The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10241995 - SD8 r f 150, 2 a ✓ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1995 SUBJECT: "WILL SERVE" LETTERS FROM SCHOOL DISTRICTS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICA'T'ION RECOMMENDATIONS: ACCEPT update report as requested on October 10, 1995 in preparation for the hearings on November 14, 1995. FISCAL IMPACT: Commitment of staff time to reconcile issues. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On October 10, 1995, the Board of Supervisors requested a series of hearings to be set for the November 14 Board meeting, as well as a staff report on October 24 as an update in preparation for the hearings. The specific direction of the Board for the two meetings is as follows: To set for a hearing on November 14, consideration of vesting tentative map approvals which have as conditions of approval, the securing of"will serve" letters from school districts. The Board also requested from staff, a status report to be delivered in two weeks which will preview the November 14 hearing and report on any progress that has been made between now and then with the parties or issues. Options should include a possible ordinance to deal with different aspects of the issue. (continued on Page 2) CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNA'T`URE: ��`� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTFT? APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON Og1 5b@r 24 , 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTF,RED ON THE —.(I.JNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) MINUTES OF TIIE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ATTESTED October 24 1995 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PHIL B 71E CLFR "OF THE BOARD OF SUP SOR. A D COU PDMINISTRATOR VA:dg BY ,DEPUTY willser2.bo Contact: Vat Mexeeff(646-1620) CC: County Administrator County Counsel GMEDA Departments East County School Districts(via GMEDA) BIA(via GMEDA) "Will Serve" Letters October 24, 1995 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: (continued) The intent of staff is to set hearings for the following subject: To reconcile the"will serve" condition on specific applications with the action taken by the Board in relation to specific applications. Key issues: I. On September 22, 1992, the Board amended the County General Plan with regard to school facilities. Based on the Goals, Policies and Implementation measures, procedures are established. Procedures and appropriate General Plan excerpts are in Attachment A. 2. During the period from September 22, 1992 to July 25, 1995, the Board was faced with a dilemma consisting of the following points: a. It was known that East County schools would not be able to accommodate the demand for school facilities if all the development proposed was built. b. State funding could not keep up with new facility demands. C. East County school districts had not worked out the final details, funding, and new developments' share in a comprehensive manner, however, facility needs were identified by the individual districts. d. There was an agreement among City officials, School District Officials, and developers for Brentwood Elementary School District facilities, but not for the other districts. e. Developers, property owners, and builders did not want their approvals held up while the school districts, the County and others, figured out how a comprehensive agreement would be structured. f. The "will serve" situation only affected applications requesting legislative acts, general plan, and rezonings. In these cases, applicants wanted the application to proceed, but acknowledged the need, by accepting the condition, for the extraordinary overcrowding to be addressed between the developer and the school district. "Will serve" conditions have not been proposed for subdivisions where no legislative act was requested. This compromise was superior to denying the project unitl the school issue was resolved. g. By the school district's and County's calculation, the school fee of $1.65 (with cpi) per square foot was inadequate to pay for facilities needed to accommodate new growth. h. School districts were very successful in obtaining their share of State school funding, but it still was not enough to accommodate new growth. i. No one wanted a moratorium on approvals until the issue was