HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - ASSEMBLY BILL 3174 (2)City Mana€
Item to be
Michael P. Murphy
CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE: June ll, 1996
SUBJECT: STATE LEGISLATION: ASSEMBLY BILL 3174
DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
As a result of conversations between Mayor Pro Tem Smyth and members of the local education
community, the City Council is requested to oppose Assembly Bill 3174 (Brulte) relating to
school development fees.
AB 3174 specifically seeks to legislatively repeal three court decisions, including the 1991
William S. Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning Commission County of Los
Angeles, which broadened local agencies' authority to consider the impact of new development
on school facilities.
The measure also codifies a cap on, developer fees levied by school districts for new facilities
construction to $1.72 per square foot on residential development approved before January 1,
1997 and $1.84 per square foot for construction approved after that date. Commercial and
industrial development would be charged at the rate of $0.28 per square foot. Future
adjustments for inflation are included in AB 3174.
AB 3174 further mandates that the state assumes full regulatory authority of the school
development fee subject area. Furthermore, local land use authorities would no longer be able
to consider the adequacy of school facilities in connection with any legislative or administrative
act relative to development approvals.
Supporters of the bill argue that the legislation restores the intent of 1986 AB 2926, which set
limitations on local developer fees. AB 3174 places more reliance on local general obligations
bonds as a funding source which has increasingly met with voter resistance, thus placing a
greater financial burden on developers. Finally, the bill establishes a statewide, uniform
standard for school mitigation fees.
Opponents argue that the bill takes away local control in that local governments may no longer
consider the adequacy of school facilities during development approval deliberations. The bill
A polPROVED , ,.
fails to recognize the variance of circumstances from community to community including school
facilities needs, land costs and construction costs. Finally, opponents argue that the bill is being
sold under the guise of concern over affordable housing but it only addresses school construction
costs which is a single component of the overall cost of housing in California.
It is anticipated that all of the local school districts will need additional facilities due to future
development both in the incorporated and unincorporated areas, The original 1986 school fee
mitigation legislation proved inadequate forcing the William S. Hart Union High School District
into court and the court found in favor of the district. A local fee was negotiated several years
ago by the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, local school districts and building
industry which recognized local facilities needs and the concerns of all parties, thus
demonstrating the importance of a local component in the school facilities issue.
The William S. Hart Union High School District is opposed to AB 3174. Although a formal
position has not been taken on the bill, according to Newhall School District Superintendent J.
Michael McGrath, Ed.D., this legislation is contrary to policy positions previously established
by the Board of Trustees. The Newhall School District is also investigating the impact of the
legislation on "free will" mitigation agreements between school districts and developers which
may provide more generous school facilities mitigation than prescribed in AB 3174.
AB 3174 has been approved by the Assembly and is awaiting consideration by the State Senate,
Oppose Assembly Bill 3174 and transmit position statements to members of Santa Clarita's
state legislative delegation, League of California Cities, Contract Cities Association and
Independent Cities Association.
Assembly Bill 3174
Statement of Opposition by the William S. Hart Union High School District
MPM.eb3174agd.611
Then, press <ENTER> to continue =>
In bill text, brackets have special meaning:
[A> <A] contains added text, and
[D> <D] contains deleted text.
California 1995-96 Regular Session
1995 CA AB 3174
Amended
Brulte
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 8, 1996
ASSEMBLY BILL
No. 3174
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Brulte
FEBRUARY 23, 1996
An act to amend Sections 65995 and 65996 of the Government Code,
relating to development.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 3174, as amended, Brulte. Development: fees: school
facilities.
(1) Existing law authorizes the legislative body of certain local
agencies to impose limited fees or other charges against certain
development projects to fund the construction or reconstruction of
school facilities. Existing law more specifically limits those fees or
other charges against a residential development project to $1.50 per
square foot of assessable space, as defined, and against a commercial or
industrial development to $0.25 per square foot of chargeable covered
and enclosed space, as defined, and permits those limits to be adjusted
biennially according to a specified formula. As of January 1994 those
amounts had been adjusted to $1.72 and $0.28 respectively.
