HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06161992 - 2.3 S
2.2
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 16, 1992 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
______________________
SUBJECT: Proposed Crockett Cogeneration Project
The Board considered the recommendations of the County
Administrator as set forth on the attached report (included as a part
of this document) .
The following persons spoke:
Salli Spoon, President, Crockett Chamber of Commerce, (no
address) ;
Ruch Blakeney, 549 Loring, Crockett;
Frances A. Dahl, 191 Baldwin Avenue, Crockett;
Bill Concannon, 1644 Lillian Street, Crockett;
Paul Nolan, 539 Loring Avenue, Crockett;
Gethin James, 12 Stephens Court, Crockett;
Maria Isabel Cid, 1202 Wanta Street, Crockett; and
Mary Moutinbo, 515 Loring, Crockett.
There was consensus among the Board Members to take action on
Recommendations Nos 1, ,4, and 5. In its discussion on the
composition of the proposed Community Advisory Group, it was noted
that Alan Breasco had declined membership on the Advisory Group and
that Ruth Blakeney was named as his replacement.
Now, therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the report of
the County Administrator is ACCEPTED and that the Crockett Community
Advisory Group is ESTABLISHED with the following membership:
Pam Pagni, County Service Area P-1;
Jay Gunkelman, Crockett Improvement Association;
Sally Spoon, Chamber of Commerce;
Roy Wilson, Crockett Improvement Association;
Vera Minkner, Senior Citizen;
Angelo Tacconi, Lions Club;
Ruth James, Crockett Improvement Association;
Dirk Lawson, Vista Carquinez Homeowners Association;
Ruth Blakeney, Cogeneration Committee;
Frances Dahl, Cogeneration Committee; and
Paul Nolan, alternate
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Crockett Community Advisory Group
REPORT to the Board of Supervisors on July 28, 1992.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the County Administrator' s Office
PREPARE for the Board.' s consideration on June 23 , 1992 a proposed
budget for the Committee and proposed funding by Energy National Inc.
FURTHER, the Board RECOGNIZED the importance of involving the
Crockett Community in a needs setting and mitigation process and
DECLARED its intent to share new revenue generated by the project
with the community of Crockett should there be a net increase in
property tax revenues from the project after the State adopts its
Budget.
Growth Management. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
County Counsel Board of Supervi,ore on the date shown.
County Administrator ATTESTED,
PHIL ATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
Deputy
. a . z
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �"5.. L. ° Contra
-_
FROM: Costa
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator ;z
County
DATE: rTq,coax
June 16, 1992
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED CROCKETT COGENERATION PROJECT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1
1 . Accept the report of the Proposed Crockett Cogeneration
Project .
2 . Consider the tentative allocation to the Crockett Community,
of $200,000 per year in property tax revenues, when the
revenue is realized as a result of the Project, and pending
the outcome of state budget deliberations which may modify the
property tax distribution system for local government.
Consideration should be given to earmarking $100,000 of the
allocation for law enforcement needs and $100,000 for human
services and community development needs .
3 . Consider requesting the California Energy Commission to
condition its approval of the Energy National Inc. Project
upon the applicant providing at least $200,000 per year to the
County to be used solely for the benefit of the Crockett
Community.
4 . Consider the desirability of establishing a Community Advisory
Group to assist in securing a permanent revenue stream from
Energy National, Inc. , to mitigate community needs . The
Community Advisory Group should also assist in recommending a
list of tentative needs for the Crockett Community.
5 . Recognize the importance of involving the Crockett Community
in a needs setting and mitigation process and providing
affirmative support to the Crockett Community.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: --YES SIGNATURE: 1
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I EBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND C ECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: —NOES: AND ENTERE N THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: _ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Growth Management ATTESTED
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK THE BOARD OF
County Admin' rator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY A NISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
M382 /88)
-2-
BACKGROUND:
Energy National Inc. , of Portland, Oregon is proposing to build a
cogeneration facility at the C & H Sugar Company refinery in
Crockett. This natural gas-fired cogeneration facility would
generate steam for the refinery and electricity for sale to Pacific
Gas and Electric Company. , Construction is expected to begin in the
Spring of 1993 and require approximately 27 months to complete.
Energy National is a subsidiary of Pacific Generation Company which
participates in the ownership and operation of 11 generating plants
across the United States .
