HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03312015 - C.50RECOMMENDATION(S):
AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to State Senators Marty Block (District 39 - San
Diego) and Carol Liu (District 25 - Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties) regarding a joint hearing on K-12
school facilities funding and expressing concern for school siting policies.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND:
The Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure (TWI) Committee discussed the issue of school siting reform and
school area safety, as well as the subject letter at their March 2, 2015 meeting. The attached draft letter references a
February 18, 2015 Joint Senate Informational Hearing on the K-12 School Facilities Program chaired by Senators
Block and Liu.
At that hearing, there was discussion regarding school siting relative to land use in general and specifically with
regard to Sustainable Communities and Greenhouse Gas Reduction. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety was also
discussed. Comments from the State Allocation Board Executive Office (Bill Savidge) included an emphasis on
pedestrian and bicycle safety and commenting that schools should not be driving sprawl.
It is rare that these hearings include discussions about land use and transportation issues, as the focus is typically
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 03/31/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
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: March 31, 2015
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C. 50
To:Board of Supervisors
From:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Date:March 31, 2015
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Letter to State Senators Block and Liu Regarding School Siting Reform and School Area Safety
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
on administrative and budget issues. The TWI Committee recommended transmitting a letter, with a copy to
members of our delegation, to communicate the concerns of the Board of Supervisors for school safety and
express gratitude for the Committee's acknowledgement of land use and transportation issues relative to school
siting.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
By not taking the recommended actions, the County will forgo an opportunity to further its legislative platform,
which includes principles related to improvements in school area safety and increased coordination relative to
school siting and land use planning.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
The following outcome areas in the Children's Report Card; #14: Children are Healthy and Ready for School,
Physical Fitness and #24: Families and Communities are Safe: Injury Hospitalization are directly or indirectly
addressed by future actions of the state addressed in the attached letter.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Letter to State Regarding School Safety
California School Siting and Safety Initiative
Dec 2012 Letter to State Supt of Schools Tom Torlakson
California School Siting and Safety Initiative – Contra Costa County (rev: 12/1/14)
Schools have a large and enduring effect on the character and safety of the surrounding community due to the intensity of
activity at the site and the vulnerability of the student population. Currently, the process by which schools are located and
designed can result in negative community development, environmental, and public health/safety outcomes. Directly related
to this issue is the well-known, often cited decline in K-12 walk/bike to school rates. This decline should not be
accepted as inevitable, but rather as a problem to be reversed through a strategic public policy response. The State
acknowledged school siting issues in recent studies1. The Governor intends on addressing school funding in 20152. Interested
organizations will need to engage in the 2015 legislative and policy development process to ensure adequate reforms are
included in the funding package. This paper provides an issues overview, identifies existing processes, and potential reforms.
The current process of selecting and developing new school sites in California has substantial flaws. This flawed
process can result in poorly functioning school sites, some of which have been acknowledged by the state in recent
reports1. Examples of poor school site function are:
Inadequate or ill-conceived transportation infrastructure3 which causes avoidable congestion and/or chaotic circulation
patterns both of which ultimately result in unsafe conditions.
School locations that have limited or no access to critical municipal services (e.g., fire, sewer, water) and/or are too distant
from the population served to support walking and biking4.
School locations that undermine local/state policies such as sites that are outside urban limit line/urban growth boundary,
in agricultural areas, preclude access by walking and cycling, undermine AB32/SB375 goals, etc.
The safety and access issues mentioned above drain very limited Safe Routes to School (SR2S) funds, and
Certain sites are contentious and strain relations between City Councils, Boards of Supervisors, and School Boards.
The current process has local school districts largely responsible for school siting and design. School districts do not
have adequate policies, authority, or expertise to ensure that school sites have positive outcomes related to safe
access and community development goals. It is the cities/counties, and the State that have this expertise:
By statute, cities and counties have land use planning authority. Cities and counties cannot influence the selection and
development of school sites as state law allows school districts to exempt themselves from this local authority6.
Although the state has substantial statutes and polices5 in place that should inform school siting and design, school districts
are not currently compelled to comply with those policies in their school siting and design decisions.
Local school districts develop and design school sites independent6 of the aforementioned state and local land
development policies. This disconnect is acknowledged by the state in their recent studies1.
This disconnect can be addressed through regulations tied to anticipated revisions to the school construction funding
process anticipated in the 2015‐16 Budget. Implementing a solution using the budget as a mechanism was suggested
by the State during their December 2012 Policy Symposium7 and contemplated in the Governor’s 2013‐14 Budget
Proposal2. The following are concepts to be considered in addressing school siting and design requirements attached
to the proposed 2015 policy changes or with legislation developed in parallel:
Limit the ability of school districts to preempt local zoning ordinances6. This could bring schools under the influence of
SB375; ultimately it is the cities and counties that implement the sustainable communities strategy. (next page)
1 2012 ‐ California’s K‐12 Educational Infrastructure Investments: Leveraging the State’s Role for Quality School Facilities in Sustainable
Communities, Report to the CA Dept of Education by UC Berkeley Center for Cities & Schools, and 2011 ‐ Schools of the Future Report, Tom
Torlakson/State Superintendent of Public Instruction
2 Cabinet Report, 10/20/14 “Brown’s Plan for Fixing School Construction Funding” and in 2014: Governor’s 13‐14 Budget Report, “…now is an
appropriate time to engage in a dialogue on the future of school facilities…”/“School districts and their respective localities should have appropriate
control of the school facilities construction process and priorities.”
