HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06262001 - C.128 C.128
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 26, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Gerber, DeSaulnier, Glover and Uilkema
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Board ACCEPTED the Grand Jury Report No. 0105, "The Dougherty
Valley School Situation," and REFERRED to the County Administrator.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
Attested: June 26.2001
John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County
Administrator
By:
Deputy Clerk
C. • i ��
725 Court Street
C?.-rand Jury Contra P.O. Box 911
Martinez, CA 94553-0091
l Costa
County
ISF-----5E
S�r.•.
4 cou
June 12, 2001
Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street, 1st Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Report No. 0105
Dear Board of Supervisors:
Attached is Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 0105 for your information. No
response is required.
CAROL THEWS, Foreman
1999-00 Contra Costa County Grand Jury
CW:
Enclosure
' 725 Court Street
Grand Jury Contra P.O.Box 911.
Costa Martinez, CA 94553-0091
County
June 7, 2001 "=
...C
President, Board of Trustees
San Ramon Valley Unified School District
699 Old Orchard Drive
Danville, CA 94526
Dear President:
Attached is a copy of Grand Jury Report No. 0105, "The Doughtery Valley School Situation"
prepared by the 2000-2001 Contra Costa Grand Jury.
In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933.05, this report is being provided to you at
least two working days before it is released publicly.
Section 933.5(a) of the California Government Code requires that (the responding person or
entity shall report one of the following actions) in respect to each finding:
(1) "The respondent agrees with the finding."
(2) "The respondent disagrees with the finding."
(3) "The respondent partially disagrees with the finding."
In the cases of both (2) and (3) above, the respondent shall specify the portion of the finding that
is disputed, and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
In addition, Section 933.05(b) requires that the respondent reply to each recommendation by
stating one of the following actions:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary describing the
implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but.will be implemented in the
future, with a time frame for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis. This response should explain the scope
and parameters of the analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for
discussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication
of the Grand Jury Report.
President, Board of Trustees
San Ramon Valley Unified School District
June 7, 2001
Page 2
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation thereof.
Please be reminded that Section 933.05 specifies that no officer, agency, department or
governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to its public
release. Please insure that your response to the above noted Grand Jury report includes the
mandated items. We will expect your response, using the form described by the quoted
Government Code, no later than September 5, 2001.
To aid you in responding to this report, we have attached a copy of "Guidelines for Responding
to a Grand Jury Report." Failure to conform to these requirements could result in your having to
resubmit your response. You are also advised that your response becomes a public record upon
receipt by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Sincerely,
CAROL THEWS, Foreman
2000-2001 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury
CW:
Enclosures
cc: Board of Supervisors
Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel
urt
re
Grand Jury Contra 725 O.Bo`911
Costa Martinez, CA 94553-0091
County
r:..t.
June 7 2001
N, w:;; �y��,j\!�[��:•_
Dennis Barry, Director
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 2nd, 4th& 5th Floors
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Barry:
Attached is a copy of Grand Jury Report No. 0105, "The Doughtery Valley School Situation"
prepared by the 2000-2001 Contra Costa Grand Jury.
In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933.05, this report is being provided to you at
least two working days before it is released publicly.
Section 933.5(a) of the California Government Code requires that (the responding person or
entity shall report one of the following actions) in respect to each finding:
(1) "The respondent agrees with the finding."
(2) "The respondent disagrees with the finding."
(3) "The respondent partially disagrees with the finding."
In the cases of both (2) and (3) above, the respondent shall specify the portion of the finding that
is disputed, and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
In addition, Section 933.05(b) requires that the respondent reply to each recommendation by
stating one of the following actions:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary describing the
implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a time frame for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis. This response should explain the scope
and parameters of the analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for
discussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the. date of the publication
of the Grand Jury Report.
Dennis Barry
June 7, 2001
Page 2
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation thereof.
Please be reminded that Section 933.05 specifies that no officer, agency, department or
governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to its public
release. Please insure that your response to the above noted Grand Jury report includes the
mandated items. We will expect your response, using the form described by the quoted
Government Code, no later than September 5, 2001.
