BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1179
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 10, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 1179 (Bocanegra) - As Amended: March 21, 2013
SUBJECT : Regional transportation plan: sustainable communities
strategy: schoolsites.
SUMMARY : Requires metropolitan planning organizations to
identify, in consultation with local educational agencies, how
the sustainable communities strategy may impact school
enrollments and school capacities in the areas targeted for
infill. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the sustainable communities strategy (SCS) to
identify, in consultation with each local educational agency
(LEA) in the region, how the SCS may impact school enrollments
and capacities and the need for new schoolsites or expansion
or modernization of existing schoolsites.
2)Adds the Superintendent of Public Instruction or his or her
designee to the Strategic Growth Council (SGC).
3)States that reimbursement to local agencies and school
districts, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that
this act contains costs mandated by the state, shall be made
as specified.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, under the provisions of SB 375 (Steinberg), Chapter
728, Statutes of 2008, a regional transportation plan to
include an SCS designed to achieve the targets for greenhouse
gas emission reductions.
2)Requires each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to
prepare an SCS that includes the following:
a) Identification of the general location of uses,
residential densities, and building intensities within the
region;
b) Identification of areas within the region sufficient to
house all the population of the region, including all
AB 1179
Page 2
economic segments of the population, over the course of the
planning period of the regional transportation plan taking
into account net migration into the region, population
growth, household formation and employment growth;
c) Identification of areas within the region sufficient to
house an eight-year projection of the regional housing need
for the region as specified;
d) Identification of a transportation network to service
the transportation needs of the region,
e) Gathers and considers the best practically available
scientific information regarding resource areas and
farmland in the region as specified;
f) Considers the state housing goals, as specified; and,
g) Sets forth a forecasted development pattern for the
region, which, when integrated with the transportation
network, and other transportation measures and policies,
will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles
and light trucks to achieve, if there is a feasible way to
do so, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets
approved by the state board, as specified.
3)Establishes SGC and requires the SGC to manage and award
financial assistance to Councils of Governments (COGs), MPOs,
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs), cities,
counties, and Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) to develop,
adopt, or implement a regional plan or other planning
instrument consistent with a regional plan that improves air
and water quality, improves natural resource protection,
increases the availability of affordable housing, improve
transportation, meets the goals of AB 32, and encourages
sustainable land use.
4)Defines the membership of the SGC to include the secretaries
from the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, the
California Health and Human Services Agency, the California
Environmental Protection Agency, the California Natural
Resources Agency, the director of the Governor's Office of
Planning and Research, and a public member appointed by the
Governor.
5)Defines Local Educational Agencies to mean a charter school,
AB 1179
Page 3
school district, or county office of education.
6)Allows school districts to be exempt from the zoning
ordinances of a county or city unless the zoning ordinance
makes provision for the location of public schools and unless
the city or county has adopted a general plan.
7)Authorizes the governing board of a school district, with a
two-thirds vote, to render a city or county zoning ordinance
inapplicable to a proposed use of district property for
classroom facilities.
8)Declares that it is the intent of the Legislature to foster
improved communication and coordination between cities,
counties, and school districts related to planning for school
siting.
9)Allows, as specified, the governing board of a school or
school district to request a meeting with the planning agency
to discuss possible methods of coordinating planning, design,
and construction of new school facilities and schoolsites in
coordination with the existing or planned infrastructure,
general plan, and zoning designations of the city and county,
as specified. The meeting must occur within 15 days.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)This bill requires a metropolitan planning organization to
include local educational agencies in the region in the
sustainable communities strategy development process with the
goal of determining how the strategy may impact school
enrollment and capacity, and the subsequent need for new
school sites or the expansion or modernization of existing
school sites. The bill also adds the Superintendent of Public
Instruction to the Strategic Growth Council. This bill is
author-sponsored.
2)According to the author, "state policies isolate local
educational agencies (LEAs) from sustainable communities
planning at the local and regional level. The School
Facilities Program is exempt from meeting state planning
priorities and LEAs generally do not participate in the
regional land use and transportation planning coordination
AB 1179
Page 4
done through a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as
mandated by SB 375 (Steinberg, 2008). Because of an existing
lack of communication between Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) and LEAs, school facilities plans and
community and regional plans often clash. New school sites
are sometimes proposed in areas, especially suburban fringe
locations, that do not also include planning for adjacent
development and are only accessible by automobile, or a school
may be slated for closure in neighborhoods planned for infill
housing development where school aged children will live."
