Reso 2011-192 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO ISSUES SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SOURCES ISSUES MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED Public Services (Continued) California State Assembly Bill 2926 - School Facilities Act of 1986. In 1986, AB2927 was enacted by the State of California authorizing entities to levy statutory fees on new residential and commercial development in order to pay for school facilities. AB 2926, entitled the "School Facilities Act of 1986 ", was expanded and revised in 1987 through passage of A131600, which added section 660000 et seq. of the Government Code. Under this statute, payment of statutory fees by developers would serve as total CEQA mitigation to satisfy the impact of development on school facilities. California Senate Bill 50 (SB 50). The passage of SB 50 in 1998 defined the Needs Analysis process in Government Code Sections 65995.5 to 65998, thus providing the requirements that a school district must articulate when identifying expansion programs. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of developments. The fees- referred to as Level One fees -are assessed based upon the proposed square footage of residential, commercial /industrial, and/or parking structure uses. Level Two fees require the other half. Level Three fees require the development to pay the full cost of accommodating the students in new schools and would be implemented at the time the funds available from Proposition I (approved by the voters in 1998) are expended. School districts must demonstrate to the state their long -term facilities needs and costs based on long -term population growth in order to qualify for this source of funding. However, voter approval of Proposition 55 on March 2 2004, precludes the imposition of the Level Three fees for the foreseeable future. Therefore, once qualified, districts may impost only Level Two fees as calculated according to SB 50. Mitigation Measure 1126: The applicant shall pay all developer fees required by the San Leandro Unified School District school at the time of building permits. d) - The proposed project could also necessitate the expansion or construction of park- related resources which could result in a potentially significant impact. Because the proposed project could result in greater population at the project site, it is expected that demand for parks and recreational facilities could increase. Depending on the existing use and condition of Iocal parks and related recreational facilities, the proposed project could necessitate the expansion or construction of park related resources which could result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure #27: The applicant shall pay an impact fee and /or dedicate parkland to offset the increase in park needs resulting from the proposed project. Where on -site parkland is dedicated, it should be improved, maintained, and accessible to the general public in accordance with General Plan Policy 22.02. Implementation of Mitigation Measures #25 to #27 reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. a: Would the project increase the use of existing X 3,4 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or X 3,4 require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? EXPLANATION: a) Because the proposed project could result in greater population at the project site, it is expected that demand for parks and recreational facilities could increase. Depending on the existing use and condition of local parks and related recreational facilities, the proposed project could necessitate the expansion or construction of park related resources which could result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation, such as payment of an impact fee or parkland dedication has been addressed by Mitigation Measure 927 on page 20 if the Initial Study (see above.) Implementation of Mititation Measure 927 (above) reduces uotential imDacts to a less than significant level. 2450 Washington Avenue Apartments 20 October 2011