Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04071992 - 1.126 r 1 . 126 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F•, Contra FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa Countv DATE: April 2, 19920C. u SUBJECT: FEES FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Receive and refer to the Internal Operations Committee the attached report from the Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, proposing amendments to the General Plan to more adequately provide for school facilities . BACKGROUND: As is noted in the attached report from the Director, GMEDA, 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. As a part of that report, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to meet with impacted school districts to prepare criteria of impact to be incorporated into environmental documents, to review General Plan goals, policies and implementation •measures related to schools to determine whether additional provisions are needed to address school facilities ' impacts, and to prepare for the Board' s further consideration any additional documents which are necessary to allow the approval of requested legislative entitlements and any involved or related development projects where adequate school facilities are provided or assured. Mr. Alexeeff has now prepared a report responding to this direction from the Board and would like the opportunity to discuss the report and related documents with the Internal Operations Committee for subsequent report back to the full Board of Supervisors . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: .L1_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE L�APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES: ACTION OF BOARD ON prl APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS �J` I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT LLL._ ) 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: County Administrator ATTESTED L�C �lU� �i % &2- Director, GMEDA PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Internal Operations Committee SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR C. Van Marter, CAO' s Office M382 (10/88) BY l f ��/' DEPUTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: F:,bruary 5, 1992 TO: Members-Bqand of Supervisors FROM: Val Alex , irector SUBJECT: Fees for School Facilities On September 17, 1991, the Board of Supervisors accepted a report regarding County ability to require fees for school facilities in excess of those required by the State (copy of Board Order attached). Since that time, I have met with staff, including County Counsel and the Sch(.)ol Districts of Antioch,Oakley, Knightsen, Byron,Brentwood,and Liberty, to discuss development impacts. I have also met with members of the BIA on the subject. Our discussions included consultants to the Spin Diego School District, who successfully defended the Miro decision and suggested revisions to the General Plan to specifically outline impact. We have attached a Preliminary Draft General Plan Amendment for your review. We have received a "model" statement of impact from Liberty School District, which I have also attached, for use by other districts. AB 1546, Gotch, addresses this issue. It has been amended five times and it is unclear what its potential effect is at this time. I would like to circulate these documents to the school districts and scat the matter for hearing. Please let me know by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 11. if you have any comments. vn:ag ,„h,,,U auachmcros cc: H. Bragdon, Community Development D. Barry, Community Development C. Kutsuris, Community Development G. Bjerke, Building Industry Assn. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VALENTIN ALEXEEFF. DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC LEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 SUBJECT: REPORT ON ANTIOCH MELLO-ROOS REQUEST FOR COUNTY PARTICIPATION SPECIFIC:REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)& ll,1CK(:IZOUND AND.iusrii.,icA'1'10\ I. Recon„mended 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 anv imoh•ed or related development projects (subdivisions, site plans, etc.) where adequate school facilities are provided or assured (e.g., Mello-Roos district participation). II. Financial Impact: No direct financial impact. Some staff time required. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: See Page ?. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE'- RECOMMIiNDA11ONOFCOUN'IYAU1i1NIS'1'RXl'0R KFCONIME.NDA7IONOFBOAR000N1N111-I'L•'E _APPROVE _OTHER SIGNA"rURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECONINII•:NDI•:D OTHER VOTE.OF SUPERVISORS _UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 1 AYES: NOES:- ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VA:dg mroos.bo Orig Dept: GMEDA cc: County Administrator County Counsel Community Development Public Works School Districts e' 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 arra: D. Effcct 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 fees 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. I Antioch Mello-Roos September 17, 1991 Page 2 III. Reasons for Renrmmendations 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 1982,Antioch adopted the Southeast Area Plan that proposed development of over 15.000 units. In 1987. the City of Antioch and the Antioch Unified School District passed a Mello-Roos community services district to provide t1aciiities 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 15,000. (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 tacilitics is 5822 per average Size unit per year(community recreation facilities are not included tier areas outside the Cin'of Antioch). The program for the Mello-Roos is ambitious and proposes [tae construction of five elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school. The Antioch Unified School District does not ha%e :a common houndary with the Citv of Antioch. As indicated on Attachment A. the Antioch School District boundary includes areas outside the City in the Antioch Sphere of Intlucnce. in Pittsburg, and in the Oakley area. The City of Antioch and the Antioch School District h,a%e requested that rezonings (legislative entitlements) and subdivisions (desclopmcnt protccs) in Antioch's unincorporated area be conditioned to annex to the Mclio-Roos district and that the involved owner-developer he required to vote to he subject to the above-noted annual special tax of the district. County staff is cuncemcd that there may he 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 he rephrased as a process intended to respect due process of law and prevail in it law suit. The request of Antioch has been echoed by the Liberty I ligh 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 Gcncr:al Plan that supports school facilities. In addition, several cases have supported the right of jurisdictions to deny requested legislative entitlements (rezunings, General Plan amendments, development agreements,etc.)on the basis of school impacts (Mira Development Corp.vs. San Diego). Appropriate,_;scttoiil policies adopted in the General Plan are shown on Attachment B. These policies entible school districts to declare themselves impacted by new development to prepare analvses%of the extent of impact and to respond to mitigation options. The existence of school`district impact without sufficient mitigatiop may therefore become grounds to deny it requested legislative entitlement. It Is imnortant 111:11' 1hr rfirNrti.,n.';-n #". 1•.....:.,.. ...,i�' ...,.1.1.., .t.-...1.._._ PRELI�F LNARX 1—DRAFT_G.EISEM._PLAN.A LND MEeNT_, (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 adegate, 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. miningfor-pr-ifaar-y and seeondaf"ehop_�_shal I he used as the basis for-detef the adequaey of af ea 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 General Plan Afaefidmeflt Fequests whieh ifieFease density, the eapaeity of afea . (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. :146- School site donation by developers shall be encouraged through the use of density transfer or other appropriate land use alternatives. 7-145. x-147. The development of school facilities shall be provided in conjunction with and adjacent to local parks and trailways. 7-146. 7 145. 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. 7 148. The county shall support efforts to create a branch state college on the Ygnacio Valley site in Concord. 7-148. 7 149. The County shall support efforts to build a new junior college in the San Ramon Valley. 7-74 7 150.-The-County shalleft seheel-€aeility-fees-fey-gfewth im,aeted sehool d,striets. (Refer to Policy 7-141 and 7-142) SCHOOLS IMPLEMENIC ION MEASURES 7-cm. Revise the-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 Tem In concert with the school districts, prepare an education facilities plan amendment to this General Plan which recommends locations for future school facilities. 7=ca. 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 necessary, irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries. 71ca. 7-ee 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. 7-es- 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 subject 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 facility 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 Rezoniniz for new residential developments shall he 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 County 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 project on a district and determine appropriate facility mitigation. oc\ck\schools.doc 7-77 E) AFT LIBERTY UNION HIGH,SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES STATUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MELLO-ROOS FORMATION IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Prepared by Land Planning Consultants Dated: . January, 1992 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT History Liberty Union High School District consists of one high school, and one continuation school. The school district recently purchased a site for the location of their second high school. It is an to be opened in 1995. The school district receives students from Oakley Union Elementary, Byron Union Elementary, Knightsen Elementary and Brentwood Union Elementary School Districts. Most of these elementary school districts are experiencing growth within their boundaries, thus creating the need to expand and construct additional schools. Oakley Union has constructed one middle school in the past two years and is currently building two elementary schools. Byron Union is planning to build one elementary school within the next five years and Brentwood Union has recently opened one elementary school and will construct one middle school within the next two years. Brentwood's latest elementary school is on a single tract year-round program. Enrollment Projections Current enrollment at the district's facility is approximately 1,809 students. (It