This bill would provide that for residential construction within
tentative maps or parcel maps approved prior to January 1, 1997, the
fees or other charges would be limited to $1.72 per square foot of
assessable space, and for residential construction within tentative maps
or parcel maps approved on or after January 1, 1997, the fees or other
charges would instead be limited to [D> $2.72 <D] [A> $1.84 <A] per
square foot of assessable space. The bill would also provide that for
commercial or industrial development, the fees or other charges would
instead be limited to $0.28 per square foot of chargeable covered and
enclosed space,
(2) Existing law prohibits the legislative body of a local agency
from levying development fees or other requirements for the construction
or reconstruction of schools, other than pursuant to designated
statutory authority.
This bill instead would prohibit fees or other requirements for the
construction or reconstruction of schools, from being levied or. imposed
in connection with, or made a condition of, any legislative or
administrative act by any state or local agency involving the planning,
use, or development of real property or any governmental change of
organization or reorganization, other than pursuant to designated
statutory authority.
(3) Existing law provides that the limits on fees or other charges
against certain development projects to fund the construction or
reconstruction of school facilities shall be increased in 1990, and
every 2 years thereafter, according to a specified formula.
This bill instead would provide that the limits on fees or other
charges imposed to fund the construction or reconstruction of school
facilities shall be increased in 1998, and every two years thereafter.
(4) Existing law prescribes the exclusive methods that may be
required by local agencies to mitigate environmental effects related to
the adequacy of school facilities when considering, under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the approval, or the establishment of
conditions for the approval, of a development project [A> , including
pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 <A] .
Existing law prohibits a public agency, in the exercise of its
authority to adopt general plans, zoning laws, and other land use
legislation, from denying approval of a. project on the basis of the
adequacy of school facilities.
This bill would instead prohibit a state or local agency from
considering the adequacy of school facilities, whether or not it is a
condition contained in an existing legislative enactment, in connection
with any legislative or administrative act involving the planning, use,
or development of real property or any governmental change of
organization or reorganization, except as specified.
This bill would also provide that the restrictions described above
upon the mitigation of environmental effects under CEQA apply in
connection with any legislative or administrative action involving the
planning, use or development of real property by any state or local
agency or any governmental change of organization or reorganization
pursuant to CEQA.
[A> The bill would provide that with respect to mitigation of
environmental effects pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities
Act of 1982, that participation in a community facilities district shall
not be made a condition of approval of, nor be considered when
determining whether to approve, certain legislative or administrative
acts, or of any change of governmental organization or reorganization,
as defined. The bill would state that the provisions relating to
participation in a community facilities district are declaratory of
existing law, for specified reasons. <A]
This bill would specify that any conditions imposed by a state or
local agency in connection with the approval of a specific development
project prior to January 1, 1997, shall not be affected, nor shall
obligations under certain prior existing contracts between a builder,
owner, or developer and any school district, city or county be affected
by the change reflected in this item (4).
(5) This bill would make other technical changes to delete language
pertaining to ACA 6 of the 1991-92 Regular Session that failed to
receive the approval of the majority of the voters voting on the measure
on November 2, 1993.
(6) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations
related to the Legislature's intent to statutorily reverse specified
decisional law, and its intention to limit the amount of fees and other
charges imposed in connection with the construction or reconstruction of
school facilities.
(7) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to
pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and
other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory
provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State -mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) It is the intent of this act to statutorily reverse the
decisions reached by the California Courts of Appeal in Mira Development
Corp. v. City of San Diego, 205 Cal App. 3d 1201 (1988); William S.
Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning Commission of the
County of Los Angeles, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1991); and Murrieta Valley
Unified School District v. County of Riverside, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1212
(1991). More particularly, it is the intent of this act to prohibit
local agencies from considering the adequacy of school facilities as
part of the land use approval process, whether at the policy level or
with respect to the development of specific real property, and further
to expand the prohibition to all government agencies.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to limit the amount of fees,
charges, dedications, or other requirements that may be imposed,
directly or indirectly, on the development or construction of real
property, in connection with the construction or reconstruction of
school facilities, to the amount authorized in Section 65995 of the
Government Code.
SEC. 2. Section 65995 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65995. (a) Except for a fee, charge, dedication, or other
requirement authorized under Section 53080, or pursuant to Chapter 4.7
(commencing with Section 65970), no fee, charge, dedication, or other
requirement for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities
shall be levied or imposed in connection with, or made a condition of,
any legislative or administrative act by any state or local agency
involving the planning, use, or development of real property or any
governmental change of organization or reorganization, as defined in
Sections 56021 and 56073.