resolved. The County sought a balance. Entitlements were approved, but a"will serve" condition was attached. The intent was to require developers to meet with school district officials to resolve facility issues pertaining to their project and district needs. In some cases, agreements were reached between developers and school districts. In other cases, developers and school districts did not meet. "Will Serve" Letters October 24, 1995 Page 3 3. On July 25, 1995, a solution was reached with the Hofmann Company which was applied to the recent approvals for Discovery Bay West. The solution was intended to encompass five school districts and all facilities for the foreseeable future. The notion that the plan only considered the Hofmann project ignores every detail of the agreement, the process for attaining the agreement, and the participation in the agreement. While it's clear that the requirement would apply prospectively, it was necessary to develop the mechanisms to fairly reconcile the agreement with approvals in 1993, 1994 and early 1995. 4. On September 19, 1995, the Board accepted the agreement developed for the East County school districts as adequate mitigation to discharge the conditions of the "will serve" requirement. This meant that the Board would accept the agreement reached with Hofmann as satisfactory for other projects as well. 5. It is necessary to expedite resolution of the "will serve" condition to enable developers to proceed with their projects. 6. Criteria for"will serve" enforcement. a. Exclusions 1) Project is designated for senior housing, very low-income housing as designated by the Contra Costa County Housing Element, or studio and one bedroom apartments. 2) An agreement has been reached previously between the developer and school district to satisfy impact. 3) Need for school facilities was not provided at the time of project review and approval. 4) There was no mitigation required at the time of approval. 5) No relationship was established between project impact and project mitigation. ATTACHMENT A "WILL SERVE" LETTERS (10/24/95) SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES COUNTY PROCESS 1. Review applications and other information to ensure there are adequate school facilities to meet needs of development. (Burden of proof on schools to demonstrate need.) 2. Use environmental review process to monitor ability of schools to serve development. 3. Where nature and extent of need is demonstrated and justified, require General Plan Amendments and rezonings ro incorporate adequate mitigation for primary and secondary facilities prior to entitlement. 4. Review school facility inventories, facility plans, and capacity projections prior to project determination. Recommend denial of entitlement if impact can be demonstrated and inadequate mitigation provided. 5. Coordinate review of new development with appropriate districts, cities and service providers in the review and approval process. 6. Provide method for adequate school notification of project application and review. 7. Incorporate residential unit description in project review to enable assessment of school impact. 8. Review and ensure adequacy of district facility information to be used to ascertain impact, including classroom size and opportunities for district boundary reorganization. SCHOOL DISTRICT ACTIONS 1. Encourage multipurpose use of school facilities. 2. Demonstrate maximum use of existing educational resources and school facilities. 3. Demonstrate efforts to seek State and Federal funds. 4. Demonstrate efforts to raise funds within the district by passing a bond issue, selling surplus property, and other measures. 5. Develop facility plan for future needs, including: a. Inventory of current facilities, capacities and uses. b. Consideration of scheduling alternatives. C. Use of portables. d. Opportunities for boundary readjustments. e. Evaluation of other means to demonstrate most efficient use of facilities. f. Designation of future school sites. g. Efforts to achieve designation of future sites. 6. Provide notification of inadequate facilities supported by sufficient facility information to justify County action. QUALIFICATION FOR FEES Develop alternate mitigation requirements for the following: 1. Senior housing. 2. Very low-income households. 