BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 313
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Galgiani |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 6, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: April 22, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Kathleen Chavira |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This bill has been referred to both the Senate Education
and Governance and ???.Finance Committees. A "do pass" motion
should include a referral to the Senate ???.Governance and
Finance Committee.
Subject: Local government: zoning ordinances: school
districts
SUMMARY
This bill expands the requirements to be met by a school
district governing board in order to declare a zoning ordinance
inapplicable to a proposed use of land for classroom facilities
and increases the standard to be met for such action from
"arbitrary and capricious" to one of "substantial evidence".
BACKGROUND
Existing law requires a school district to comply with city and
county zoning ordinances if the zoning ordinance makes provision
for the location of public schools and if the city/county has
adopted a general plan.
Existing law authorizes a school district governing board, by a
two-thirds vote of its members, to render a city or county
zoning ordinance inapplicable to proposed use of property by the
school district if it has complied with requirements to notify
the planning commission in writing before acquiring title to the
property (Public Resources Code § 21151.2), and it participates
in notification and meeting requirements that are intended to
SB 313 (Galgiani) Page 2
of ?
foster improved communication and coordination between cities,
counties, and school districts related to planning for school
siting (Government Code § 65352.2). The school district
governing board is prohibited from taking such action if the
proposed use of the property is for non-classroom facilities.
Existing law authorizes the city or county to commence an action
in the applicable county superior court seeking review of the
board's action to determine whether it was arbitrary and
capricious, in which case the court can declare it to have no
force and effect and the school district is required to comply
with the zoning ordinance. (Government Code § 53094)
For school sites approved January 1, 1997 and thereafter,
existing law requires that, prior to commencing with the
acquisition of land designated in a city/county general plan for
agricultural use and zoned for agricultural production, a school
district governing board makes findings that:
1. The school district has consulted with the city/county
on the proposed location.
2. Final site selection was evaluated by the board based on
all public interest factors and not limited to selection on
the basis of land cost.
3. The school district will try to minimize public health
and safety issues from neighboring agricultural uses that
might affect students and employees. (Education Code
§17215.5)
ANALYSIS
This bill expands the requirements to be met by a school
district governing board in order to declare a zoning ordinance
inapplicable to a proposed use by the school district.
Specifically it:
1. Requires the governing board to comply with specified
Education Code provisions regarding the acquisition of
agricultural land.
2. Requires that the vote of the board be taken at least 90
SB 313 (Galgiani) Page 3
of ?
days after notifying, the city/county in writing of its
reasons for intending to take such action and based upon
written findings on the record.
3. Expands the authority of a court's review of the board's
action to determine whether the action was arbitrary and
capricious to include whether it was based upon
"substantial evidence" in the public record pursuant to
specified law.
STAFF COMMENTS
1. Rationale for the bill. According to the author, the
siting of schools outside of the local general plan
negatively affects farmers and ranchers located in
exclusive agricultural zones. When a new school is built
on agricultural-zoned land, neighboring farmers are
required to maintain pesticide application buffer zones to
prevent possible contamination or drift onto school
property. According to the author, while this is necessary
to protect the health and safety of schoolchildren and
residents, the remaining agricultural properties may
experience revenue losses due to restricted farming
practices. The author opines that, regardless, school
districts continue to site new school facilities on
agricultural zoned land.
The committee was not provided with any information
regarding the magnitude of school sites being constructed
on agricultural land or the extent of the use of existing
authority to render zoning ordinances inapplicable by
school boards.
2. Broad applicability. It appears to be the intent of the
author and sponsor to affect the ability of school
districts to declare zoning ordinances inapplicable to
school facility projects specifically on agricultural land.
As currently drafted, the bill would add a reference to
Education Code provisions regarding the use of agricultural
land for school siting. The expanded requirements would
apply to all school districts for all potential school
sites, whether or not the land is zoned for agricultural
purposes.
SB 313 (Galgiani) Page 4
of ?
3. Status of school facilities construction. Amid concerns
about the complexity and structure of the current school
facilities construction program and the state's increasing
debt service obligations, the Governor has proposed
significant changes to the way school facilities are
funded. In order to allow districts to better meet their
facilities needs at the local level, the Governor's 2015-16
budget proposes to:
A. Expand revenue generation tools at the local
level by expanding local funding capacity and
increasing caps on local bond indebtedness;
B. Restructure developer fees to set one level for
all projects at a level between existing Level II and
Level III fees subject to local negotiation; and
C. Expand allowable uses of Routine Restricted
Maintenance Funding to authorize the pooling of these
funds over multiple years for modernization and new
construction projects.
On February 18, 2015, this committee held a joint
informational hearing with the Budget Subcommittee on
Education on K-12 SCHOOL FACILITY PROGRAM: HISTORY, CURRENT
STATUS, AND FUTURE OPTIONS to review the Governor's school
facilities proposals. Among other things, the committee
heard testimony that, while the state's growing debt
service is of concern, it was unclear whether local
districts have the capacity to generate sufficient revenue
at the local level to meet their ongoing facility needs for
deferred maintenance, modernization and new construction.
Could this bill create yet additional challenges for school
districts attempting to meet their facility needs at the
local level?
4. Is there a problem? Current law already requires a school
district governing board to notify and seek the
recommendation of the local planning commission prior to
land acquisition and to notify and meet with cities and
counties regarding school siting before it can exercise its
authority to render a zoning ordinance inapplicable. It is
unclear why the expanded requirements established by the
SB 313 (Galgiani) Page 5
of ?
bill are necessary due to the absence of evidence that
school districts are ignoring these requirements or abusing
their authority. At the same time, some elements of the
bill do clarify existing process which governing boards
must follow; including cross referencing existing
requirements that the board make specified findings prior
to the acquisition of land zoned for agricultural use and
production
Staff recommends the bill be amended to reduce the 90 day
notification requirement to 30 days, and to delete "on the
record that contain substantial evidence" on page 2, line
15 and "based on substantial evidence in the public record
pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure"
on page 3 beginning on line 2.
SUPPORT
California Farm Bureau Federation
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --