Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04211992 - IO.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa n. „so: Y, a4 County DATE: April 13, 1992 rq"couK SUBJECT: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Request. the Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency (GMEDA) , to share his proposed General Plan amendments dealing with school facilities with the Building Industry Association (BIA) and request BIA to provide their comments to members of the Board of Supervisors at their earliest convenience. 2 . Refer -the proposed General Plan amendments to the Finance Committee for their review and recommendations to the full Board of Supervisors on what types of development applications any changes to the General Plan should apply to ( i .e. , General Plan amendments, rezoning applications, subdivision applications) and to what extent the County should agree to assume the burden of providing for adequate school facilities when the State of California is unable or unwilling to do so. 3 . Request the Community Development Department staff to circulate this report and other appropriate documents to each school district in the County and to advise BIA and each school district in the County when this item is considered by the Finance Committee so they may participate in the discussion if they wish to do so. 4 . Remove this item as a referral to our Committee. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _S-YE SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF C TRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD OMMITTEE APPROVE SIGNATURE(S): DER SUNNE WRIGHT MCPEAK ACTION OF BOARD 0 tl 21, 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ISA TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT_ ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: .please see Page 3 . ATTESTED PHIL BATCHEL ,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY a DEPUTY M382 (10/88) -2- BACKGROUND: On September 17 , 1991, the Board of Supervisors accepted a report regarding the County' s ability to require fees for school facilities in excess of those required by the State. Since that time, the Director, GMEDA, Val Alexeeff, has met with County staff and staff from several school districts to discuss development impacts . Mr. Alexeeff has also met with BIA. Staff have also considered the impact of the "Mira" decision on the County' s ability to impose additional fees on development to provide for school facilities and has reviewed a model statement of impact from the Liberty Union School District. The September 17, 1991, Board Order, proposed General Plan amendments and a report on responses to comments made by various school districts are all attached for the Board' s information. Supervisor Torlakson brought this issue to the Board's attention in view of the fact that several cities charge larger fees for school facilities than does the County. Several cities (as well as school districts) would like the County to charge fees for school facilities which are more nearly equal to the fees charged by the cities, or (as in the case of the City of Antioch) condition developments with a requirement that the development vote to join the Antioch Mello-Roos District. On April 13,, 1992 our Committee met with Mr. Alexeeff, Catherine Kutsuris from the Community Development Department and County Counsel . Mr. Westman explained to us that the "Mira" decision concluded that it was reasonable for a city or county to require that a rezoning application be consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the General Plan may require that school facilities be assured and allows a city or county to deny a rezoning application on the basis; that it is inconsistent with the General Plan in this regard. Mr. Alexeeff has, therefore, proposed General Plan amendments which will hopefully be consistent with the "Mira" decision and will allow the County to require that a developer assure that school facilities will be provided for as a part of an application for a rezoning. Mr. Westman noted that, as presented, the proposed General Plan amendments tie the hands of the Board of Supervisors by requiring the Board of Supervisors to provide for school facilities and, effectively,, allowing a school district to veto a development where such facilities are not provided for. Supervisor McPeak expressed concern as to whether the County should delegate its authority to a school district to this extent and whether the Board of Supervisors should go this far in "taking the State off the hook" to provide for school facilities . The practical consideration is whether the County should provide for ' school facilities when the State is unable or unwilling to do so in order to approve additional development in the County. Supervisor McPeak' s concern, however, is that the language as presented allows the State to practically escape entirely from its responsibilities and. would ;place all of that responsibility on the County and developer. In view of the serious implications of the proposed language, it is recommended that the report from the Director, GMEDA be referred to the Finance Committee because of its financial implications and the Finance Committee be asked to carefully consider the comments of the BIA and the implications of the proposed policy in their deliberations and return their recommendations to the full Board of Supervisors . -3- Supervisor McPeak indicated her personal view that the exemptions provided for senior, studio, one bedroom and low income residential development should be continued, despite comments from various school districts to the contrary. In addition, Supervisor McPeak agreed with the comment from the Richmond School District that the adequacy of school facilities should be based on the immediate attendance area rather than district wide availability. cc: County .Administrator Director, GMEDA Community Development Director County Counsel Catherine Kutsuris, CDD Guy Bjerke, BIA Members, Finance Committee Tony Enea, CAO' s Office ... 