The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 09171991 - 1.46 1-646 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VALENTIN ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: SEPTEMBER l7, 1991. SUBJECT: REPORT ON ANTIOCH MELLO-ROOS REQUEST FOR COUNTY PARTICIPATION SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND .IUS'I'IFICA'I'ION I. Recommended Action: REQUIRE that all completed environmental documents acknowledge a statement of school facilities' impact from the appropriate district and propose adequate mitigation measures including any school funding program established for the involved area. DIRECT staff to meet with growth impacted school districts to prepare criteria of impact to be incorporated into environmental documents. DIRECT staff to review General Plan goals, policies and implementation measures related to schools (Attachment B) to determine whether additional provisions are needed to address school facilities' impacts. DIRECT staff to prepare for Board consideration any additional documents necessary to allow the approval of requested legislative entitlements (rezonings, etc.) and any involved or related development projects (subdivisions, site plans, etc.) where adequate school facilities are provided or assured (e.g., Mello-Roos district participation). 11. Financial Impact: No direct financial impact. Some staff time required. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: See Page 2. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE. OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON SEP 17 19M_ APPROVI?D AS RECOMMENDEM _�OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I hereby certify mi2: chis is a true and correct copy of an action taken and ontered on the minutes of the VA:dg Board of Supervi ors on t e datesl own. mroos.bo ATTESTED: 9� PHIL BAT HELOR,Clerk of the Boaro Orig Dept: GMEDA of Supervisors and County Administrator cc: County Administrator ; sf�� County Counsel by (�—` _ _ - - ,Deputy Community Development Public Works School Districts J Antioch Mello-Roos September 1.7, .1.991 Page 2 e III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: Several school districts in Contra Costa County have indicated that the State authorized $1.58 per square foot residential construction charge for school facilities is inadequate to accommodate growth. Attention has been given recently to the Antioch Mello-Roos program and the need for County development to be included. In 1.982, Antioch adopted the Southeast Area Plan that proposed development of over 1.5,000 units. In 1.987, the City of Antioch and the Antioch Unified School District passed a Mello-Roos community services district to provide facilities called for in the plan. The district captured a substantial portion of the southeast area and some subsequent subdivisions. The total projected number of units in the district is .1.5,000. (The number excludes some units in the southeast area and adds some units from other parts of town). The Mello-Roos assessment for the school facilities is $822 per average size unit per year (community recreation facilities are not included for areas outside the City of Antioch). The program for the Mello-Roos is ambitious and proposes the construction of five elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school. The Antioch Unified School District does not have a common boundary with the City of Antioch. As indicated on Attachment A, the Antioch School District boundary includes areas outside the City in the Antioch Sphere of Influence, in Pittsburg, and in the Oakley area. The City of Antioch and the Antioch School District have requested that rezonings (legislative entitlements) and subdivisions (development projects) in Antioch's unincorporated area be conditioned to annex to the Mello-Roos district and that the involved owner-developer be required to vote to be subject to the above-noted annual special tax of the district. County staff is concerned that there may be opposition and resistance which would involve the County in law suits as to development projects so directly conditioned and the adequacy of the County's General Plan school facilities' policies. County action characterized as bureaucratic red tape in recent editorials may be rephrased as a process intended to respect due process of law and prevail in a law suit. The request of Antioch has been echoed by the Liberty High School District and other East County school districts due to growth. Therefore, action taken by the County should address the emerging needs of school districts in addition to Antioch. In the past six months, the County has adopted a General Plan that supports school facilities. In addition, several cases have supported the right of jurisdictions to deny requested legislative entitlements (rezonings, General Plan amendments, development agreements, etc.) on the basis of school impacts (Mira Development Corp. vs. San Diego). Appropriate school policies adopted in the General Plan are shown on Attachment B. These policies enable school districts to declare themselves impacted by new development to prepare analyses of the extent of impact and to respond to mitigation options. The existence of school district impact without sufficient mitigation may therefore become grounds to deny a requested legislative entitlement. It is important that the direction given to planning commissions, staff, and the development community be clear. It is also important that school districts be accountable to demonstrate their declaration of impact. Fees for new developments are intended to provide new or expanded facilities where current facilities are inadequate to support the influx of children due to growth. Fees are not intended to upgrade non-impacted existing facilities or become part of operations' budgets. In the event that State funds are obtained, causing revenues to exceed capital improvement programs, reimbursement or comparable action needs to be taken in favor of developers or property owners. Antioch Mello-Roos September 17, 1991 Page 3 It will be in the County's interest to establish a coordinated process amidst school district to prevent confusion or variability of process. The process should address the following: 1. Standards of impact A. Inventory of facilities B. Classroom size C. Existing enrollment within attendance area D. Effect on attendance area of new development E. Proposal for new facilities G. Budget for new facilities H. Method of finance of new facilities 2. Proposed mitigation A. Effect of State adopted tees B. Additional funding needs C. Possibility of alternative contributions 3. Means for updating school impacts on a periodic basis. 4. Future restrictions on disposition of property due to expanded local contribution. 5. Program for planned communities which may require school facilities of their own. 6. Supplemental school facilities' General Plan provisions. r� ... ATTACHMENT A �+., ,. IzAA ;' A. S . U . D. MELLO-ROOS •' irr _ t .`\` �• ��\ `` � � —I I 1? may. -� -- - - rl ' /� i / • •• / � \ � 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 _.f�•�•-��'��,.`i�r•�.!! ,\ _��:� 0.-...i �'1�_' 1 1 1 /^ y_ I r. 7` --_ `\ tib: •• �.� �r�, ', 1 1 HiQ. , Alli• �� !�1�. �� i .A. •j, ."cel i \,� /�I \ -'' _.�1. 1 I� Vit• I +-,y. y��r r — -.I I+ I'I''—•yr -. _+. 1 •` __._� '+�,:r w :R -- 1 - • to 1 .I Y IM ( f -SUPS/) Di t'' �j 5.. ..Y my t i�i I - .. 1�;i I, h'e'r � ' • ' �._ ,� t, _:• ••1 J-/ ilk [ �,•:�~ ,•� it-�� _ .1 _ . I^"'��; 1 . , r �i�'•��;�;; � ft ,�� /: - _: --- • S r_^ _ _ 'c t =st'... and t: � � ,..�i' , •: �._ - — �• • fir.r wo.`. ._T ANTIOCH SCHOOL DISTRICT , — •• ANTIOCH CITY LIMITSAY 7 MELLO-ROOS SCHOOL DISTRICT •••••• SPHERE OF INFLUENCE •�S" _ wwaml SLI m.ommT - - tC ,•;5.. 11�� `.. •- ._ •� N w ATTACHMENT B GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICII-S AND IMPLEMENTATION ,MPASURES RE'LA'TED TO SCHOOLS SCHOOLS GOALS 7-AO. To assure the provision of adequate primary, secondary, and college facilities in the County. 7-AP. To provide new schools in optimal locations to serve planned growth. 7-AQ. To encourage the efficient multi-purpose uses of school facilities. 7-AR. To assure that school facilities arc adequate or committed to be adequate,prior to approvals of major applications for residential growth. SCHOOLS POLICIES 7-140. The environmental review process shall be utilized to monitor the ability of area schools to serve development. 7-141. During the development review process, the State classroom size standards set by each district for primary and secondary school shall be used as the basis for determining the adequacy of area schools. 7-142. When considering General Plan Amendment requests which increase density, the capacity of area schools and the district shall be given close attention. 7-143. The hearing body in reviewing residential projects shall consider the availability of education facility capacity. 7-144. The development of quality schools shall be supported by coordinating development review with local school districts including such activities as designating school sites, obtaining dedications of school sites, and supporting local fees, special taxes, and bond issues intended for school construction. 7-145. Adequate provision of schools and other public facilities and services shall be assured by coordinating review of new development with the cities and other service pro%-idcrs through the Growth Management Program, the environmental review process, and other means. 7-146. School site donation by developers shall be encouraged through the use: of density transfer or other appropriate land use alternatives. 7-147. The development of school facilities shall be provided in conjunction with and adjacent to local parks and trailways. 7-148. The County shall support efforts to create a branch State College on the Ygnacio Valley site in Concord. 7-149. The County shall support efforts to build a new junior college in the San Ramon Valley. 7-150.. The County shall support school facility fees for growth-impacted school districts. SCHOOLS IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 7-em. In concert with the school districts, prepare an education facilities plan amendment to this General Plan which recommends locations for future school facilities. 7-cn. Lobby for State.financing of new schools within the County. 7-co. To the extent allowable under State law, specify in the County's list(s) and criteria for development entitlement application's determination of completeness procedure, that a development entitlement application is not complete unless it contains satisfactory written evidence that any involved school district has been advised of an provided with the proposed application and requested to provide its recommendations thereon to the applicant and the County planning agency. 7-cp. The procedure provided in School Implementation Measure 7-cp. is to be applied in those schouls districts indicating to the County their current concern about education facilities and desire to participate in the development entitlement review process. Upon the receipt of any such indication, the involved and interested school district shall be appropriately designated in the planning agency's notification and contacts list for development entitlement applications pending in the district's arty. mroonu.bo :'