3 Bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure is inadequate or not present, school sites in a cul‐de‐sac or with single points of access, safe roadway crossings
are not considered, and no necessary improvements being funded or constructed by the schools.
4 “…studies show that the distance between home and school is the strongest predictor of whether students walk/bike to school.” Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 2012 “School Site Selection and Off‐site Access”
5 AB32/SB375, The Complete Streets Act, Safe Routes to School concepts, and the Health in All Policies Initiative
6 Gov Code §53091(a)‐53097.5: Allows school district preemption from zoning ordinances. Schools consistent with an SCS/PDA could be exempted.
7 Partnering with K‐12 in Building Healthy, Sustainable, and Competitive Regions: Policy Symposium: Proceedings Summary & Next Steps: “These
efforts will inform the legislative debates over the possibility—and priorities—of a future statewide K‐12 school construction bond.”
Contact: John Cunningham, Principal Planner | Contra Costa County | Dept. of Conservation and Development|john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
g:\transportation\legislation\2015\whitepaper\2015sasiv8.docx
Whether new school siting policies are advisory or prescriptive is critical. Considering that there are existing advisory
documents that should result in high quality school sites it suggests that new policies will need to be compulsory in order to be
effective. Revised language could be implemented with revisions to the California Code of Regulations, Title 5.
Coordination of attendance boundaries between school districts, cities/counties should be compulsory.
Statutes for Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) provide a role for LAFCOs in school site development8
and could be expanded. At a minimum, 1) school districts should be required to consult with LAFCO when a new school
site is being proposed, and 2) LAFCO should discourage the extension of municipal services to school sites located in
agricultural and open space areas pursuant to LAFCO law. More prescriptive restrictions related to the extension of
municipal services should be considered in areas with an adopted Urban Limit Line or Urban Growth Boundary.
Legislation should require revised School Site Selection and Approval Guide and Guide to School Site Analysis and Development.
Critical revisions should be compulsory rather than mere guidance. [revisions are too voluminous to list in this paper]
School districts, when approving a new site must 1) make findings, w/substantial evidence in the record, that the decision
is consistent with relevant requirements in statute, 2) provide a full-cost accounting (off-site infrastructure [utility/
transportation] of facility development, costs borne by other agencies, community, etc.), of site options, and 3) the
approval must include a comprehensive (auto & active modes) circulation plan signed and stamped by a traffic engineer.
The State acknowledges a greater share of funds should be directed to modernization programs than to new
construction7. Any 2015 school construction and modernization bond should be linked to a comprehensive effort to
reverse the well‐known decline in K‐12 walking/bike rates which would include the following:
Redefinition of School Zone in state law: Currently, in the vehicle code, school zone signage is limited to 500’ and
1000’. These limits are not reflective of actual pedestrian/bicycle school access patterns and are not consistent with State
policies. The prescriptive figures should be increased (1320’ minimum) and local agencies should have discretion to further
expand the zone based on knowledge of attendance boundaries, and travel sheds, as established in a traffic study.
Pass and fund implementation of an Enhanced Penalty School Zone statute: In 2002 AB 1886 was passed which
implemented a double fine school zone as a pilot9. The statute was allowed to sunset in 2007. The County has proposed
an alternative which increases points levied against a driver’s license for speeding in a school zone.
Implement a Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Protection Law: VRU laws establish the concept “whoever can do the
most damage has an obligation to be the most careful”. Oregon has such a statute and the League of American Bicyclists
has drafted model legislation10.
Implement and fund the bicycle and pedestrian safety curriculum developed by the State Health in All Policies
Task Force and Strategic Growth Council: The program would have dual benefit of decreased injuries/deaths and
increased walking/biking. California already has numerous communities implementing such a program.
SR2S Funding Eligibility: SR2S projects at existing schools should be an eligible use of bond funds.
Caltrans to conduct a study on auto speeds: Given the significant11 barrier that a speeding is to increases in K-12
walk/bike rates, this study would 1) document any changes in automobile speeds over time due to vast improvements in
vehicle technology, 2) document how that change in speed has impacted other road users, and 3) identify mitigations.
The concepts in this paper are for discussion purposes; they do not necessarily reflect adopted policy positions.
8 LAFCO mandate: 1) encourage orderly formation of local governmental agencies, 2) preserve agricultural land, 3) discourage urban sprawl.
