PDF Return
C. 38
To: Board of Supervisors
From: John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department
Date: April  26, 2022
The Seal of Contra Costa County, CA
Contra
Costa
County
Subject: AB 2295 (Bloom) Local educational agencies: housing development projects - Oppose Unless Amended

APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE

Action of Board On:   04/26/2022
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:
John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor
Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor
Contact: John Cunningham, (925) 655-2915
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:     April  26, 2022
Monica Nino, County Administrator
 
BY: , Deputy

 

RECOMMENDATION(S):

ADOPT an "Oppose Unless Amended" position on Assembly Bill 2295 (Bloom), a bill that would require a qualified housing development on land owned by a local educational agency, charter school, or office of education, be an authorized use if the housing development complies with certain conditions, as recommended by the Legislation Committee.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

BACKGROUND:

The Legislation Committee heard this item at its April 11, 2022 meeting and directed that it be brought to the full Board of Supervisors recommending a position of "Oppose Unless Amended".  
  





BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
Contra Costa's adopted 2021-22 State Legislative Platform includes the following policy relevant to the subject bill:  
Land Use/Community Development/Natural Resources: MAINTAIN local agency land use authority.   
Measure: AB-2295
Lead Authors: Bloom (A)
Coauthors: Robert Rivas (A)
Topic: Local educational agencies: housing development projects
31st Day in Print: 3/19/2022
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: 3/29/2022
Committee Location: Assembly Housing and Community Development
Committee Hearing Date: 4/20/2022
  
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)  
  
LEA's currently have well known exemptions from local regulations for constructing educational facilities. The subject bill would effectively extend those exemptions to cover the construction of housing (with restricted occupancy and income criteria as defined in the bill). This 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." and a central component of the County's growth management strategy which is the Urban Limit Line (originally passed in 1990 and reaffirmed in 2006). In addition to the conflicts with local regulation, the bill is in conflict with the State's greenhouse gas reduction legislation (AB 32 [2006], SB 375 [2008], SB 743 [2013], et al), which have a goal of more compact development to reduce vehicle miles traveled and land consumption.  
  
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 preferable to relying on these other constraints that are outside of the County's direct control.   
  
The following is an inventory of school district owned land outside the ULL:
Parcel # Owner ACREAGE
075051013 ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST 11.89
365020018 BRIONES VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.582
002010026 BYRON UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 28.57
002010027 BYRON UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 7.43
002010047 BYRON UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 1.73
257070008 CANYON ELEM SCHOOL DIST 1
354201005 CARQUINEZ SCHOOL DISTRICT 1.9
015170028 KNIGHTSEN ELEM SCHOOL DIST 19.97
011210026 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 26.05
011210027 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 23.95
018310011 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 36.81
018310012 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 9.52
018310013 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 10.03
018310014 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST 18.57
011210028 LIBERTY UNION SCHOOL DIST 14.1
  
  
In considering this potential expansion of land use authority for school districts it is useful to consider the related issue of incorporating land use planning principles and interagency coordination into school siting.
  • In 2012, the Department of Education (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 stressed the need for the DOE to have policies consistent with the new, GHG reduction 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 County has engaged on local school district issues on several occasions to ensure that transportation safety, access, land use compatibility, and environmental law were adequately addressed with the purchase of and development of new school sites.
Considering the challenges experienced with the development of land central to their core mission, educating youth, expanding authority to include housing development raises concerns.   
  
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors send a letter to the author (attached) expresssing support for the concept due to the acute housing crisis but also requesting an amendment that would exclude areas outside a local jurisdiction's 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.  
  
  
Registered Support/Opposition
  
California State Association of Counties is engaged on the bill but has not yet established a position.
  
Support  
CityLab - UCLA (Sponsor)  
Landed  
Los Angeles Unified School District  
SPUR  
Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley  
East Bay for Everyone  
SV@Home Action Fund  
  
Support If Amended  
California School Boards Association  
  
Opposition  
  
Oppose Unless Amended  
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California  
California State Pipe Trades Council  
Coalition of California Utility Employees  
International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 18  
International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 8  
Western States Council Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation  
  
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  
  

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

There is currently no opposition to AB 2295 that cites loss of local land use authority or the undermining of coherent land development patterns as a concern. If the recommended action is not taken, the bill could pass, undermining the County's decades long growth management effort. In addition, it would be reasonable to expect secondary, unintended consequences of the bill related to longer term land speculation and development through the formation of developer/school district partnerships to proactively use this new authority.  
  

AgendaQuick©2005 - 2024 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved