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
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.