4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: April 8, 1992 TO: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak, Chair Supervisor Robert Schroder . FROM: Catherine Kutsuris Senior Planner Ck SUBJECT: Internal Operations Committee 4%13/92: 09:30 A.M. Item Proposed General Plan Amendment: School Facilties On September 17, 1991 , the Board of Supervisors accepted a report regarding the County's ability to require fees for school facilities in excess of those required by the State. The Board also directed staff to review General Plan goals, policies and implementation measures related to schools to determine whether additional provisions were needed to address school facilities' impacts. The attached Preliminary Draft General Plan Amendment would amend Section 7.13 of the Public Facilities/Services Element. This document was circulated to all school districts within the county on February 20, 1992 for their review. This memorandum summarizes the comments received and our staff response. Our department is also expecting to receive comments from the Building Industry Association; they will be sent to you when received. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMENTS Nine school districts responded.to our request for their comments. All expressed support of the intent; the requests for changes and our responses are detailed below. 1 . Clarify that the fees exacted are separate from State authorized development project fees, and that the Board of Supervisors does not have authority over the State authorized fees (comment received from the Liberty Union High School District, the Pittsburg School District and the Lafayette School District). This comment will be referred to County Counsel. 2. It is unclear whether the facility mitigation is in addition to Policy 7-144 which encourages school site donation through the use of density transfer or other land use alternatives (comment received frorn the Liberty Union High School District and the Lafayette School District). The intent of the Preliminary Draft General Plan Amendment is to provide the policy basis for facility mitigation in addition to the school site donation policy which is in the existing General Plan. The Draft General Plan Amendment should include this clarification. 3. Delete the exemption of senior, studio, one bedroom and low income residential development. The Orinda Union School District opposed exempting studio, one bedroom and senior housing but supported a low income exemption; the Mount Diablo Unified School District opposed only the low income exemption; and the Richmond Unified School District opposed all exemptions. In support of their requests, they state that children are generated from these types of units. These housing units were proposed for exclusion in order to maintain the required internal consistency of the General Plan (e.g. Housing,Element). The exclusion of senior housing, however, was also because children would not likely be generated from these units. In addition to policies within the Housing Element, the 1990 Measure C includes the following policy: "There is a critical need to make decent, safe and affordable housing available to all Contra Costa County residents. Fair housing opportunities should prevail for all economic segments of the County,-and housing should be available in reasonable proximity to employment centers. In addition, the County's land use policies should not restrict growth so severely that they preclude these affordable housing opportunities." Residential units designated as "very low.,income" housing were excluded to provide this consistency. Studio and one bedroom units which house children would likely be occupied by low income residents. Thus, I recommend that the Draft General Plan Amendment retain the exclusion for very low income, studio and one bedroom units. The school district's comments regarding exclusions will be referred to County Counsel. 2 4. Expand the scope of the mitigation to include district maintenance needs. (Richmond Unified School District). Richmond Unified School District reports that they have 185 million in unfunded deferred maintenance needs. Although•) recognize the reported severity of their deferred maintenance needs, this appears to be well beyond the intended scope of the draft General Plan Amendment and should not be included. 5. The mitigation should be based on the square footage rather than on the residential type. This comment was forwarded by the Richmond Unified School District who expressed concern that room.s would be designated as lofts or studies in order to avoid the fee. The Preliminary General Plan Amendment addresses residential type only in order to achieve internal consistency. Utilizing square footage is not restricted. 6. The assessment of the adequacy of school facilities should be based on the immediate attendance area rather than district wide availability. (Richmond Unified School District) The draft General Plan Amendment should include this clarification. Please feel free! to call me at extension 6-2091 if you have any questions. ckcp3:schools.mem 3 =� PRELIMINARY DRAFT' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Note: Deletions are denoted by overstriking; additions by underscoring) 7.13 SCHOOLS INTRODUCTION The provision of adequate school facilities and an effective education program is necessary to the long range economic health and vitality of the County. The financing and implementation of the school facilities is shared by the State, local school boards, and the Contra Costa County Junior College District. Although the State of California has preempted the field of provision of school facilities through exactions on development projects, it is the responsibility of local government to ensure that the timing of growth is coordinated with the efforts of the school districts to provide school facilities. For this reason, the Contra Costa County General Plan addresses the provision of school facilities. It is well recognized in California that all children have a right to