9 The AB 1886 post‐mortem report was inconsistent in its findings and recommendations. The report did not endorse it and gave a negative review
of the program. The lack of success was likely related to the fact that little to no resources were devoted to implementation.
10 801.608 “Vulnerable user of a public way”: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2011ors801.html
http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/bikeleague.org/files/bikeleague/bikeleague.org/action/images/vru_story.pdf
11 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Barriers to Children Walking to or from School United States 2004, Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report September 30, 2005. Available: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5438a2.htm ‐ AND ‐ Chaufan, C, Yeh J, Fox, P. The
Safe Routes to School Program in California: An Update. American Journal of Public Health
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300703 ‐ AND ‐ CCTA SR2S Master Plan 2011: Existing Conditions: Data Summary
The Board of Supervisors
County Admini stration Bui lding
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, Califo rnia 94553
John Gioia, I" District
Candace Andersen, 2"d Di strict
Mary N. Piepho , 3'd District
Karen Mitchoff. 4°' Di strict
Federal D. Glover, 5th Dis trict
December 11, 2012
The Honorable Tom Torlakson
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
California Department of Education
1430 N Street
Sacramento, C~l y 'j l
Dear Superintend4.f J ()rlaksonf
Contra
Costa
County
David Twa
Cl er k of the Board
and
County Admin istrator
(925) 335-19DO
/v
The Contra Cos~a County Board of Supervisors is writing on a topic of substantial concern: the
reform of State school siting policies. We understand you are aware of the issue and appreciate the
attention you have given it at the state level. The County and neighboring cities must attend to the
land use and transportation implications of poor school siting and design (made with the State's
tacit approval).
In our May 8, 2012letter congratulating you on the release of the Schools of the Future Report, we
were optimistic that school siting reform would be addressed in a positiv e and inclusive manner.
In that letter we also indicated our interest in participating in any implementation discussions.
Our optimism increased with the subsequent release of the "California 's K-12 Educational
b~frastructure In vestm ents : Le veraging the State's Role fo r Quality School Facilities in Sustainable
Commun ities" report. At this time we request that implementation of the findings of the
aforementioned studies include extensive outreach to local jurisdictions.
We unde rstand that that the Senate Education Subcommittee on Sustainable School Facilities
instructed the Director of Facilities to develop an implementation plan for the CA K-12 Educational
Infrast ructu re report. We understand that sev eral internal meetings have taken place to discuss the
implementation proce ss. During the "Policy Symposium" held on the 6th of this month, California
Department of Education (CDE) staff indicated that stakeholder outreach has already been
conducted. We are unaware of any consultation with local agencies or our associated
organizations.
As you are aware, the development of school facilities is a fundamentally local activity. As we
mentioned in our May 8, 2012 letter on this topic, " ... schools potentially act as the anchor of great
The Honorable Tom Torlakson
December 11, 2012
Page 2 of 3
communities ... " Local land use jurisdictions, not the State or school districts, should guide the
development of communities and:
• are the primary forum to which our constituents bring land use, traffic and safety concerns,
• maintain and implement plans for orderly land development, and
• implement underfunded safe routes to school programs, to address safety and school
access issues.
Considering the above, we would be concerned that, if the CDE did not engage local jurisdictions
in this study implementation process, the outcomes are more likely to be flawed.
We hesitate to wade into the details of the issue in this brief letter. However, we are unsure if input
opportunities will be provided given the absence of information on the study implementation
process. Absent a public outreach effort that might have allowed us to tailor our comments or
provide an opportunity to participate in a dynamic discussion on these matters, the Board of
Supervisors respectfully makes the following comments:
1. Recognizing the history of problematic school siting, eligible expenditures for future State
bond funds should include projects to repair existing school access and safety deficiencies.
Eligible expenditures should include on and off-site improvements and automotive and
non-motorized (safe routes to school) facilities.
2. The ability to preempt local land use authority in the siting and design of educational
facilities should be modified to establish a partnership with local government.
3. The State should update its existing facility development guidance1 as a part of the current
study implementation process. Please consider the following comments:
• Work with the Cities-Counties Schools Partnership, California State Association of
Counties, the League of Cities, local jurisdictions, the California County Planning
Directors Association, and the County Engineers Association of California to
develop an approach to integrating educational facilities into local land use plans
and processes while respecting the State's need to deliver school facilities in a
predictable manner.
• Best planning practices now incorporate land use context considerations into policy
guidance. School site acreage minimums are inconsistent with this and should be
modified.
• Compel local school districts and local jurisdictions to work together, either by
statute or financial incentives. The State's administrative responsibilities under the
landmark climate change bills, AB32 and SB375 or the Complete Streets Act of 2008
could be ideal vehicles for this approach. We understand that CDE is contemplating
this and we applaud this potentially efficient strategy.
• Require that the design of vehicular and pedestrian facilities (on and off-site) be
developed jointly with cities' and counties' planners and engineers, who are most
familiar with the community and likely travel patterns.
1 School Site Selection and Approval Guide , and Guide to School Site Analysis and Development