92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

461 "Evaluation of Agent's Proposed Mitigation" Objection: The District states "it is important to note that the Agency is ackno.wledging that the Amended Pl.an will have an impact on the District, which is in direct opposition to the Negative Declaration whic. h concluded that th.e Amended Plan .would have no significant impact on the District." This finding ~s based upon the fact th. at the Agency made an o~f.er to pass through 1.52% of gross ~ncrement or 18% of the D~strict's share of tax increment. The District further states that the Agency's use of a $4.73 cost factor in calculating the proposed pass through is in error and the cost factor sho. uld have been $4.95 per square foot. Additionally, the District states that the pass-through was based upon a pass-through for 55 years whereas the amended plan term is only 40 years. Therefore, the District concludes that it cannot be guaranteed that sufficient increment would be received. The District objects that .the Agency's calculation of pass-through .did not take into cons~deration the timing of payments. The District calculated the present value of the impacts to be $21,717,712 whereas the ~resent value of the Agency's p.roposed pass-through is 8,410,805. They assume a capitalization rate of 4%. The District objects that the Agency has not included the impact caused by the .housing set-aside fu.nds when c.a!cnlating detriment. It ~s based upon the D~strict's opnnon that if the Agency does not develop new housing units, the amended plan will not be in conformance with the General Plan. .Resoonse: The Agency's offer of 1.52% of gro. ss increment is m r6sponse to the fiscal review process which ~s the proper legal forum for determining fiscal impact. Unlike other types of projects, the Health. and Safety Code presents a dist. inct required p. rocess, the fiscal review proc.ess, for determaning fiscal detriment when adopting/amending a redevelopm.ent plan. By acknowledging and responding to the fiscal rewew proc.es.s, the Agency has not misused the Negative Declaration prows~ons of the CEQA process. Although the CEQA process could be used to measure fiscal impact, CEQA does not ~ fiscal analysis (it is optional) and in this case, it would have been needlessly duplicative of the fiscal review process. When th.e Agency presented its offer to pass through 18% of the District's "share" of increment, the Agency reviewed the basis and methodology used in the calculation. The 1991-92 $4.73 cost factor was'based upon use of the .District's 1992-93 "p.er-square-foot cost factors" and the follovang development mix: 31 I