pages: CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-01-05 | 6 | the School District would be able to get matching funds; enrollment will be going up with the development and the School District should be able to get State matching funds; the business plan SunCal submitted did not show a lot of revenue or any revenue at all for the school sites; SunCal does not believe there is a shortfall; SunCal is very committed to having schools on site. Mayor Johnson stated everyone is nervous about relying on receiving money from the State to build the schools after all the State takings from cities and schools. Mr. Keliher questioned whether the assumption is that there will be no redevelopment funds; stated no one knows what the State will do. Board Member Mooney inquired whether the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents include schools. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated pursuant to case law, payment of school mitigation fees is the mitigation if the jurisdiction has mitigation requirements. Board Member Mooney inquired whether the District has school mitigation fees, the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Board Member Mooney inquired how much are the fees, to which Mr. Keliher responded about $25 million. Board Member Mooney requested an explanation of the School Mitigation Agreement. Amy Freilich, SunCal Senior Vice President, stated the Development Agreement (DA) only relates to the City and does not relate to or bind the redevelopment agency or School District; the redevelopment agency and School District are independent agencies under State law and have full authority to enter into any agreement; the redevelopment agency will not sell the land to SunCal unless the deal makes sense; the initiative is only part of the deal; everything has been done assuming that SunCal would negotiate with the redevelopment agency and the School District; SunCal is assuming it will enter into a School Mitigation Agreement and wants to figure out how to build the school in advance of when it would be required; the 2% cap goes away when the homeowner buys the land; the cap does not bind future homeowners, retail owners or commercial owners; the cap is in place for the term of the development; in order for SunCal to sell the development in the first round, the infrastructure development costs cannot exceed the 2%, which is the reasonable amount above which people will not expend dollars; the typical School Mitigation Agreement would address: 1) land being dedicated and provided to the School District; 2) infrastructure, which SunCal fully budgeted to provide to the School District; and 3) the $25 million [in mitigation fees] that SunCal has estimated, which is less than the most recent school construction costs; SunCal's goal is to resolve the issues. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 6 Board of Education January 5, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-01-05.pdf |