To aid you in responding to this report, we have attached a copy of "Guidelines for Responding
to a Grand Jury Report." Failure to conform to these requirements could result in your having to
resubmit your response. You are also advised that your response becomes a public record upon
receipt by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Sincerely,
CAROL THEWS, Foreman
2000-2001 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury
CW:
Enclosures
cc: Board of Supervisors
Sivano, Marchesi, County Counsel
j
A REPORT BY
THE 2000-01 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
725 Court Street
Martinez, California 94553
Report No. 0105
THE DOUGHERTY VALLEY SCHOOL SITUATION
APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY:
Date: 77.
CAROL THIM
GRAND JURY FOREMAN
ACCEPTED FOR FILING:
Date: 71 zc��
MICHAEL R. COLEMAN
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0105
The Dougherty Valley School Situation
BACKGROUND
Dougherty Valley comprises approximately 6.000 acres of unimproved land in the unincorpated
area of southwest Contra Costa County contiguous to the City of San Ramon and the Town of
Danville and just North of the Contra Costa-Alameda County line. In 1992, the County
approved a plan for the development of a 11,000 home community, including all associated
related facilities. Subsequently, in 1994, the City.of San Ramon and Town of Danville, through
litigation with the County,.won a role in the development processess because of the impacts the
development would have on their communities.
The Sari Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRVUSD) includes the Dougherty Valley
development within its boundary and has had opportunities for input to the various planning
activities.
Concerns are:
Will adequate elementary, middle and high schools be provided when needed?
- Who will pay for the high school?
What are the interim plans for schooling prior to completion of new schools?
What will be the impact of these interim plans on the existing schools and
community infrastructure?
Who is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all involved parties
(the County, the City of San Ramon, the Town of Danville, the Dougherty Valley
developers, and the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee)?
FINDINGS
1. A December 1988 Agreement between the SRVUSD and Shapell Industries (one
of the developers of Dougherty Valley) obligates Shapell to provide land for and
to construct, at their expense, two elementary schools and a middle school. The
Agreement also requires Shapell to contribute its fair share of the cost of
additional high school space needed to serve students generated by the project
with the SRVUSD paying the balance.
2. In January 1989, a Memorandum of Agreement between the SRVUSD and
Shapell Industries covered provision for land and pro-rata share of financing for
the high school, estimated to cost Shapell approximately $40 Million in 1988
dollars.
3. In 1992, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the Dougherty
Valley Specific Plan, establishing the framework for the 11,000 home
development and associated facilities.
4. In May 1994, the City of San Ramon and Town of Danville successfully litigated
to have a voice in the Dougherty Valley development because of the
infrastructure impacts upon their communities, resulting in the Dougherty Valley
Settlement Agreement. This Agreement also established a Compliance
Monitoring Program to allow tracking of compliance with agreed upon
performance standards. This Monitoring Program enabled formation of a
Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee composed of representatives from the
County Board of Supervisors,the City Council of San Ramon and the Town
Council of Danville(all as voting members) and the developers of Dougherty
Valley(as non-voting members).
5. In.November 1994, as a condition of approval for the Country Club development
at the Gale Ranch Project, SRVUSD and Shapell Industries agreed to amend their
earlier agreements. This amendment provided for the dedication of a site and
construction of the initial elementary school and the phasing of subsequent
schools based upon completion of specified numbers of housing units.
6. In March 1999, an Addendum tothe Amendment enlarged the capacity of the first
elementary school to reflect State-ordered class size reductions. The Addendum
also obligated Shapell to provide two portable classrooms at Iron Horse Middle
School pending completion of a new middle school required of Shapell-for their
portion of the Dougherty Valley development and three portable classrooms at
California High School.
7. The SRVUSD is currently seeking a legal opinion as to the legality of the 1988
Agreement and the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement.
8. Student Yield Factors are used by the SRVUSD to determine the number of
students generated per dwelling. These factors are applied to the number of
dwellings in a particular area to develop the anticipated enrollment; therefore, the
size of any new schools required and when they.are needed.
9. In April 2000, SRVUSD conducted a Developer Fee Justification Study. This
study reflected an increase in Student Yield Factors from 1992 estimates used in
the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, resulting in an increase in needed elementary
schools from four to seven. In addition, an SRVUSD staff memorandum
(October 2000) addresses that the timing of school needs is accelerated by one
year for the second elementary school, by three years for the middle school and
by eight years for Phase 1 of the high school. This information has not been
formally transmitted to the County Community Development Department or the
Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee.
2
10. Several developments at the Gale Ranch Project (West Branch and Country Club)
are completed and contain occupied homes similar in size and price as those
currently being constructed in an adjacent development (The Bridges). Actual
Student Yield Factors for these comparable areas have not been developed by
SRVUSD.