should be noted that the district relocated some students to off-campus locations this year, otherwise, enrollment would be higher than the above listed total. The district does not feel any additional students can be relocated.) The district's 1989 State Allocation Board 411 Form projects that by enrollment year 1994/95 the district will have 2,672 students enrolled. (The same report projected the current years enrollment to be 1,842 students.) This projection is based on an historical growth trend which includes limited residential growth in the county areas and almost none in the city of Brentwood. Due to the current slow down in new housing markets, the district assumes this enrollment total will be reached a year later than this projection states, or enrollment year 1995/96. If the housing market trend begins to accelerate and move beyond historical rates, the district may in fact realize a higher student enrollment than by 1995/96. An increase in new residential development in Brentwood will help contribute to this impact. Projected Need for District's Second Facility Based on the aforementioned enrollment projections, the first phase of the district's second high school facility should be opened by enrollment year 1994/95. This would allow for new classroom space to be available at the same time the existing facility reaches capacity. However, based on an optimistic time schedule to build a high school, the earliest possible opening date is August of 1995 when it is projected the district will have 2,672 students. 1 • 1 C DRAFT I School Standards A. Inventory of existing schools: School: Liberty High School Location: 850 Second Street, Brentwood Grade-Level:.9-12 School Year: Traditional Teaching stations: 85 Current Capacity: 2,078 students (See Exhibit "A" for district's Master Plan. Exhibit "B", Emergency Interim ' Housing Plan is designed as a temporary relief plan until a permanent facility can be constructed. This plan allows for 16 additional classrooms which replace parts of the recreational area, eliminating some of the physical education programs). School: La Paloma High School (continuation high school) Location: 6651 Lone Tree Way Grade Level: Continuation School Year: Traditional # of classrooms: 7 Current Capacity: 105 B. CLASSROOM DATA: Current .State Loading Loading Standards Liberty High Classrooms 28 28 Laboratories 24 24 La Paloma High Classrooms 15 15 Laboratories 0 0 2 C. ENROLLMENT: Enroll. Cap. Diff. Liberty 1809 2078 500 La Paloma 120 105 =15 District Wide 1,929 2,183 485 D. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ON DISTRICT BOUNDARY: Approved Approved Prop. Final Mag Tent. Map Tent. Map City of Brent. 639 2,031 5,556* County xxx xxxx xxxx Total xxxx aaoQc xxxx *an adjustment made to Planning Department's Project Status Rpt. dated 1/1/92 E. STUDENT IMPACT FROM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT GROWTH: Student Generation Figure (SGF) for high school students is 0.19. Using this SGF and the information from section D, the student impact can be seen in the first table. The second table illustrates the effect Table I has to current enrollment. Table I SGF Total (Total Approved Final Map) xxx 0.19 = xxx (Total Approved Tent. Map) xxxx 0.19 = xxx (Total Prop. Tent. Map) xxxx 0.19 = xxx TOTAL = xxx (Construction of single-family units is a dominate trend. Therefore, the single- family Student Generation Factor was applied to the above formula). 3 Table II Proj. Student Enroll. Impact Cap. Diff. Liberty High 1809 xxxx xxx xxxx F. NEW FACILITIES: School: Oakley High School Location: Corner of Neroly & O'Hara Avenue School year: Year-round Grade Level: 9-12 Current Capacity: 2.200 The school site was purchased with proceeds from a 1988 general obligation bond measure. G. BUDGET FOR NEW SCHOOL FACILITIES: School: Oakley High School Phase I $20,600,000 (1,000 students) ' Phase II $9,400,000 Total $30,000,000 - 1991 Dollars The total value does not include land value. The first phase is more expensive due to common areas and infrastructure costs associated with the extension of utilities. Based on the cost per unit to build the first phase, $3,800.00 per unit could be collected at the time a building permit is issued. Breakdown of cost per dwelling unit (assuming 12,800 units contributing) on an equal basis. $30,000,000 - 12,800 = $2,344 per dwelling unit 4 II FINANCING FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES: A. SOURCE OF FINANCING: (a) State Funding (b) Developer Fees (c) General Obligation Bond (d) Special Community Facility Districts - (Mello-Roos) B. EFFECT OF FINANCING METHODS: (a): State Funding: The school district has applied for state assistance. However, a great deal of uncertainty exists regarding the future availability and magnitude of State funding. If assistance is provided, the funds would still fall short of school funding needs. (b): Developer Fees: Pursuant to an agreement with all feeder elementary school districts, developer fees are split. Therefore, Liberty School district receives 25% of the developer fees, making this financing tool insufficient. (c): General Obligation Bond: In order for a bond measure to pass, it must receive 2/3's voter approval. Even.if a state-wide measure was passed every year for the next ten years, there would remain a shortfall problem. (d): Mello-Roos: Establishing Mello-Roos Districts and conditioning future developments to participate in this program has been successful. This program has been the most successful instrument in financing school facilities. C. ALTERNATIVE FUNDING: "Turn key" construction is a means for developers to construct a new school themselves, turning over the keys to the school district when construction is complete. The advantage to the developer is that the construction costs would be less for the developer than for the school district. III MEANS FOR UPDATING SCHOOL IMPACTS ON A PERIODIC BASIS: Updating school impacts will occur as the State of California requires. 