BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Tom Torlakson, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1367 HEARING: 7/2/01
AUTHOR: Wiggins FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 5/31/01 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
LAND USE AND SCHOOLS
Background and Existing Law
Cities and counties must adopt general plans that include
seven elements. The land use element must designate the
location of various land uses, including education. When
drafting their general plans, cities and counties must
consult with other public agencies, including school
districts. Public agencies have 45 days to comment on
proposed plans or plan amendments.
When building public works, cities and counties must follow
their own general plans. All other local governments ---
including school districts --- must submit their proposed
public works projects so planners can see if the projects
are consistent with general plans. Planners have 40 days
to review another local government's proposed public works
projects. If a project does not conform, the other local
agency can overrule the general plan.
Before a school district can acquire a new or expanded
school site, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) requires the district to notify the city or county
planning commission. The planning commission has 30 days
to review the proposed site and send recommendations to the
school district. If the planning commission does not favor
the site, the school district must wait 30 days before it
can acquire the property.
Cities and counties' zoning ordinances must be consistent
with their general plans. Other local agencies must follow
local zoning. School districts do not have to comply with
local zoning unless the zoning ordinance provides sites for
public schools. A school district can override local
zoning on a 2/3-vote of its governing board. If the court
determines that the school district's action was arbitrary
and capricious, the local zoning applies.
These statutes and their convoluted exceptions are a source
AB 1367 -- 5/31/01 -- Page 2
of friction between school districts and the cities and
counties in which they operate.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 1367 changes the land use relationship
between school districts and cities and counties in three
ways:
I. Expanded reviews . When a city or county notifies a
school district of a proposed general plan adoption or
amendment, AB 1367 allows the district to request a meeting
with the city or county's planning agency. When a school
district is preparing a school facility needs analysis, a
master plan, or other long range plans for school sites, AB
1367 requires the school district to notify the planning
agency of the city or county. The bill allows the planning
agency to request a meeting with the school district.
If either the school district or the city or county
requests a meeting, the parties must meet within 45 days to
discuss:
Coordinating school sites with city or county plans and
public works.
Options for new sites within city or county plans and
planned developments.
Safe travel to and from schools.
Coordinating school sites with other community
facilities.
Opportunities for the city or county to help pay for
school sites.
Coordinating school sites with local parks and recreation
programs.
II. Expanded notice . When CEQA requires a school district
to notify the local planning commission of its intent to
acquire a new or expanded school site, AB 1367 requires the
district to provide copies of the master plan, school
facility needs analysis, and other relevant studies.
III. Override procedures . Before a school district's
governing board can override a city or county zoning
ordinance, AB 1367 requires the district to have complied
with the bill's expanded meeting and expanded notice
requirements.
AB 1367 -- 5/31/01 -- Page 3
AB 1367 also revises the statutory format and makes
conforming changes.
Comments
1. The balancing act . Cities and counties must plan and
zone for schools but school districts can override local
planning and zoning. This odd arrangement relies on an
implicit political balancing act because the school
district and the city or county share the same
constituents. Local elected officials are reluctant to
snub one another when they serve the same community. But
this balancing act was never the conscious creation of
legislators. It's been assembled in bits and pieces over
the years without much overall thought to how the parts fit
together. After extended discussions between cities and
schools, AB 1367 improves the process by requiring schools
and local planners to share more information with one
another and to meet before school boards override city
councils and county supervisors.
2. An overriding state interest . School boards still have
the final word under AB 1367, reflecting the state
government's interest in public education. In 1956, the
California Supreme Court said that public school
construction was of statewide interest and the state's
sovereignty negated local zoning ordinances. In 1959, the
Legislature reacted by defining the circumstances under
which school districts must follow local zoning. It takes
a 2/3-vote of a school board to override local zoning.
That override stands unless a judge says the school board
was arbitrary and capricious. Although both the current
law and the proposed legislation provide plenty of
checks-and-balances, schools still get the nod.
3. Unfinished agenda . The negotiations leading to AB 1367
have been productive but the Committee may wish to consider
these additional improvements:
Consistent deadlines . The Planning and Zoning
Law gives local planners 40 days to review school
sites while CEQA gives them 30 days. The Committee
may wish to increase CEQA's deadline to 40 days.
Clear override . If local planners find that a
school site does not conform to the general plan, a
AB 1367 -- 5/31/01 -- Page 4
school district can overrule the plan with a
majority-vote of the school board. Under CEQA, if
local planners do not favor a school district's
site, CEQA allows the district to proceed after 30
days, without a formal override. The Committee may
wish to insert a formal override into the CEQA
process.
Same standard . It takes a 2/3-vote of the
school district's board to overrule local zoning but
only a majority-vote to override the local general
plan. Because zoning must be consistent with the
general plan, it's illogical to have different
standards. The Committee may wish to increase the
standard for a school district to override a general
plan from a majority-vote to a 2/3-vote.
Why CEQA ? The 1987 bill requiring school
districts to consult with cities and counties added
the language into CEQA without any reference to
EIRs, Negative Declarations, mitigation measures, or
environmental standards. The requirement is in the
wrong statutory location. The Committee may wish to
move the section to the Education Code.
4. Double-referral . Because AB 1367 amends a section of
CEQA, the Senate Rules Committee has ordered that the bill
be referred to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee
if it passes the Senate Local Government Committee.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government Committee: 8-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee:15-5
Assembly Floor: 58-17
AB 1367 -- 5/31/01 -- Page 5
Support and Opposition (6/28/)
Support : League of California Cities, Cities of Moreno
Valley and Windsor, American Planning
Association-California Chapter.
Opposition : Unknown.