11. SRVUSD has been in direct one-on-one negotiations with Shapell over the
requirements and timing for schools starting in the year 2000 and continuing to
date. SRVUSD plans to set up meetings with three other Dougherty Valley
developers (Brookfield Homes, Centrex and Lennar Communities).
12. The County Community Development Department issued an annual Compliance
Monitoring Report in December 2000. These annual reports are required by the
Settlement Agreement prior to County approval of Final Development Maps for
the Dougherty Valley phased developments. The report data is summarized
below and is compared to the most recent SRVUSD estimates which were
developed in October 2000. There are significant differences in both the number
and timing of schools.
Schools County ompliance Report District Estimates Difference
(December 2000) (October 2000)
Elementary: 2 additional required 3 additional required 1 elem. school
1 in July 2008 1 in July 2004 4 yrs. earlier
1 in July 2012 1 in July 2007 5 yrs. earlier
1 (uncertain date)
Middle: 2 required 2 required
1 in July 2008 1 in 2004 4 yrs. earlier
I in July 2014 1 in 2008 6 yrs. earlier
High: 1 required -July 2009 1 req'd -Phase 1 in 2005 4 yrs. earlier
The Compliance Monitoring Report under"Compliance Status" indicates, "No
action required yet." Therefore, by implication, Final Development Maps may be
approved by the Community Development Department when submitted and the
number of school sites reflected on those maps would become final.
13. One or more middle schools will be utilized in providing interim facilities prior to
the construction of a middle school in Dougherty Valley. Design limits of
existing middle schools are stated as follows in the SRVUSD staff memorandum
of October 2000 and indicate the potential for interim utilization.
3
Projected
Middle School Design Capacity 2003-2004 Enrollment
Charlotte Wood 1130 1014
Diablo Vista 650-700 687
Iron Horse 960-1000 986
Los Cerros 1100 644
Pine Valley 960-1000 9.32
Stone Valley 700 689
14. There are an estimated 739 middle school students who will require interim
arrangements prior to the provision of schools in Dougherty Valley. The County
Community Development Department Compliance Monitoring Report - Year
2000 states the ultimate relief will be required in 2008. The SRVUSD study
estimates the ultimate relief will be required in 2004. There was agreement in
March 1999 between the SRVUSD and Shapell Industries that the Iron Horse
Middle School will be utilized by the addition of portable classrooms prior to the
completion of construction of the first middle school in Dougherty Valley.
Classroom space exists at other school facilities. The SRVUSD has not made
public its interim plans for Dougherty Valley middle school students.
15. High school enrollments are limited to the number of portable classrooms that can
be placed on the available school sites. San Ramon High School has no available
land for the placement of portables. Both the California and Monte Vista High
School campuses can accommodate portable classrooms.
16. The SRVUSD has not yet identified the high school(s) that will be used as interim
facilities for Dougherty Valley high school students pending completion of the
new Dougherty Valley High School. Up to 1466 high school students will require
interim arrangements prior to the year 2009 (County Community Development
Department Compliance Monitoring Report - Year 2000) or prior to the year 2005
(SRVUSD staff estimate).
17. The Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee, established as a result of the
Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, can request that the County Community
Development Department withhold building permits if, based upon their review,
compliance conditions set forth in the Agreement are not met.
18. The school requirements to support the Dougherty Valley Project had not been
addressed before the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee until the March 1.4,
2001 meeting. At that meeting, an SRVUSD official reported that the possible
need for additional school sites was based on an indication that a higher-than-
expected number of students were moving into the first phase of the Dougherty
Valley Project. No numbers were cited.
4
19. The County Community Development Department is under the impression that,
pursuant to Government Code 65995, subparagraph E, a development could not
be denied building permits based soley on inadequacy of school facilities.
20. Discussion at the March 14, 2001 Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee
meeting raised questions as to the propriety of and procedures for adding school
sites to the Dougherty Valley Project plans and the need for additional
consideration of the matter at a subsequent meeting.
CONCLUSIONS
1. There is potential for the taxpayers.of the SRVUSD to be responsible for a School
Bond of a substantial amount in order to build the Dougherty Valley High School
if the 1988 Agreement and the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the
SRVUSD and Shapell Industries covering the provision of schools in Dougherty
Valley are found legally binding. The present planned use by the SRVUSD of the
Dougherty Valley High School for students solely from Dougherty Valley was
not contemplated in the 1988-89 Agreements between the SRVUSD and Shapell
Industries.