(b) In no event shall the amount of any fees, charges, dedications,
or other requirements authorized under Section 53080, or pursuant to
Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970), or both, exceed the
following:
(1) For construction within tentative maps or parcel maps approved
prior to January 1, 1997, one dollar and seventy-two cents ($1.72) per
square foot of assessable space, in the case of any residential
development. "Assessable space," for this purpose, means all of the
square footage within the perimeter of a residential structure, not
including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio,
detached accessory structure, or similar area.
The amount of the square footage within the perimeter of a
residential structure shall be calculated by the building department of
the city or county issuing the building permit, in accordance with the
standard practice of that city or county in calculating structural
perimeters.
(2) For construction within tentative maps or parcel maps approved
on or after January 1, 1997, [D> two dollars and seventy-two cents
($2.72) <D] [A> one dollar and eighty-four cents ($1.84) <A] per square
foot of assessable space, in the case of any residential development.
"Assessable space," for this purpose is defined in paragraph (1).
(3) In the case of any commercial or industrial development,
twenty-eight cents ($0.28) per square foot of chargeable covered and
enclosed space. "Chargeable covered and enclosed space," for this
purpose, means the covered and enclosed space determined to be within
the perimeter of a commercial or industrial structure, not including any
storage areas incidental to the principal use of the development,
garage, parking structure, unenclosed walkway, or utility or disposal
area. The determination of the chargeable covered and enclosed space
within the perimeter of a commercial or industrial structure shall be
made by the building department of the city or county issuing the
building permit, in accordance with the building standards of that city
or county.
(4) The amount of the limits set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3) shall be increased in 1998, and every two years thereafter,
according to the adjustment for inflation set forth in the statewide
cost index for class B construction, as determined by the State
Allocation Board at its January meeting, which increase shall be
effective as of the date of that meeting. The State Allocation Board
shall not raise the amount of the district matching share calculated
under Section 17705.5 of the Education Code, as a result of the increase
under this paragraph, until at least 90 days after the date of that
increase.
(c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the term
of any contract entered into between a subdivider or builder and a
school district, city, county, or city and county, whether general law
or chartered, on or before January 1, 1987, that requires the payment of
a fee, charge, or dedication for the construction of school facilities
as a condition to the approval of residential development, neither
Section 53080 nor this chapter applies to that residential development.
(2) Any development project for which a final map was approved and
construction had commenced on or before September 1, 1986, is subject to
only the fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement prescribed in any
local ordinance in existence on that date and applicable to the project.
(d) For purposes of Section 53080 and this chapter, "residential,
commercial, or industrial development" does not include any facility
used exclusively for religious purposes that is thereby exempt from
property taxation under the laws of this state, any facility used
exclusively as a private full-time day school as described in Section
48222 of the Education Code, or any facility that is owned and occupied
by one or more agencies of federal, state, or local government. In
addition, "commercial or industrial development" includes, but is not
limited to, any hotel, inn, motel, tourist home, or other lodging for
which the maximum term of occupancy for guests does not exceed 30 days,
but does not include any residential hotel, as defined in paragraph (1)
of subdivision (b) of Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
(e) The Legislature finds and declares that the subject of the
financing of school facilities with development fees is a matter of
statewide concern. For this reason the Legislature hereby occupies the
subject matter of mandatory development fees and other development
requirements for school facilities finance to the exclusion of all
[D> local <D] measures on the subject.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit or
prohibit the use of Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of
Division 2 of Title 5 to finance the construction or reconstruction of
school facilities.
SEC. 3. Section 65996 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65996. (a) The following provisions shall be the exclusive methods
of mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school
facilities when considering the approval or establishment of conditions
in connection with any legislative or administrative act by any state or
local agency involving the planning, use, or development of real
property or any change of governmental organization or reorganization,
as defined in Sections 56021 and 56073, pursuant to Division 13
(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code:
(1) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the
Education Code.
(2) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the
Education Code.
(3) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the
Education Code.
(4) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part
23 of the Education Code.
(5) Section 53080 of the Government Code.
(6) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of
Title 5 of the Government []-)> Code. <D] [A> Code, provided that: <A]
[A> (A) Participation in a community facilities district shall not
be made a condition of approval of any legislative or administrative act
involving the planning, use, or development of real property or any
change of governmental organization or reorganization, as defined in
Sections 56021 and 56073. <A]
[A> (B) Participation or nonparticipation in a community facilities
district shall not be considered when determining whether to approve or
disapprove any legislative or administrative act involving the planning,
use, or development of real property or any change of governmental
organization or reorganization, as defined in Sections 56021 and 56073. <A]
(7) Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of
Title 7 of the Government Code.
