|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
6.
|
| TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE |
|
|
|
| Information |
| Referral History: |
School siting, relative to industrial facilities and rail lines as raised by the Hazardous Materials Commission (HMC), has has not been heard by the Committee in the recent past. However, the Committee has discussed school siting relative to traffic safety and local land development/conservation policies at length.
While the focus of this report are issues raised in the attached HMC letter, the Committee discussion may benefit from a dialog that considers a joint response encompassing both issues, industrial facilities-rail lines and traffic safety-land development. The overlap of issues is discussed further below.
Administrative Notes
Referral Status: As indicated the TWIC 2018 referrals item earlier in the TWIC agenda, this item has not explicitly been referred to the Committee although it touches on other items under the committees purview (transportation, pipeline safety, etc). The Committee may wish to defer discussion and action until such a time as the Board of Supervisors has referred the item to the TWIC.
Timing: While the attached HMC letter indicates that timing is an issue relative to the State process to develop new guidelines and/or statutes, communication with Department of Education staff indicates that their process is ongoing and there is time for the County to engage.
Representation from HMC: Michael Kent, HMC Staff, is unavailable to attend the TWIC meeting. Two Hazardous Materials Commissioners will be in attendance to participate in the discussion, Leslie Steward and George Smith. Both Commissioners have conflicts later in the morning and have requested that the item be placed early in the agenda.
|
| Referral Update: |
During 2017, the Hazardous Materials Commission (HMC) reviewed State school siting practices and policies relative to the safety impacts resulting from proximity to rail lines and industrial facilities. That review included participation by Fred Yeager, California Department of Education (CDE) staff (Supervising Field Representative) and John Cunningham, Contra Costa County (Principal Transportation Planner). Mr. Yeager is administering a process at CDE to review and potentially revise school siting policies. Mr. Cunningham has engaged with the state on school siting policies and the State's update process relative to traffic safety and coherent land development.
The issues discussed above are being considered together in this staff report in that they share at least one critical characteristic, addressing any one of them in a substantive manner would potentially make it more complex and costly to site and build new schools. Staff has seen substantial resistance to these types of proposals in the past and anticipates that resistance to continue.
The details of the findings and recommendations of the HMC are in the attached communication to Supervisor Karen Mitchoff (Chair of the Board of Supervisors at the time). In summary, the HMC considered several options to address their concerns:
1) Submit comments to the State for consideration during their review of school siting policies (HMC Recommendation),
2) Develop a local ordinance addressing the proximity of schools to rail lines and industrial facilities, and
3) Revisions to the General Plan addressing the issue.
Discussion of these options:
1) Comments to the State
The universe of issues raised by staff (rail/industrial proxmity, traffic safety, land use) are all addressed in the existing CDE guidance. As the HMC letter accurately points out, "...adherence to the guidelines is voluntary...". That said, in order for any new policies to be effective they will likely need to be requirements as opposed to guidelines. New legislation will likely be necessary to grant that the necessary authority. County transportation staff came to the same conclusion during the review of traffic safety and land use issues.
Commenting to the state is the HMC recommendation, the information below may be necessary for the Committee and the Board of Supervisors to understand the implications of that option. Staff has witnessed substantial resistance at the State to both administrative and legislative solutions. That said, while the HMC statement ("the most efficient way to address these (issues) was through changes to state law") is correct, achieving effective change through this option will require a substantial effort above and beyond transmitting a letter. That is to say much more than a single jurisdiction providing comment will be necessary and substantial outreach to our delegation would be required in addition to recruiting other statewide partners. There has been some support at the California State Association of Counties on this effort. CSAC has added the issue to their legislative platform, they are supportive and reactive to initiatives from the County however. We have met with several legislators on the topic and the response has not been what we had hoped.
2) Develop a Local Ordinance
Relative to traffic safety and land use, TWIC agreed to have staff develop such an ordinance in 2016. However, subsequent to that direction CDE initiated their formal school siting policy review process. Given that the development of an ordinance is a substantial undertaking, staff opted to monitor the state process.
There is a common misperception that school districts are exempt from local ordinances. That is not the case, they are actually subject to local ordinances but they are provided the option of exempting themselves with a vote of the board (that exemption may not be arbitrary and capricious). Statewide (if not nationwide), that exemption ability seems to have had a chilling effect on local jurisdictions interest in engaging in land use planning relative to school districts.
At this time, it would be appropriate for the Committee to consider the development of a local ordinance and reaffirm the direction provided by TWIC previously to incorporate the universe of issues discussed in this report.
Rather than the direct impact of such an ordinance, the Committee may also wish to consider the secondary impacts of such an action as being more valuable than the explicit intent in the ordinance:
• A local ordinance may force school districts to take action and go on record as exempting themselves. During the traffic safety and land use dialog at earlier TWIC meetings, the willingness of a school district to exempt itself from the "Contra Costa Student Safety Ordinance" was considered as was the public perception of taking such an action.
• Having a local jurisdiction pass such an ordinance may pressure the state in to taking substantive action during their review process. Having a patchwork of inconsistent local policies is not attractive if the state wants to reliably and predictably deliver school facilities.
3: Changes to the General Plan
Similar to the existing state school siting guidance, policies in the General Plan may have the same limitations. Staff has not considered this as an effective option.
|
| Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): |
| RECEIVE Communication from the Hazardous Materials Commission regarding school siting and safety (re: proxmity to rail lines, industrial facilities), DISCUSS options and DIRECT staff as appropriate. |
| Fiscal Impact (if any): |
| None. |
|
|
|