5 IV SCHOOL DISTRICTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT: Reflected below are the elementary school districts, their respective schools, enrollment and grade levels. Oakley Union Elementary School District -- Gehringer Elementary (K-5), enroll: 950 — Oakley Elementary (K-5), enroll: 950 -- O'Hara Park (6-8), enroll: 800 Byron Union Elementary School District -- Byron Elementary (4-8), enroll: 331 -- Discovery Bay Elementary (K-3), enroll: 330 Knightsen Elementary School District -- Knightsen Elementary (K-8), enroll: 250 Brentwood Union Elementary School District — Brentwood Elementary (K-5), enroll: 657 — Garin Elementary (K-5), enroll: 606 -- Ron Nunn Elementary (K-5), enroll: 477 — Seeno Middle (6-8) not opened — Edna Hill Middle (6-8), enroll: 526 ' (Information obtained from the California Public School Directory, 1991. Student enrollment represents an approximate enrollment). 6 F C Exhibit "A" \ + MASTER PLAN fJ LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT t Summary of Buildings, Pupil Loading, and Teaching Stations as of June, 1992 CAMPUS: Liberty High School PUPIL TEACHING BUILDING OR COMPLEX LOAD STATIONS Gymnasium "undersized" 0 0 Gymnasium Addition 0 0 N-Wing-Lang &Sac Sci Classrooms 516 19 Library 0 0 Library Addition 0 0 Lion's Hall 0 0 Old S-Wing-Classrooms 112 4 E-Wing-Classrooms . .. 112 4 D-Wing-Nigh School Admin 0 0 C-Wing-High School Admin 0 0 Cafeteria/Student Center 0 0 Technical Center 72 3 Arts and Crafts 80 3 Wood Shop 24 1 Metal Shop 24 1 Auto Shop 45 2 Swimming Pool Building 0 0 Agriculture Complex 0 0 T-Complex Portables 220 8 CC-Complex Portables 196 7 Ball Field Buildings 0 .0 P-Complex Portables 412 15 Maintenance Complex 0 0 Science Building 104 4 Math &Science Classrooms 308 11 Performing Arts Center 84 3 SUBTOTAL 2309 85 adj. capacity " 90% TOTAL 2078 85 Special Ed Vac 1 Count owned p Y ).. 0 ... 0 Special Ed Vac 2(County owned) 0 0 'Special facility programs enrollment adjustment ratio 0.e_, wood shop,auto shop,metal shop,etc.) Exhibit "B" EMERGENCY INTERIM HOUSING PLAN LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Summary of Buildings, Pupil Loading, and Teaching Stations as of June, 1992 CAMPUS: Liberty High School TEACHING `.BUILDING OR.C.OMPLEX`'::..::.::;. :. PUPIL,LOAD' STATIONS Gymnasium "undersized" 0 0 Gymnasium Addition 0 0 N-Wing-Lang &Soc Sci Classrooms 516 19 Library 0 0 Library Addition 0 0 Lion's Hall 0 0 Old S-Wing-Classrooms 112 4 E-Wing-Classrooms 112 4 D-Wing-High School Admin 0 0 C-Wing-High School Admin 0 0 Cafeteria/Student Center 0 0 Technical Center 72 3 Arts and Crafts 80 3 Wood Shop 24 1 Metal Shop 24 1 Auto Shop 45 2 Swimming Pool Building 0 0 Agriculture Complex 0 0 T-Complex Portables 220 8 CC-Complex Portables 196 7 Ball Field Buildings 0 0 P-Complex Portables 412 15 Maintenance Complex 0 0 Science Building 104 4 Math &Science Classrooms 308 11 Performing Arts Center 84 3 Emergency classrooms 448 16 SUBTOTAL 2757 101 adj. capacity * 90% TOTAL 2481 101 Special Ed Voc 1 (County owned) 0 0 Special Ed Voc 2(County owned) 0 0 'Special facility programs enrollment adjustment ratio(i.e., wood shop,auto shop,metal shop,etc.) ' W.DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT o��t1E� s�[boo JAMES W.DENT EDUCATION CENTER 1936 Carlotta Drive. Concord,— rd,California 94519-1397 (415)682-8(M OFFICE OF BOARD OF EDUCATION RECEIVED COVI RA COSTA COUNTY February 24, 1992 FEB 2 8 11992 GRO''4[H MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Valentin Alexeeff Director Growth Management and Economic Development Agency 651 Pine Street No. Wing, Second Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Val: I have received the Preliminary Draft General Plan Amendment. Your support in this area is greatly appreciated. The only concern that we would have is on page 7-77 (See attached highlighted in yellow). We do have concerns about exempting housing for low income households. We feel that they should not be excluded from school facilities mitigation. In our district, such housing provides the only apartment units which yield significant numbers of students. This is evidenced in our Meadow Homes attendance area as well as the low income apartments at the corner of Bailey Road in West Pittsburg. Sincerely, f'aulE. Allen Associate Superintendent PA/js AN EQUAL OPPOR7L-,7IM,;4FFI]aATIVE AC77ON EAIPLO}TR FAX(415)650.2505 SCHOOLS IMPLEMENT(-'ON MEASURES 7-cm. Revise the 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-em.. in concert with the school districts,prepare an education facilities plan amendment to this General Plan which recommends locations for future school facilities. 77-cp. 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 necessary, irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries. 7-cc . 7-e&, 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-eR: 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. 