To receive the appropriate permits to build the proposed generation
facility, Energy National must be certified by the California
Energy Commission. The project expects to obtain certification
from the CEC: by April of 1993. Apparently certification of the
facility requires that the proponent make a significant showing
that the project will 'be of meaningful long-term Community benefit.
Energy National "has requested the Board to consider how property
tax revenues from the Project may be allocated to provide benefits
to the Crockett Community. We would recommend that the Board
consider tentatively allocating $200, OOD per year to the Crockett
Community, half for law enforcement and half for human services and
community development. These monies .would be made available when
the project generates sufficient additional property tax revenues .
Proposals currently being considered by legislative Committees
dealing with the state budget would significantly modify existing
tax distribution formulas and thereby. reduce or eliminate
anticipated property tax revenues from the. Project.
Energy National has proposed a tax redistribution plan to the CEC
to satisfy the requirement that the project will be of long-term
benefit to the Community. However, we suggest that Energy National
directly support the Crockett Community to the extent of at least
$200, 000 per year. Given the potential for a $69 million budget
cut to the General Fund next fiscal year, the County is not in a
financial position to meet all the needs of the community. It is
anticipated, at this time, that essential county services will be
reduced to all areas, of the unincorporated areas of the County,
including Crockett, as well as essential county wide services in
order to balance the budget.
On June 3, CAO staff met with Crockett Community members Sally
Spoon, .Chair of the Chamber of Commerce, and Pam Pagni a member of
P-1 . Ms . Spoon and Pagni suggested a citizens Advisory Group to
the Board of Supervisors be formed which would include the
following persons from the following organizations :
Pam Pagni,
County Service Area P-1
Jay Gunkelman,
Crockett Improvement Association
Sally Spoon,
Chamber of Commerce
Ron Wilson,
Crockett Recreation Association
Vera Minkner,
Senior Citizen
Angelo Tacconi,
Lions Club
Alan Breasco,
Crockett Improvement Association
-3-
The Advisory Group would provide a structure which would organize
and facilitate valuable input from the Crockett Community.
This Group could assist in securing a permanent source of funding
from Energy National for the benefit of the Community. The
Cogeneration plant apparently is guaranteed revenues for the sale
of electricity. Moreover, another firm proposing a similar
cogeneration plant in Crockett in 1989 and offered $250,000 in
Community Assistance funds .
Also, this Community Group could also advise the Board on the
Community needs which require financial resources . A tentative
list developed at the June 3 meeting included: -
1 . police patrol;
2 . repair of roads and sidewalks;
3 . street cleaning;
4 . ars AMTRAK Station; and
5 . senior housing
;7, 3
_�' •
TOv' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - Contra
-- =.� Costa
`_ = `s
'xaiu��0 6: a
FROM: VALENTIN ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR ;_ 0a<, �,, ¢-. " County
GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: June 16, 1992 noun
SUBJECT: Proposed General Plan Amendment for School Facilities
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS)--& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS.-
1.
ECOMMENDATIONS:1. Accept the report from the Director, Growth Management and
Economic Development Agency (GMEDA) , regarding the status and
content of the proposed General Plan Amendment for school
facilities.
2 . Refer the proposed General Plan Amendment to. the county
Planning Commission for public hearing and fecommendat pn`, ;
prior to the amendment being scheduled before then Board`, of s'
Supervisors for decision.
FISCAL IMPACT:
fS,
No direct financial impact. Some staff. time required.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 (refer to the September 17 , 1991 Board Order attached) .
In response to the Board's direction, a preliminary draft General
Plan, Amendment which would amend Section 7 . 13 of the . Public :
Facilities/Services Element was prepared. The amendment-"would ,
require that applicants for General Plan Amendments or Rezonings
for new residential development be required to adequately mitigate
impacts on school facilities. This document was circulated to .all
of the school districts within the County for review and comment,
as well as to the Building Industry Association (BIA) .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
J
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 16, 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED A OTHER X
Supervisor Torlaksm moved to approve the staff recammdation. SLpervisor 11-1 a reguested changes in ui� cn
item 7-148 to read a ria cm uv_ty oollege in south County, and on item 7-147 to eliminate the Ncrds in'Ccnocrd.
-A pervi.sor Torl akscn agreed to the rested dues. IT IS BY UE BOARD GRDFRID that recmmm jaticn 1 is APPROVED;
and r atite 2 is APPROVED with the requested charges in urriiM to the Oral Plan A nm±mt.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED June 16, 1992
cc: Director, GMEDA PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Catherine Kutsuris - CDD THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Dennis Barry - CDD ND C TY A NISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
2 .