3. Studio and one bedroom units. ATTACHMENT B PROJECT LIST File # Name & Name & Consultant/ When Elementary Address of Address of Engineer Approved School Applicant Property District Owner 2736-RZ 3-C Dev. Patricia John Wyro 6-8-93 Oakley DP 3048-87 Co. Fraser, TRE The Wyro School SD 6963 3160 Crow 1320 N. Co. District Canyon Manzanita 105 Alta 236 Lots Place, Ste. Orange, CA Haciendas 100 92667 Orinda, CA San 94563 Ramon, CA PH #254- 94583 5246 Ph #830-8700 Engineer - D.K. Assoc. 1440 Maria Lane, Ste. 200 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 Ph #932- 6868 2917-RZ KLA-Bryan Lesher Patricia ------- Oakley DP 3031-90 & Murphy, Communica Curtin School SD 7588 Inc. tions, Inc. Gagen, District (Lesher 5000 C/o John McCoy, Lakes) Executive Zenai McMahon & Parkway, 2640 Armstrong (571 Lots) Ste 125 Shadelands P.O.Box San Drive 218 Ramon, CA Walnut Danville, 94583 Creek, CA CA 94526- 94596 0218 Ph 867- 3380 Ph 935- Ph #837- 5900 0585 2918-RZ Three A. J. Engineer - 6-8-93 Oakley DP3032-90 Sisters Solomon/ D. K. School SD 7562 Trust Chartered Associates District (Cypress 101 Land & 1440 Maria Lakes) Ygnacio Cattle Co. Lane, Ste. Valley 101 200 (1,330 lots) Road, #400 Ygnacio Walnut Walnut Valley Rd. Creek, CA Creek, CA Walnut 94596 94596 Creek, CA 94596 Ph 932- PH 947- 6868 1047 Ph 947- 1047 File # Name & Name & Consultant/ When Elementary Address of Address of Engineer Approved School Applicant Property District Owner 2951-RZ Bellecci & Camray ---------- 2-9-93 Oakley DP3010-91 Associates Dev. & School SD 7657 2290 Const. Co. District Diamond 7919 220 Lots Blvd., #100 Folsom Concord, Blvd., #150 CA 94520 Sacramento , CA 95826 Ph 685- 4569 Ph (916) 383-8500 2955-RZ Jim Bones Edward & --------- ---------- Knightsen DP 3025-91 Lone Star Charlotte School SD 7488 Dev., Inc. Biggs District P. 0. Box 1757 Green (South 2213 Acres Ln. Kiver) Walnut Susuin City, Creek, CA CA 94585 575 Lots 94595 Ph 988- 0814 2963-RZ Hofmann Hofmann Carlson, 7-25-95 Mostly in DP 3025-91 Co. Co. & Edna Barbee & (Phase I Byron SD 7685 P.O.Box M. Fallman Gibson, Inc. only) 324 School 907 P.O.Box 2000 Crow units District (Disco Bay Concord, 757 Canyon West) (Has CA 94522 Brentwood, Place, #250 North 1/4 in GPA) CA 94513 San Knightsen 2,000 units Ph 682- Ramon, CA School (partly 4830 94583 District. approved) (Phase I PH 866- only - 324 0322 lots) 2970-RZ Bellecci & Cutino --------- 1-18-94 Oakley DP3033-91 Associates Family School SD 7681 2290 Trust District Diamond 3081 39 lots Blvd., #100 Brookside Concord, Drive CA 94530 Pittsburg, CA 94565 PH 685- 4569 File # Name & Name & Consultant/ When Elementary Address of Address of Engineer Approved School Applicant Property District Owner 2985-RZ Bellecci & Monte & --------- 5-18-93 Byron DP 3005-92 Associates Lucia School SD 7679 2290 Albers District (Albers- Diamond 1400 Deer Centex 1) Blvd., #100 Valley Road Had GPA Concord, Brentwood, CA 94520 CA 94513 288 Lots PH 685- PH 779- 4569 0397 2987-RZ Bellecci & CBM, et al ---------- 1-24-95 Oakley DP 3008-92 Associates 351-C St. School SD 7689 2290 Mary's St. District Diamond Pleasanton, 225 lots Blvd., #100 CA 94566 Concord, CA 94520 PH 685- 4569 2991-RZ 3C Dev. Co. Gary & Bellecci & 7-1-94 Oakley DP 3011-92 Bishop Clair Chase Associates School SD 7797 Ranch #8 246 Las 2290 District 500 Quebradas Diamond 114 lots Executive Alamo, CA Blvd., #100 Parkway, 94507 Concord, Ste. 490 CA94520 San Ramon, CA 94583 PH 685- 4569 Ph 830- 8700 2998-RZ Bellecci & SEECON ------------ 12-14-93 Oakley DP 3024-92 Associates P.O.Box School SD 7662 2290 4113 District Diamond Concord, 251 lots Blvd., #100 CA 94524 Concord, CA 94520 PH 685- 4569 3003-RZ Hofmann Same --------- 6-7-94 Oakley DP 3007-93 Co. School SD 7837 P.O.Box District (GPA) 907 Concord, 81 Lots CA 94522 PH 682- 4830 File # Name & Name & Consultant/ When Elementary Address of Address of Engineer Approved School Applicant Property District Owner 3014-RZ S.H.Cowell Same --------- ---------- Brentwood DP 3016-83 Foundation School SD 7838 120 District (Cowell Montgomery Ranch) Street, Ste. (GPA filed) 2570 San 6,000 units Francisco, CA 94104 PH (415) 397-0285 3017-RZ Bellecci & Monte & ---------- 12-13-94 Byron DP 3020-93 Associates Lucia School SD 7881 2290 Albers District Diamond 1400 Deer (Albers/Cen Blvd., #100 Valley Rd. tex II) Concord, Brentowod, (GPA) CA 94520 CA 94513 97 Lots PH 685- PH 779- 4569 0397 Centex Homes 1855 Gateway Blvd., #650 Concord, CA 94520 Ph 827- 8100 LTRI/project s.AB