| Measure: |
AB-2295 |
| Lead Authors: |
Bloom (A) |
| Coauthors: |
Robert Rivas (A) |
| Topic: |
Local educational agencies: housing development projects. |
| 31st Day in Print: |
03/19/22 |
| Title: |
An act to add Article 6 (commencing with Section 17505) to Chapter 4 of Part 10.5 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code, relating to housing.
|
| House Location: |
Assembly |
| Last Amended Date: |
03/29/22 |
| Committee Location: |
Assembly Housing and Community Development |
| Committee Hearing Date: |
04/20/22 |
The bill provides that a housing development project must be deemed an authorized use on any real property owned by a local educational agency (LEA) if it meets specified affordability criteria and planning standards. (From the 4/1/2022 bill analysis)
The bill would allow school districts, the County Office of Education, or charter schools to develop property as housing outside the County's voter approved (Measure L-2006) urban limit line (ULL), "...even if that is inconsistent with any provision of a city’s or county’s general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or regulation." (From the 4/1/2022 bill analysis) This is in conflict with the Board's adopted legislative platform which includes, "MAINTAIN local agency land use authority."
Staff does not have an exhaustive inventory of school district owned land outside the ULL. However, we are aware of a number of school district-owned parcels in east County, in the unincorporated area, outside the ULL. One parcel assemblage is at the southwest corner of Delta Road and Sellers Avenue, the other at the east terminus of Kellogg Creek Road.
In considering this expansion of land use authority for school districts it is useful to consider the performance of school districts and their state counterpart, the Department of Education (DOE) relative to existing authority:
- In 2012, the DOE launched a significant process to reform their school siting guidelines in response to AB32 (2006), and SB375 (2008). There was a "summit" at the start of the process that included some fanfare pointing to the need for the DOE to have policies consistent with the new, GHG reduction driven paradigm. The DOE subsequently conducted hearings and initiated public outreach. The process stopped several years later with no explanation or announcement. Inquiries to the state have either gone unanswered or were responded to with limited information. The school siting guidelines were never updated.
- At the local level the Department of Conservation and Development has had to engage a local school district on several occasions due to potential inconsistencies between land use and environmental law and the purchase of and development of new school sites.
Considering the record of the DOE and local school districts on the development of land which is central to their core mission, educating youth, expanding their authority to include housing development may be ill-advised.
While the limitations on extending services to any parcels outside the ULL will ultimately be a significant constraining factor, staff believes that asserting local land use authority through the ULL is a more reliable and practical approach to the problems presented by the bill.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors send a letter to the author requesting an amendment that would exclude areas outside a local jurisdictions voter approved or Board/Council adopted urban limit line, urban growth boundary, urban service area, urban development boundary, urban/rural boundary, or the equivalent and to engage like-minded organizations in order to build a coalition in support of this position.
Other/Supporting Information
The position of the California State Association of Counties is currently unknown, staff is waiting for a response.
Registered Support/Opposition
Support
CityLab - UCLA (Sponsor)
Landed
Los Angeles Unified School District
SPUR
Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley
Support If Amended
California School Boards Association
Opposition
Oppose Unless Amended
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
Inventory of Growth Boundaries
Staff could not find a definitive list of the various types of growth boundaries in California. The following is a partial list compiled by the Greenbelt Alliance:
Alameda County: Alameda County, Dublin, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton
Contra Costa County: Antioch, Contra Costa County, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Martinez, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, Walnut Creek
Marin County: Marin County, Novato
Napa County: American Canyon, Napa, St. Helena, Yountville
San Mateo County: San Mateo County
Santa Clara County: Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Palo Alto, San Jose
Solano County: Benicia, Fairfield, Rio Vista, Vallejo, Vacaville
Sonoma County: Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, Windsor
Beyond the Bay Area: Solvang, Winters
|