of the fee and the cost of the Transportation Facility, or portion thereof, attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

6. Separate capital facilities funds will be created to deposit, invest, account for, and expend the fees.

Section 3 - PLAN SUBAREAS AND BOUNDARIES

(a) PLAN SUBAREAS

THE PLAN contains sixteen (16) PLAN SUBAREAS, twelve (12) of which represent unincorporated areas within the San Bernardino Valley and four (4) of which represent unincorporated areas within the Victor Valley. With two exceptions, the boundaries of these PLAN SUBAREAS will correspond exactly to the boundaries of the city spheres of influence as defined at any time by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of San Bernardino County. The two exceptions are areas that are not contained in any city’s sphere of influence. These are 1) the Redlands “Donut Hole” which is bounded by the City of Redlands on all sides and located north of Interstate 10 and west of State Route 30/210, and 2) the unincorporated areas of Devore and Glen Helen, which are bounded on the south and west by the City of Rialto Sphere of Influence, on the north by the San Bernardino National Forest, and on the east by the City of San Bernardino or its sphere of influence. The PLAN SUBAREAS are:

1. Adelanto Sphere of Influence

2. Apple Valley Sphere of Influence

3. Chino Sphere of Influence

4. Colton Sphere of Influence

5. Devore/Glen Helen Unincorporated Areas

6. Fontana Sphere of Influence

7. Hesperia Sphere of Influence

8. Loma Linda Sphere of Influence

9. Montclair Sphere of Influence

10. Redlands “Donut Hole” Unincorporated Area

11. Redlands Sphere of Influence

12. Rialto Sphere of Influence

13. San Bernardino Sphere of Influence

14. Upland Sphere of Influence

15. Victorville Sphere of Influence

16. Yucaipa Sphere of Influence

Section 4 - GROWTH FORECASTS

(a) CONSISTENCY WITH SANBAG NEXUS STUDY GROWTH FORECAST DATA

The following Growth forecast data for THE PLAN is based upon the growth forecast data contained in the SANBAG Nexus Study. The SANBAG Nexus Study requires that local jurisdictions generate fair-share contributions from new development, or “target share amounts”, which are based upon growth forecast data reviewed and approved by local jurisdictions. In order to remain consistency with the SANBAG Nexus Study and generate the required “target share amounts”, THE PLAN utilizes the same forecast growth data.

(b) GROWTH FORECAST METHODOLOGY

The SANBAG Nexus Study describes the methodology for forecasting growth as follows:

“The calculation of fair share development contributions requires an estimate of projected growth for residential and non-residential development. The data set used as the starting point for projection of residential development (single and multi-family dwelling units) and non-residential development (retail and non-retail employment) was the 2030 local input provided as part of the growth forecasting process for the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). This iterative process, well-documented in the 2004 RTP of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), generates an initial forecast for the entire Southern California region by jurisdiction, which is then given to local jurisdictions for review, comment, and possible modification. The “local input” 2030 data set was used for the Nexus Study because it was developed through the direct involvement of and review by each of the local jurisdictions. Each local jurisdiction signed off on its local input data in late 2002. These forecasts have been reviewed and updated by local jurisdictions in early and mid-2005…. [The County Planning Department reviewed and approved the forecasts as part of this process.]

The year 2004 was used as the base year for the analysis of growth forecasts. The 2004 dwelling unit totals by jurisdiction are based on California Department of Finance data. The 2004 employment data (retail and non-retail) was derived by adding one year of growth to the 2003 employment data reviewed by each of the local jurisdictions. The growth was estimated as 1/27th of the projected growth between 2003 and 2030….”

By way of comparison, 12,640 new residential dwelling units were permitted by local jurisdictions in San Bernardino County in 2003 (California Department of Finance Table I-6). The projected growth of about 290,000 dwelling units over the next 26 years equates to an average annual rate of about 10,700 units, approximately equivalent to the average number permitted annually in San Bernardino County for 2001 through 2003. The annual rate in the mid-90s was as low as half that rate. Thus, the rate of growth contained in the projections for the Nexus Study would appear consistent with historical trends as well as with regionally accepted projections.”

