AgdaPkt 2020-11-09 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Ms. Lindy Chan, Principal Planner City of Redwood City, Planning Services February 28, 2020 Page 3 From a practical standpoint, the amount of developer fees received by school districts typically fall woefully short of alleviating the impacts caused by development. This is due largely to the facts that: (1) statutory developer fee amounts fail to acknowledge the differences in costs of school construction from one district to another, which particularly burdens school districts in the bay area; (2) the developer fee amounts fail to contemplate the special facilities needs of those districts experiencing rapid growth, such as the need for portables; and (3) the adjustment formula for developer fees is based on a "construction cost index" and does not include indexing related to the increases in land costs, resulting in the actual costs of facilities (i.e., land and improvements) increasing at a greater rate than the adjustment. The inadequacy of developer fees as a source of funding for school facilities has forced school districts to rely increasingly on other sources of funding, primarily including local bond funds and State bond funds administered under the State Facilities Program (SFP). However, these sources of funds can be equally unreliable. The last State school facilities bond fund (Proposition 51) has been exhausted, and it is currently unclear when/whether those school districts that apply for state funding will be able to receive such funding. Local bond funds are also difficult to generate, as local bonds are subject to school district bonding capacity limitations and voter approval. Either way, the funding formula was never intended to require the State and local taxpayers to shoulder a disproportionate portion of the cost of school facilities. Additional changes to the developer fee landscape render the analysis of environmental impacts under the Initial Study inadequate. For one, if Proposition 13, placed on the ballot by California Assembly Bill ("AB") 48, is approved by the California voters at the March 2020 election, each of the three sources of funds discussed above will be significantly altered. Of particular note, and further undermining the contention that developer fees constitute full and adequate mitigation for impacts caused by the Project, AB 48: (1) eliminates school impact fees for multifamily homes within a half mile of a major transit stop; (2) reduces impact fees for all other multifamily homes by 20%; and (3) suspends level 3 school impact fees. Without full payment of school impact fees from the Project and other residential projects in the area, coupled with the extremely high and rising costs of land, the District will be unable to alleviate many of the Project's impacts through the acquisition of land and construction of new school facilities. For the foregoing reasons, the City's reliance upon SB 50 as a panacea to all impacts caused by the Project on the District is inappropriate, and the City must consider each of the following topics in its EIR. Transportation/Circulation/Traffic Analvsis 1. Describe the existing and the anticipated vehicular traffic and student pedestrian movement patterns to and from school sites, including movement patterns to and from Sequoia High School, and including consideration of bus routes. 2. Assess the impact(s) of increased vehicular movement and volumes caused by the Project, including but not limited to potential conflicts with school