The Internal Operations Committee reviewed the preliminary draft
General Plan Amendment and the comments received from the school
districts at their April 13 , 1992 meeting. At that meeting, Mr.
Westman explained 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.
The Internal Operations Committee expressed concern that the
language, as presented, allows the State to . escape its
responsibilities and would place that responsibility on the County
and the developer. ' Mr. Westman noted that, as presented, the
proposed General Plain Amendment would tie the hands of the Board of
Supervisors by requiring the Board to provide for school facilities
and, effectively, allowing a school district to veto a development
where such facilities are not provided.
The recommendations of the Internal Operations Committee, which
were approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 21, 1992 ,
directed the GMEDA to discuss the proposed General Plan Amendment
with the BIA, and requested the BIA to provide their comments to
the Board. This issue was also referred to the Finance Committee
for their consideration.
At the April 27 , 1992 Finance Committee meeting, the BIA presented
a number of requested changes to the preliminary draft'General Plan
Amendment. All of the requested changes have been incorporated
into the Draft Plan Amendment (refer to the attached document) . A
copy . of the Building Industry Association's memorandum detailing
their requested changes has also been attached for your review.
The incorporation of the BIA comments addresses the concerns
expressed at the Internal Operations Committee. regarding ensuring
that the State responsibility for school facilities is not
transferred to the county and to the developers. The changes would
also ensure that participating school districts would be required
to give evidence that existing facilities have been utilized to the
extent possible (e.g. , year-round educational program,
reorganization of attendance boundaries) . In addition, residential
developers would be involved in the implementation portion by
including them in the development of the content and format of
district facility information which would be used to identify the
impact of a proposed residential project on the district and
appropriate facility mitigation. . Philip White, Ed.D. ,
Superintendent of the Liberty Union High School District, was
present at the Finance Committee meeting and raised no objections
to these changes.
CK/aa
BDV/School. CK
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 jwni4 Community 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 the 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
r f
SCHOOLS GOALS
7-A0. 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 primary and secondary school facilities are
adequate or committed to be adequate, prior to approvals of
major applications for residential growth.
7-AS. To maximize the use of existing educational resources and school
facilities.
7-AT. To assure that school districts are seeking and receiving their fair
share of state and/or federal funds for school facilities.
SCHOOLS POLICIES
7-140. The environmental review process shall be utilized to monitor the
ability of area schools to serve development.
'4H41 . P'1.. ing the.development Feyi.,w pFeeess,the State^1.,,.�.^r..V, � -
sta.,rlaFds rift by eb diStFiet fee ..
sehee(&.- (Refer to Policy #7-141)
7-141 . To the extent possible, applications for General Plan
Amendments or Rezonings for new residential development shall
be required to adeouately mitigate impacts on primary and
secondary school facilities.
,,.-„Qm efi-r-Feqtrests—;:vell
ineFease-density, the ea paeity ef aFea seheels and the distiriet
shat be given elr '- .,14^.,6— (Refer to Policy 7-141)
7-142. X44-The development of quality schools shall be supported by
coordinating development review, with local schooldistricts
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.
7-74
7-144. -7 146. School site donation by developers shall be encouraged
through the use of density transfer or other appropriate land use
alternatives.
7-145. 7 14-:- To the extent possible, the development of school
facilitiesshal4should be provided in conjunction with and adjacent
to local parks and trailways.
7-146. -7 14 6. 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. :-448-The county shall support efforts to create a branch state
college on the Ygnacio Valley site in Concord.
7-148. -7 1-48- The County shall support efforts to build a new jeoief,
Community college in the San Ramon Valley.
7- ;60. .
(Refer to Policy 7-141 and 7-142)
7-150. The County expects that all growth impacted school districts,
_where appropriate, shall actively pursue state and/or Federal
funds for school facilities.
7-151 . The County expects that all growth impacted school districts
shall maximize the utilization of existing facilities through the
appropriate conversion to a year-round program.
7-75
SCHOOLS IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
7-cm. Revise the County CEQA 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.
7-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-ca. 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. 4-efr. 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.
z-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 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.
7-76
,i
7-ct. Develop, in conjunction with interested school districts and
residential developers, 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. The facility information should include consideration of
district reorganization of boundaries to the extent possible.
7-cu. :To the extent allowable under State law, applicants for General
Plan Amendments or Rezonings for new residential developments
shall be reauired 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.