For residential and non-residential development type, Growth Forecast Data is projected separately in each PLAN SUBAREA to be used in calculating development impact fees. The tables below present the projected growth over the 27-year planning period addressed by the SANBAG Nexus Study by calculating the change between 2004 and 2030 residential dwelling units and non-residential employment.

The growth for each of the residential and non-residential categories was then converted to Passenger Car Equivalents (PCEs) subtotals as a standard factor of vehicular trip generation. A Passenger Car Equivalents Trip is “trip ends” divided by two. Residential trips generation rates used in the SANBAG Nexus Study are based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers report Trip Generation, and non-residential trip generation rates are based upon per-employee rates used by Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG). The following trip generation factors were used:

Single Family Dwelling Unit – 9.57 vehicle trip ends per day

Multi Family Dwelling Unit – 6.63 vehicle trip ends per day

Retail – 19.5 vehicle trip ends per employee per day

Non-retail – 1.85 vehicle trip ends per employee per day

An example calculation of Single Family dwelling units (SFDU) PCE trip growth for the Adelanto Sphere is:

SFDU trip ends divided by 2

9.57 / 2 = 4.79

PCE Trips times 2004-2030 Change in SFDU = PCE Trip Growth for SFDU 2004-2030

4.79 x 83 = 397

Table 4.1 – Single Family Residences (SFR)

JURISDICTION	Single Family Dwelling Units 2004	Single Family Dwelling Units 2030	Growth in Single Family Dwelling Units 2004-2030	PCE Trip Growth for Single Family 2004-2030
Adelanto Sphere	62	145	83	397
Apple Valley Sphere	1,539	4,000	2,461	11,776
Chino Sphere	1,243	1,837	594	2,842
Colton Sphere	674	983	309	1,479
Devore/Glen Helen	1,102	3,635	2,533	12,120
Fontana Sphere	5,634	8,706	3,072	14,700
Hesperia Sphere	1,667	3,019	1,352	6,469
Loma Linda Sphere	245	1,173	928	4,440
Montclair Sphere	1,289	1,949	660	3,158
Rancho Cuc. Sphere	30	47	17	81
Redlands Sphere	2,307	3,910	1,603	7,670
Redlands Donut Hole	3	10	7	33
Rialto Sphere	5,805	9,489	3,684	17,628
San Bernardino Sphere	6,838	8,662	1,824	8,728
Upland Sphere	1,144	1,680	536	2,565
Victorville Sphere	3,748	4,356	608	2,909
Yucaipa Sphere	123	204	81	388
Sphere Totals	33,453	53,805	20,352	97,384

Calculations for PCE Trip Growth for Multi Family and non-residential development are based upon the same formula, using the corresponding PCE trip generation rates.

Table 4.2 – Multi Family Residences (MFR)

JURISDICTION	Multi-Family Dwelling Units 2004	Multi-Family Dwelling Units 2030	Growth in Multi-Family Dwelling Units 2004-2030	PCE Trip Growth for Multi-Family 2004-2030
Adelanto Sphere	26	50	24	80
Apple Valley Sphere	325	457	132	438
Chino Sphere	357	513	156	517
Colton Sphere	175	299	124	411
Devore/Glen Helen	121	338	217	719
Fontana Sphere	1,922	3,501	1,579	5,234
Hesperia Sphere	372	524	152	504
Loma Linda Sphere	122	281	159	527
Montclair Sphere	830	1,160	330	1,094
Rancho Cuc. Sphere	4	7	3	10
Redlands Sphere	735	1,233	498	1,651
Redlands Donut Hole	11	11	-	-
Rialto Sphere	876	1,344	468	1,551
San Bernardino Sphere	2,142	2,853	711	2,357
Upland Sphere	72	105	33	109
Victorville Sphere	392	649	257	852
Yucaipa Sphere	40	63	23	76
Sphere Totals	8,522	13,388	4,866	16,131

Table 4.3 – Retail Employment

JURISDICTION	Retail Employees 2004	Retail Employees 2030	Growth in Retail Employees 2004-2030	PCE Trip Growth for Retail Employees 2004-2030
Adelanto Sphere	2	18	16	156
Apple Valley Sphere	58	120	62	605
Chino Sphere	626	1,078	452	4,407
Colton Sphere	22	51	29