7-es 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 he subject to 1 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 facility 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 tinder state law, applicants for General Plan Amendments or Rezonim 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 County 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 project on a district and determine appropriate facility mitigation. oc\ck\schools.doc 7-77 SR UD OFA SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT • John W. Duncan, Superintendent 699 Old Orchard Drive,Danville, California 94526 • (.510) 837-1511 • FAX (510) 837-9247 March 12, 1992 RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Mr. Val Alexeeff, Director MAR 16 1992 Growth Management and Economic Development AgencyGROWTH MANAGEMENT AND Contra Costa County ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.AGENCY 651 Pine Street, No. Wing, Second Floor Martinez, ca 94553 Dear Mr. Alexeeff: Reference is made to your letter directed to John Duncan, Superintendent of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District regarding the Preliminary Draft General Plan Amendment as it relates to schools. The staff has had an opportunity to review the possible General Plan Amendment and does not have any additional comments at this time; however, we would like to reinforce the importance of proposed policy number 141 which states "Applications for General Plan Amendments or Rezonings for new residential development shall be required to adequately mitigate impacts on school facilities. " If we can provide additional information regarding support of this amendment, please do not hesitate to call us. Sincerely yours, Jame's,,�. O'Connor, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services cc: John W.. Duncan, Superintendent Laird Neuhart, Land Planning Consultants Chris Learned, Director of Facilities Development #6/fac.genplan • r 1 Orinda Union School District 8 Altarinda Road • Orinda. CA 94563 O (510) 254-4901 Richard Winefield, Ed.D., Superintendent RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FEB 2 4 1992 GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND E,CONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY February 24 , 1992 Mr. Valentine Alexeeff, Director Growth Management & Economic Development Agency 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Valentine: Thank you for sending me a copy of your proposal and background material concerning impacts upon school districts resulting from residential developments. While I have not brought this specific item before my board, I know they would support any effort to require mitigation for schools as part of the development approval process. We are in the midst of an EIR process here in Orinda regarding a large residential development proposal, and so are sensitive to the possible negative impacts. I certainly support your efforts, and appreciate the update. Let me know if there is anything I might do to assist you. sincerely �cLdO'( Richard Winefield Superintendent Board of Trustees Carol Riddell, President Michael Reidenbach, Vice President Cassandra Forth Karen Murphy Judith Turner ,oNH►��s�yQ .�.,lberty ' �, awn .J L i�. �choot l s trio �� A 20 Oak 01rezi 'Brentwood, C,'1 94S 13 76ne.(Sro)634-2166_7ax(Sro)634-1687 March 3, 1992 Catherine Kutsuris, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor - North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Ms. Kutsuris, Liberty.Union High School District has reviewed the preliminary draft General Plan Amendments"Schools" as represented in your correspondence to this office. First, conceptually the draft General Plan Amendment relating to schools is consistent with the language proposed by school districts to Contra Costa County. Second, the tone of the language used in the proposed Amendments supports the concept of cooperation between the development community and local school districts in developing comprehensive plans for mitigating the impact of new residential development on school facilities. Lastly, Liberty Union High School District supports the inclusion of these General Plan Amendments with the following suggestions: 1. Inclusion of a statement which clearly separates the Board of Supervisors from the authorization of Developer Fees as provided under current State statutes. Either clarity Section 7-cv or include a separate section relative to State authorized Developer Fees. 2. Clarification of section 7-144. As written, it appears as school site donation by developers would be in addition to other mitigation measures covered in 7-Cu. Is that the intent of section 7-144? The proposed General Plan Amendments represent substantial changes in the General Plan relative to schools. These proposed amendments provide a process in which the County can accurately access the long-term impact of residential growth on school facilities within the County planning areas. Please extend my appreciation and respect to those people responsible for preparing the draft amendments. Your responsiveness to the issues raised by the school community is both positive and visionary for the residents of Contra Costa County. If can provide assistance or answer any questions, please don't hesitate to contact my office. I look forward to working with the Community Development Department in moving the draft amendments to final adoption by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Sincerely, 1 Al r -i iY- Philip D. White, Ed.D. Superintendent PDW:dd cc: Val Alexeeff AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER tee, - d -17,2: : !7- T �nl Z6 -ZAdW