HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 - 1346 School Impacts and Land Use Decisions
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
School Impacts and Development Decisions
Prepared by: Lauren Quint, Assistant City Attorney
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a report regarding the City’s ability to consider school
impacts when making decisions about development. The City Council requested this
future report at its February 7, 2017 meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
Historically, cities and counties had broad authority to use their police power to mitigate
the impact of land development on schools.
However, the “Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998” (also known as SB 50)
created a comprehensive framework for funding new school facilities that took away that
authority. Among other things, it prohibits cities and counties from mitigating the
impacts of new development on local schools. Instead, it sets up a process to fund
school facilities with a combination of state bond funds, local bonds, and mitigation fees
imposed by school districts.
Authorized School Facilities Fees
Under SB 50, school districts can levy fees at three different levels depe nding on
particular circumstances. A school district can levy the lowest, “Level 1” fees, as long as
a study justifies them. The maximum fee is specified by statute and increased every two
years for inflation. (Gov. Code, § 65995, subd. (B)(3).)
Page 2 of 3
School districts can impose “Level 2” fees-which are intended to recover fifty percent
(50%) of the school district’s facility construction costs apportioned on a “per new home
served” basis-under certain circumstances. Level 2 fees may be assessed if a school
district meets certain criteria such as passing local bonds or having substantial
enrollment in year-round schedules. (Gov. Code, §§ 65995.5, subd. (B).)
Finally, a school district may charge Level 3 fees “if state funds for new school facility
construction are not available.” (Gov. Code, § 65995.7, subd. (A)(1).) The State
Allocation Board must make a written determination that state funds are not available
before any district can elect Level 3 fees. (Ibid.)
Dublin Unified School District (“District”) is currently eligible to levy Level 3 fees. Late
last year, the State Allocation Board formally notified the California Senate and
Assembly that state funds for new school facility construction are no longer available.
This triggering event allows the District to collect Level 3 funds (at twice the level of
Level 2 funds) from residential developers. The District's most recent School Facilities
Needs Analysis places the District’s Level 3 amount at $21.32 per square foot, and the
District indicated its intention to collect fees in that amount.
In November 2016, California’s voter passed a statewide bond measure to fund school
facilities. When bonds are issued pursuant to that measure, the State Allocation Board
will likely rescind its determination that state funds are not available. At that point, the
District would no longer be able to levy Level 3 fees.
The City Cannot Deny Development Based on School Impacts
For the City, the most practical result of SB 50 is that it cannot explicitly factor school
facilities impacts into its land-use decision-making. State law deems the provisions of
SB 50 “to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation.” (Gov. Code , § 65996,
subd. (B).) It, therefore, prohibits the City from denying or conditioning land use
approvals based on a developer’s refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that
exceeds what state law allows school districts to levy (Gov. Code, § 65995, subd. (I)) or
based on the inadequacy of school facilities. (Gov. Code, § 65996, subd. (B ).)
Thus, school mitigation cannot be the stated purpose of such denials . For example, the
City could not deny a proposal to change the General Plan designation of a property
from commercial to residential - a decision ordinarily left entirely to the City Council’s
discretion - on the grounds that there are inadequate school facilities to serve the
proposed residential development. In such a circumstance, though, the City Council
might be able to identify other lawful bases for disapproving a proposal, s uch as a belief
that the site is more suitable for commercial development, or none at all.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
Page 3 of 3