7-cv. 'rhe procedures provided in School Implementation Measures 7-
I.-p, 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
both evidence of diligent participation in all state and/or Federal
funding programs for school facilities and sufficient district
facility inforrhation so that the County may determine the impact
of a proposed residential project on a district and determine
anpronnate facility mitigation.
schools.ck
7-77
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: VALENTIN ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC:DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: SEPTEMBER -17, 1991 =
SUBJECT: REPORT ON ANTIOCH MELLO-ROOS REQUEST
FOR COUNTY PARTICIPATION
SPECIFIC RE,QUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. Recommended Action:
REQUIRE that all completed-environmental documents acknowledge a statement of schooll
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 any involved
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 2.
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: !
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): v-
ACTION OF BOARD ON SFP 17 Tjg'i APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_�� OTHER_
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT )
AYES: NOES: I
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I hereby m::fy zn.:. cni3 is a true and correct copy of
an action trken and entered on the minutes of the
VA:dg Board of Supervi ors on re date s own.
mroos.bo ATTESTED: Z 9/
PHIL BAT HELOR,Clerk of the Board
Of Supervisors and County Administrator
Orig Dept: GMEDA ;/^
cc: County Administrator /
my Counsel ep s ,Deputy
mmunity Development
Public Works
School Districts
Antioch Mello-Roos
September 17, 1991 ``
Page 2
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:
Several school districts in Contra Costa County have indicated that the State authorized
$1.58 per square foot residential construction charge for schoolfacilities 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 facilities
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 facilities is $822 per average size
unit per year (community recreation facilities are not included for areas outside the City of
Antioch).
The program. for the Mello-Roos is ambitious and proposes the construction of five
elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school
The Antioch Unified School District does not have a common boundary with the City of
Antioch. As indicated on Attachment A, the Antioch School District boundary includes
areas outside the City in the Antioch Sphere of Influence, in Pittsburg, and in the Oakley
area.
The City of Antioch and the Antioch School District have requested that rezonings
(legislative entitlements) and subdivisions (development projects) in Antioch's
unincorporated area be conditioned to annex. to the Mello-Roos district and that the
involved owner-developer be required to vote to be subject to the above-noted annual
special tax .of the district. County staff is concerned that there may be 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 be rephrased
.as a process intended to respect due process of law and prevail in a law suit.
The request of Antioch has been echoed by the Liberty High 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 General Plan that supports school
facilities. In addition, several cases have supported the right of jurisdictions to deny
requested legislative entitlements (rezonings, General Plan amendments, development
agreements, etc.) on the basis of school impacts (Mira Development Corp. vs. San Diego).
Appropriate school policies adopted in the General Plan are shown on Attachment B.
These policies enable school districts to declare themselves impacted by new development
to prepare analyses of the extent of impact and to respond to mitigation options. The
existence of school district impact without sufficient mitigation may therefore become
grounds to deny,a requested legislative entitlement.
It is important that the direction given to planning commissions, staff, and the development
community be clear: It is also important that school districts be accountable to demonstrate
their declaration of impact.: Fees for new developments are intended to provide new or
expanded facilities where current facilities are inadequate to support the influx of children
due to growth. Fees are not intended to upgrade non-impacted existing facilities or become
part of operations' budgets. In the event that State funds are obtained, causing revenues
to exceed capital improvement programs, reimbursement or comparable action needs to be
i taken in favor of developers or property owners:
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 area
D. Effect 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.
ATTACHMENT A
/ �•!'!'�• tact. u "�•^"`.. � �'� -
.. ` tt.•ems! .•.. � � i �. 1 I _1_ j 1 �:
A. S+. U . D. MELLO—ROOS
.";. '• #tiles sID� 1
Z.
Yt
At
1+ 'z�f „j,•.;f%. lit _ C; �r �� � � !� �+
/` ` • "� •,. . M � 'i� • to ;
••j• x r a+ 4._w_,� 1
N.A. r w�_ ; \� / -t ♦' r_ � . }i� i, t �l"igti+` .ti. i�• ) - -+
' ``f�•:. f,- + � -�"l moi•- .. A.- _==- - �_
SUPV) Di
r` ;... _isai�M x; _
ANTIOCH SCHOOL DISTRICT
• �! ; — t ---_ --- •• ANTIOCH CITY LIMITS -
MELLO—ROOS SCHOOL DISTRICT
_•'f�' •••••• SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
ATTACHMENT B
GENERAL PLAN GOAls,',POLICIES ANIf WIILEM.IINTATION MEASURE'S
RELATED TO SCIIOOLS
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.
SCHOOLS'POLICIES
7-140. The environmental review process shall be utilized to monitor the ability of area schools to serve
development.
7-141. During the development review process, the State classroom size standards set by each district for
primary and secondary school shall be used as the basis for determining the adequacy of area schools.
7-142. When considering General Plan Amendment requests which increase density, the capacity of area
schools and the district shall be given close attention.
7-143. The hearing body in reviewing residential projects shall consider the availability of education facility
capacity.
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.
7-145. Adequate provision of schools and other public facilities and services shall be assured by coordinating
review of new development with the cities and other service providers through the Growth
Management Program, the environmental review process, and other means.
7-146. School site donation by developers shall be encouraged through the use of density transfer or other
appropriate land.use alternatives. .
7-147. The development of school facilities shall be provided in conjunction with and adjacent to local parks
and trailways.
7-148. The County shall support efforts to create a branch State College on the Ygnacio Valley site in
Concord.
7-149. The County shall support efforts to build a new junior college in the San Ramon Valley.
7-150.. The County shall support school facility fees for growth-impacted school districts.
SCHOOLS IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
7-cm- 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. Lobby for State,financing of new schools within the County.
7-co. 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 an provided with the proposed application and requested to provide its
recommendations thereon to the applicant and the County planning agency.
7-cp. The procedure provided in School Implementation Measure 7-cp. is to be applied in those schouls
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 arca.
mroowLbo
I
CAtlro
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
u P. O. BOX 5160 • 2641 CROW CANYON ROAD
do I ;
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (510) 820-7626 Fax (510) 820-7296
April 27 , 1992
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Val Alexeeff, Director
Contra Costa County
Growth Management and Economic Development Agency
FROM: Guy Bjerke, Executive Director
Local Governmental Affairs
RE: Comments - General Plan Amendment - School Facilities
The proposed General Plan Amendment provides a framework within
which the County can effectively "level the playing field" in east
county when it comes to school facility mitigation. Since forcing
purchasers of newly constructed homes to pay for new schools is the
policy the Legislature and the Governor have let the Courts adopt
for this state, the BIANC supports this GPA with the language
amendments below.
SCHOOLS GOALS
7-AR. To assure that primary and secondary school facilities are
adequate or committed to be adequate, prior to approvals of major
applications for residential growth.
NEW GOAL. To maximize the use of existing 'educational resources
and school facilities.
NEW GOAL. To assure that school districts are seeking and
receiving their fair share of state and/or federal funds for school
facilities.
SCHOOLS POLICIES
7-141 . Applications for General Plan Amendments or Rezonings for
new residential development shall be required to adequately
mitigate impacts on primary and secondary school facilities.
7-145. To the extent possible, the development of school
facilities should siva+l be provided in conjunction with and
adjacent to local parks and trailways.
NEW POLICY. The County expects all growth impacted school
districts shall actively pursue State and/or Federal funds for
school facilities.
EASTERN WEST BAY SOUTHERN NORTHERN
DIVISIONAL OFFICES: (510)820-7626 (415)364-9008 (408)437-1390 (707)584-9133
San Ramon San Jose San Jose Rohnert Park
.' AFFILIATED WITH NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS AND CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
`n
Val Alexeeff page 2
GPA - School Facilities
NEW POLICY. The County expects all growth impacted school
districts shall maximize the utilization of existing facilities
through the apr)ropriate conversion to a year-round educational
program. .
SCHOOLS IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
7-ct. Develop, in conjunction with interested school districts
and residential developers, 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_
.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_ erre�c3831'1q
higher- affeeted--sehee+
7-cv. The procedures provided in Schools Implementation Measures
7-cp, 7-cs, 7-ct and 7-cu are to be applied to those school
districts who notify the County that they may have inadequate
facilities to handle additional residential development and who
provide both evidence of diligent participation in all State andfor
Federal funding programs for school facilities and 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.
COMMENTS ON COMMENTS FROM SCHOOL DISTRICTS
#5. The mitigation should be based on the square footage rather
than on the residential type.
**The square footage of a unit has little impact on the
student generation from that unit.
#6. The assessment of the adequacy of school facilities should be
based on the immediate attendance area rather than district wide
availability.
**That's absurd. The reorganization of attendance boundaries
should be the first step a district takes to 'alleviate school
crowding.