(b) Except for the authority granted by Sections 53080 and 65970 and
this chapter, no state or local agency shall consider the adequacy of
school facilities in connection with any legislative or administrative
act involving the planning, use, or development of real property or any
change in governmental organization or reorganization, as defined in
Sections 56021 and 56073.
(c) This section shall not affect any conditions imposed by a state
or local agency in connection with the approval of the development of
specific real property nor shall it affect the obligations under any
contract entered into between a builder or an owner or developer of real
property with any school district, city, county, or city and county,
whether general law or chartered, prior to January 1, 1997. [D> Nothing
in this subdivision shall authorize any state or local agency to <D]
[A> (d) No state or local agency shall <A] apply or consider any
condition, standard, policy, or requirement concerning adequacy of
school facilities contained in a general plan, specific plan, zoning
ordinance, or similar legislative enactment whether adopted before or
after January 1, 1997, in connection with any legislative or
administrative act involving the planning, use, or development of real
property or any change of governmental organization or reorganization as
defined in Sections 56021 and 56073.
SEC. 4. [A> The amendments to paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of
Government Code Section 65996 by this act, are declaratory of existing
law. The Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 contains numerous
voter -approval requirements that are to be freely determined by the
eligible voters and may not be directed or controlled by conditions of
approval or threats of disapproval of any legislative or administrative
act involving the planning, use, or development of real property or any
change of governmental organization or reorganization, as defined in
Sections 56021 and 56073. <A]
[A> SEC. 5. <A] Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government
Code, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act
contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies
and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the
Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement
does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be
made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless
otherwise specified, the provisions of this act shall become operative
on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California
Constitution.
END OF REPORT
Enter Bill # (or END to exit) _>
U'-Cc-ya I U : U '.M PRAM 'NM. S. h;^.1 S HUU;. IIIS
Ztkt
LARSON & ASSOCIATES
May 6,1996
The Honorable Charles Noochigian, Chair
Assembly Appropriations Committee
State Capitol, Rooin:2114 -
Sacramcnto, CA 95814
RL-. AB 31741 (Btulte)
OPPOSE
Dear Assembly Member poochiswn:
On behalf of theVAliarn S. Han Union ITgls School District, we regntfuny strongly oppose
AH 3174 (Srulte), which will be heard to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on
Wednesday. May 15.
The bill would statutord:7 reverse the Mira/Hart/Mureietta court decisions and would specifically
prohibit local govern u+enrs from considering the adequacy of school facilities in making decisions
about local zoning and general plans.There was good and sufficient reason for the legislature to
allow school districts w claxgc x fee on new construction and for the courts to opine is three
scpanu decisions that cities and counties are not bound by fee limits if conditions exist which
have significant effect on the cost of building a school.
Even as the winniayt schuol litigant in one of those decisions
Appeal upheld the sight of scbM'distaen to ehallengF sppliiatitim of general plan amendments
m zone changes based on the lick of school facilities, our disuicr has been forced into a deficit
mode for several willian dollars for the building of two schools. The amount of fce colkazd in.
no way rompcmated for the full amount of mitigation payments considering land toss, building
cors, prevailingwages, infrastructure costs, and physical site characteristics_
In a still rapidly growing cuuunuriity a flat $1.72 or $1.84 per squuc foot cap on developer fees
could be catastrohic to this district In our experience, the ability to negotiate brought together
all of the players (,the developers, the local agencies, and the school district) to consider with all
aspects of the situation and deal with them through a reasonable, sensible. and equitable
agreement that all parties adhered to.
In the current environment where lawmakers an attempting to put scantly more reliance an
local funding than on the State for providing school facilities, rt is Magical to totally disregard
local co=ol by unilaterally removing options which have been anilable to us.
1130 K Streot, Sutte 270 • SOefameR10, Callfomla 05814. (916) 443-3247 • FAX: (916) 443-3394
Page Z
In the interest of being able to sdequateiy house the increasing number of school children who axe
entitled to an education in the William S. Hart Union High School District and throushout our
State, I urge you to vote 'no' on AB 3174, unless it is amended to develop solutions to address
comms of all Putin.
Thank you for your consideration of our position.
Judith L Larson
JLL•ele
sea Members, Assembly Appropriations Committee
The Honorable James Bnrlte
Wm, S. Hut Union fijgh School Dist6=