HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05082012 - C.26RECOMMENDATION(S):
AUTHORIZE the Chair to sign a letter to Tom Torlakson, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, expressing
support for the recommendations in the Schools of the Future Report, as recommended by the Transportation Water
& Infrastructure Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE. The County could see an indirect, long term fiscal benefit from reformed school siting polices due to
decreased demand for local infrastructure investment.
BACKGROUND:
Schools are constructed by local school districts following state guidelines. Local jurisdictions such as the County,
which normally have statutory responsibility for overseeing land development activities, have very little authority to
influence either the siting or the design of public schools. East Contra Costa County in particular has experienced
safety and circulation issues with schools placed in areas with very little supportive transportation infrastructure. In
addition to the circulation and safety issues, conflicts between local land use authorities and school districts, agencies
that have different goals, inevitably arise.
Superintendent Torlakson's office released a report in 2011 entitled,
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 05/08/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
ABSENT:Gayle B. Uilkema, District II
Supervisor
Contact: John Cunningham, (925)
674-7833
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 8, 2012
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C. 26
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Transportation, Water, & Infrastructure Cte
Date:May 8, 2012
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Communication to State Superintendent of Public Instruction
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
Schools of the Future Report which had recommendations for reforming school siting practices. Implementation
of some of the recommendations will be examined during the summer of 2012 by the California Department of
Education.
The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors 1)
congratulate the Superintendent on the release of the Schools of the Future Report and 2) express the
County's willingness to participate in discussions related to any changes in school siting policy due to our
substantial local experience with the matter.
Discussion
The Schools of the Future Report includes recommendations that, among other things, establish a need to change
the manner in which schools are designed and located. This is promising in that statements such as this have
historically not come from any state agency but rather from local jurisdictions, advocacy and non-governmental
organizations.
Existing school siting practices conflict with numerous state and local policies and programs (cited in the attached
letter):
Safe Routes to School (SR2S): Existing school siting practices can lead to schools being built in areas with
very little transportation infrastructure or convenient access. After schools open, local jurisdictions are then
compelled to construct infrastructure and improvements to develop a safe, functional facility. There are
recent examples of this in central and eastern Contra Costa County.
Even in areas that are built out, areas that will not see any new school construction, are negatively impacted
because SR2S funds are finite and typically are disbursed via competitive programs. If new schools are
sited and designed with deficient access, then the pool of limited SR2S funding will be diluted for the entire
County.
SB 375 - the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, which implements AB 32 (The
Global Warming Solutions Act): SB 375 attempts to modify regional transportation planning process with
the goal of creating transportation networks and land use patterns where people drive fewer miles in their
cars during the course of daily life. Existing school siting practices undermine these goals both directly and
indirectly. A direct increase in vehicle miles traveled is caused by siting and designing schools in such a
way that safe access requires an automobile. In addition, siting schools outside developed areas requires
longer distance travel. Indirectly, schools placed in agricultural areas drive sprawl development. Defending
growth management policies (including an urban limit line) in the presence of a public school, as an outpost
of urban use in an agricultural area, is difficult at best. In addition, SB 375 includes a rural sustainability
component which is not furthered by the placement of these intense public uses in active agricultural areas.
The California Strategic Growth Council's (SGC) Health in All Policies (HiAP) Initiative: The
Strategic Growth Council is a state-level committee that was formed in 2008 to coordinate the activities of
state agencies to promote sustainability through actions that improve air and water quality, protect natural
resources and agriculture lands, promote public health, improve transportation, encourage greater infill and
compact development, revitalize community and urban centers, and assist state and local entities in the
planning of sustainable communities and meeting AB 32/SB 375 goals. HiAP was initiated by Executive
Order (under the auspices of the SGC) in 2010 with the goal to improve health by incorporating health
considerations into decision making in all sectors and policy areas. In summary, the negative health and
safety impacts of current school siting and design practices could be well-served by the mission of the SGC
and the HiAP. School siting reform was originally a priority in this effort but was ultimately excluded due
to the sensitive nature of the subject.
Complete Streets: The Caltrans Director issued the Deputy Directive 64, Complete Streets - Integrating the
Transportation System in 2001 (Revised in 2008). In addition, the California Legislature passed a complete
streets statute in 2008. Both the legislation and the deputy directive acknowledge that transportation
facilities need to respect the context that the facility serves such that they are "...in balance with community
goals, plans, and values. Addressing the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit
users in all projects, regardless of funding, is implicit in these objectives." (From Caltrans Deputy Directive
64, Complete Streets - Integrating the Transportation System) Existing school siting practices are the
inverse of this policy in terms of both sequence and resulting effect. Two agencies within the same state
structure have contrary practices. With the Caltrans policy the Department acknowledges that transportation
facilities must be developed so that they respect the community character and function safely and
appropriately in the local setting. The Department of Education's school siting practices are often the
opposite, constructing facilities in a manner that isolates them from the community or in areas with minimal
supportive infrastructure.
California State Office of Planning Research (OPR), Update to the General Plan Guidelines: Complete
Streets and the Circulation Element : The Guidelines include substantial direction to develop SR2S
programs and to ensure that there are adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in areas around schools.
This is another example of an agency (Department of Education) within the same state structure
encouraging and funding activities that are in violation of another agency's (OPR) policies.
Contra Costa County - Urban Limit Line/Growth Management Element: The County has an Urban
Limit Line to (among other goals): define the outer boundaries of urban development in the County, protect
and promote the economic viability of agricultural land by appropriate standards and policies, and to
manage growth in the County by allowing new development only when infrastructure and service standards
are met. Although schools are classified as a “non-urban” use under Measure C-1990: The Contra Costa
65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, they typically require urban services, such as sewer, water, power,
and supportive transportation infrastructure, in order to function properly. Notwithstanding their
classification as a “non-urban” use under Measure C-1990, locating public (or private) schools in
agricultural areas outside the Urban Limit Line without the necessary infrastructure to support them creates
inevitable conflicts with a range of County General Plan policies. For example, they are likely to induce
growth in a rural, agricultural area through the extension of urban services (water and sewer), particularly
when water and sewer lines must be extended a considerable distance, and they result in an incompatible
use with ongoing agricultural activities on nearby farmland (e.g. spraying and harvesting). It has been the
County’s practice to discourage locating schools on agricultural lands outside the Urban Limit Line.
However, California Government Code 53091(a)-53097.52 (particularly 53094(b)) allows school boards to
exempt themselves from local zoning (for classroom facilities) with 2/3 vote. This effectively nullifies any
effort by local jurisdictions to influence school siting and design.
The Committee's recommendations are consistent with the following Policy Positions in the County's 2012
State Legislative Platform:
Transportation Issues:
120. SUPPORT efforts to improve safety throughout the transportation system.
123. SUPPORT efforts to coordinate development of state-funded facilities such as courts, schools, jails
and state offices with local planning.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Without approving transmittal of the letter, the Board will forgo an opportunity to advance its legislative platform.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Promoting improved siting and design of schools as advocated in the Schools of the Future Report will better
integrate our education facilities with their surrounding community and encourage more walking and bicycling to
school. Hoped outcomes are better designed communities that promote a more healthy lifestyle for our children.
ATTACHMENTS
Torlakson Letter