equal access to quality educational opportunities. It is therefore appropriate that the County General Plan address the changing needs for educational facilities generated by the growth in population envisioned by this plan. Private schools also exist in the County which provide an alternative to public schools for those that can afford this option. Such institutions add vitality to the overall educational community. Map of School Facilities There are 18 school districts and one community college district in the County as indicated in Figure 7-9. Figure 7-9 also indicates sites for proposed new schools. Information was gathered from the individual school districts which are autonomous and prepare their own district facilities plans. The information is incomplete because not all districts have made long term plans for new schools, but, instead, take part in planning for new developments when they occur. However, this General Plan is designed to accommodate, through the growth management and land use review process the new school sites as proposed by each district. Currently, overcrowded attendance areas have been identified in many school districts in the County. For example, in the East County area of Oakley, where much of the unincorporated growth will occur, schools are presently severely overcrowded. Adoption of the General Plan will increase existing overcrowding in the schools substantially. In order to accommodate the projected population growth in the Plan and achieve State-adopted standards in the provision of school facilities in all areas in the County, the following goals policies and implementation measures were developed. 7-73 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 are adequate or committed to be adequate, prior to approvals of major applications for residential growth. (Refer to Goal 7-AO) SCHOOLS POLICIES 7-140. The environmental review process shall be utilized to monitor the ability of area schools to serve development. seheels. (Refer to Policy # 7-141) 7-141 Applications for General Plan Amendments or Rezonings for new residential development shall be required to adequately mitigate impacts on school facilities. 7 142. When eensideFing Gener-al Plaft Amend whieh inefease density,the-eapaeity ef 4ea sebeels and the distfiet shall be given elese . (Refer to Policy 7-141) 7-142. 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. 7-143. -The hearing body in reviewing residential projects shall consider the availability of educational facility capacity- 7-144. :7 1-46. School site donation by developers shall be encouraged through the use of density transfer or other appropriate land use alternatives. :. 7-145. 7 147- The development of school facilities shall be provided in conjunction with and adjacent to local parks and trailways. 7-146. :-145. Adequate provision of schools and other public facilities and services shall be assured by coordinating review of new development with school districts, the cities and other service providers through the Growth Management Program (see Chapter IV), and the environmental review process and other means. 7-147. :-148. The county shall support efforts to create a branch state college on the Ygnacio Valley site in Concord. 7-148. 7-144: The County shall support efforts to build a new junior college in the San Ramon Valley. 7-74 b . (Refer to Policy 7-141 and 7-142) J' SCHOOLS IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 7-cm. Revise die County CEOA Guidelines to require that the impacts of proposed new developments on school districts be identified. 7-cn. Lobby for State financing of new schools within the County. 7-co 7-efa. 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. Work with the interested school districts to ensure that new development contributes,to the extent allowable under State law, its fair and full share of the cost of additional facilities which are necessaryirrespective of jurisdictional boundaries. 7-ca. 7-Eo- 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 and provided with the proposed application and requested to provide its recommendations thereon to the applicant and the County planning agency. 7-cr. 7-ep The procedure provided in School Implementation Measure 7-cq. is to be applied in those school 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 area. 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 for a rezoning or a General Plan Amendment is not complete unless it contains an identification of the number of residential units which will be subiect to school facility mitigation. All residential units except senior housing, housing for very low- income households, studio and one-bedroom units shall be included. 7-ct. Develop, in conjunction with interested school districts, the content and format of district facilitX information which will be used to identify the impact of a proposed residential project on the district and appropriate facility mitigation. The facility information shall utilize state classroom size standards as a basis for determining the adequacy of area schools or a higher standard if that standard is predominately used within the district. 7-cu To the extent allowable under state law, applicants for General Plan Amendments or Rezonings for new residential developments shall be required to provide for additional facilities needed to serve children generated by the new development. Such facilities shall be of a quality and quantity sufficient to meet State Department of Education standards or to maintain an existing higher level of facilities provided by the affected school district. 7-cv. The procedures provided in School Implementation Measures 7-cs, 7-ct and 7-cu are to be applied to those school district who notify the Count that they may have inadequate facilities to handle additional residential development and who provide sufficient district facility information so that the County may determine the impact of a proposed residential proiect on a district and determine appropriate facility mitigation. oc\ck\schools.doc . 7-77