3)The connection between land use planning and school siting,
and specifically the development of the sustainable
communities strategy, is not a brand new issue. The Strategic
Growth Council hosted a policy roundtable entitled Smart
Schools for Sustainable Communities on this issue in August of
2010 and included representatives from the Department of
Education, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, UC
Berkeley's Center for Cities and Schools, and several COGs
including the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) and
the Association of Bay Area Governments, as well as other
interested state agencies and groups.
4)From that August 2010 policy roundtable a document was
prepared by UC Berkeley's Center for Cities and Schools to
summarize the discussion at the roundtable and provide
recommendations and next steps.
a) In that summary document the following challenges were
identified and are relevant to the discussion of land use
authority and school siting:
i) Local/Regional Agency Silos . Local agencies tend to
have very different cultures, languages, and planning
timelines - and frequently have adversarial relationships
- all of which greatly hinder collaboration. One core
challenge, particularly from a regional planning
perspective, is that school district geographic
boundaries rarely match those of other local/regional
planning entities.
ii) State Policy Gaps and Obstacles . Changes in state
policy over time have eroded what structures did exist
for local planning collaboration. In particular, 1998's
Senate Bill 50, which established a new state school
AB 1179
Page 5
facility funding program, reversed the prior
Mira/Hart/Murietta Appellate Court decisions,
significantly decreasing local agency cooperative
planning requirements. Today, regional planning agencies
and cities have few requirements to plan with or for
school districts, and school districts do not need to
obtain city or county approval of new school sites and
can override local zoning ordinances.
iii) Current funding structure deters school
modernization . Current school facilities funding
policies make reinvesting in existing schools through
modernization and expansion more challenging than
building new facilities. As a result, inequities persist
in facilities funding and in the physical conditions of
schools across the state. This bias does not align to
the state's planning priorities that include "promot[ing]
infill development and equity by rehabilitation,
maintaining and improving existing
infrastructure?[Government Code 65041.1(a)]."
b) Recommendations from the Roundtable include adding the
Department of Education as a member of the Strategic Growth
Council, undertaking further analysis on school
infrastructure funding patterns, using the next statewide
school construction bond to prioritize the modernization of
existing schools, and establishing state policy structures,
mandates, and incentives for local planning collaboration.
The Committee may wish to consider how the identified
challenges from the policy roundtable interact with the
provisions of this bill.
5)There are several provisions contained in the Government Code
that pertain to a city or county's land use authority and
interaction with school districts. Government Code 53094
allows school districts to exempt themselves from a city or
county's zoning ordinance unless that ordinance provides for
the location of public schools and unless the city or county
has adopted a general plan. That same code section also
allows the governing board of a school district, with a
two-thirds vote, to render a city or county zoning ordinance
inapplicable to a proposed use of district property for
classroom facilities.
AB 1179
Page 6
Government Code 65352.2 declares the intent of the Legislature
to "foster improved communication and coordination between
cities, counties, and school districts related to planning for
school siting" and allows the governing board of a school or
school district to request a meeting with the planning agency
to discuss possible methods of coordinating planning, design,
and construction of new school facilities and schoolsites in
coordination with the existing or planned infrastructure,
general plan, and zoning designations of the city and county,
as specified. The meeting must occur within 15 days.
The Committee may wish to consider whether current law
disincentivizes a collaborative approach between school
districts and local agencies for land use planning and school
siting, and whether this is part of a much broader
conversation about how and where schools are sited.
6)While this bill asks metropolitan planning organizations to
include new information in their sustainable communities
strategies related to schools and capacities, the Committee
may wish to ask for the same reciprocity in school planning
documents, meaning that any relevant educational plan, going
forward, should also recognize and consider the sustainable
communities strategy that has been previously developed by the
metropolitan planning organization in the region.
7)Provisions in SB 375 state that "nothing in a sustainable
communities strategy shall be interpreted as superseding the
exercise of the land use authority of cities and counties
within the region." The Committee may wish to contemplate how
the inclusion of additional information on school enrollments
and capacities in the sustainable communities strategy will
affect local land use decisions.
8)This bill contains a new mandate for both school districts and
metropolitan planning organizations and specifies that
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for the
new work created by the bill will occur only if the Commission
on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs
mandated by the state.
9)Support arguments : This bill ties together the development of
the sustainable communities strategy with the inclusion of
information about school enrollment in the region and the need
for new or modernized schools. It can be argued that the
AB 1179
Page 7
siting of schools is inherently linked to the achievement of
greenhouse gas emissions reductions and should be part of
discussions about sustainability going forward.
Opposition arguments : The Committee may wish to consider the
broader conversation of local land use authority and siting of
schools and how that relationship can benefit by greater
collaboration among cities, counties, and schools.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
Opposition
California Right to Life Committee, Inc.
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958