2. The SRVUSD has, since 1988, negotiated directly with the developers concerning
the provision of land and construction of the required schools. Under California
law it has every right to do so. However, this presents a potential risk in a
development project of the size of Dougherty Valley requiring the number of
school sites to be dedicated and schools to be constructed. The Dougherty Valley
Project is the largest ever undertaken in the District (or the County) and is
complex with many interrelated community issues. The SRVUSD has not
effectively communicated its needs for additional school facilities for Dougherty
Valley to either the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee or the County
Community Development Department. The conflicting information between the
Compliance Monitoring Report - Year 2000, public statements by school officials
and the SRVUSD staff studies has the potential for putting at risk the provision of
adequate school facilities should the Final Development Maps approved by the
County Community Development Department be based upon the wrong school
site requirements.
3. The SRVUSD has relied upon the results of district-wide Student Yield Factor
studies for school needs in the Dougherty Valley. As the balance of the district is
in a well-developed older area with only scattered small pockets of new
development, these factors may not be applicable to the Dougherty Valley
developments. No attempt has been made to develop Student.Yield Factors of
adjacent and completed developments similar in home size and price for the
student population which may be more indicative of that which can be expected in
Dougherty Valley.
5
.Y
4. The SRVUSD has not announced the selection of the middle and high school(s) to
be used to provide interim schooling for Dougherty Valley students prior to the
construction and opening of these schools in the Dougherty Valley. This makes it
difficult for community leaders and the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee
to assess the impact upon the community of up to 750 middle and 1500 high
school students being served out of the Dougherty Valley area and the possible
need to transport them to and from.existing schools over local roads many of
which are already at capacity during the before and after school.
5. The County Development Department believes it has no.jurisdiction concerning
school requirements and appears to be willing to sign-off on the developers' Final
Development Plan(s) without either the concurrence of the SRVUSD or the
Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee in regard to the adequacy and availability
of schools. The County's approval of Final Development Plan(s) should rest
upon the determination of adequacy of all infrastructure services including the
provision of adequate schooling.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2000-2001 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends the following:
A. The San Ramon Valley Unified School District:
1. Expedite the legal review and determination of the resolution concerning its 1988
and 1989 agreements with Shapell Industries concerning the construction costs of
the Dougherty Valley High School. Prompt resolution is critical in order to avoid
possible delay in the construction of the high school in the time required.
2. Recognize that, although it has the right to.negotiate directly with the developers
concerning the provision of land and the construction of required schools, the
complex and interrelated nature of the Dougherty Valley development.suggests
the District institute positive steps to insure it communicates fully.and coordinates
effectively with both the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee and the
Community Development Department concerning school requirements and timing
for the Dougherty Valley.
3. Promptly determine Student Yield Factors for adjacent and completed
developments similar in home size and price to those of the Dougherty Valley
developments (i.e., "West Branch" and "Country.Club") in order to estimate the
student population which may be more indicative of that which can be expected in
the Dougherty Valley.
4. Promptly communicate its current and best estimate of school requirements for
Dougherty Valley to both the Community Development Department and the
Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee.
6
5. Promptly finalize and communicate to the Dougherty Valley Oversight
Committee its selection of the middle school and high school(s) intended to serve
the interim schooling needs of the Dougherty Valley students in order to permit
review of community impacts by the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee as
permitted under terms of the Settlement Agreement.
B. The County Community Develgpment Department:
1. Evaluate, to the degree permitted by state law, the adequacy of school
provisioning in the Dougherty Valley and in all future County"mega-
developments" in the same manner as it examines other infrastructure
requirements and impacts, i.e., roads; traffic density; water, electricity; sewer;
police and fire; etc. It should rely upon the local school districts toprovide
judgmental input concerning schools and, in the case of Dougherty Valley, also
seek the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee's recommendations.
2. Issue a correction to the County Community Development Department's Annual
Compliance Report for the Dougherty Valley - Year 2000 if the SRVUSD's
current estimate of school requirements and timing differs from that shown.
3. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement Compliance Monitoring Program,
suspend approval of the.Developer's Final Maps for the Dougherty Valley
Developments until the adequacy of school sites and the timing of the school
construction has been agreed upon and formally confirmed in writing by the
SRVUSD and the developers.
7