BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1344
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 1344
(Jones) - As Amended April 6, 2015
[Note: This bill is doubled referred to the Assembly Local
Government Committee and will be heard by that Committee as it
relates to issues under its jurisdiction.]
SUBJECT: County office of education: charter schools
SUMMARY: Authorizes county offices of education (COE) to render
a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use
of property by COEs, and requires the governing board of a
school district or county office to render a city or county
zoning ordinance inapplicable at the request of a charter school
for a charter school facility. Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies that when a charter school facility is physically
located within the geographic jurisdiction of a school
district or COE, the charter school may make a written request
for this school district or COE to render a city or county
zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of the
facility by the charter school only to the same extent to
which a school district may render the zoning ordinance
inapplicable to a use of property by the school district.
Specifies that the notice of inapplicability of a zoning
ordinance to a charter school facility shall not exempt a
charter school facility that is otherwise subject to
AB 1344
Page 2
compliance with the California Building Standards Code.
Authorizes a school district or COE to require the charter
school to provide the school district with any or all of the
following:
a) The address of the charter school facility or
documentary evidence that the charter school facility is
located within the geographic jurisdiction of the school
district or COE.
b) A deed, purchase agreement, lease, or similar
contractual document to establish that the charter school
has control over the charter school facility.
c) Payment of a reasonable fee not to exceed $500 to
process the written request.
2)Requires the school district or COE to, within 60 days of
receiving the written request and, if required, other items
required to be provided, place the request for notice of
zoning inapplicability on the agenda of a public meeting of
its governing board, and if so approved by the board, notify
the city or county concerned in writing that the school
district or county board has rendered a city or county
ordinance inapplicable to a charter school facility that is
physically located within the geographical jurisdiction of the
school district or county office of education.
3)Requires the governing board of the school district or COE to
AB 1344
Page 3
approve the request for notice of zoning inapplicability
unless the governing board of the school district or COE, in a
public meeting, adopts written findings specific to the
proposed site that the issuance of a notice of zoning
inapplicability will result in the placement of a school
facility in a location that will endanger the health and
safety of the students of the charter school.
4)Specifies that if the school district does not provide the
notice of inapplicability within 60 days and the charter
school facility is physically located within the geographic
jurisdiction of a COE, the charter school may subsequently
request this COE to provide the notice of inapplicability to
the city or county concerned, under the same process and
standard as that established for requests to school districts.
5)Specifies that if the COE does not provide the notice of
inapplicability within 60 days of receiving an original
request from a charter school, or within 30 days of receiving
a request that was first submitted to a school district
governing board, the charter school may file an appeal with
the State Board of Education (SBE).
6)Requires the SBE to, upon receipt of the appeal and within 120
days of receiving the written request, place the request for
notice of zoning inapplicability on the agenda of a public
meeting of its governing board, and if approved by the board,
to notify the city or county concerned of the inapplicability
of the city or county ordinance to the charter school
facility, under the same process and standards as required of
the school district and COE.
AB 1344
Page 4
7)Specifies that a charter school that makes a written request
to render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to
the proposed use of a facility shall not be required to make
any warranties, except that the facility will be used for
classrooms and is in the jurisdiction of the school district
or COE or provide indemnification, bonds, insurance coverage,
or any other type of financial assurance as a condition for
rendering an ordinance inapplicable to a charter school
facility.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes the governing board of a school district that has
complied with the notification requirements to the local
planning commission, by a vote of two-thirds of its members,
to render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a
proposed use of property by the school district. Specifies
that the governing board of the school district may not take
this action when the proposed use of the property by the
school district is for nonclassroom facilities, including, but
not limited to, warehouses, administrative buildings, and
automotive storage and repair buildings.
2)Requires the governing board of the school district to, within
10 days, notify the city or county concerned of any action
taken. Provides that if the governing board has taken such an
action, the city or county may commence an action in the
superior court of the county whose zoning ordinance is
involved or in which is situated the city whose zoning
ordinance is involved, seeking a review of the action of the
governing board of the school district to determine whether it
was arbitrary and capricious. Requires the city or county to
cause a copy of the complaint to be served on the board.
Provides that if the court determines that the action was
arbitrary and capricious, it shall declare it to be of no
force and effect, and the zoning ordinance in question shall
be applicable to the use of the property by the school
AB 1344
Page 5
district.
3)Prohibits a school district from rendering a city or county
ordinance inapplicable to a charter school facility unless the
facility is physically located within the geographical
jurisdiction of that school district.
FISCAL EFFECT: The Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as a
state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS: Background. Under current law, the governing board
of a school district, after complying with notification
requirements to local planning agencies, is authorized to
override local city or county zoning ordinances by a 2/3 vote of
the governing board for school facilities. Existing law
prohibits this override for any nonclassroom facilities,
including, but not limited to, warehouses, administrative
buildings, and automotive storage and repair buildings. The
governing board of a school district is required to notify the
city or county within 10 days of such an action. Existing law
gives a city or county the authority to take action in the
superior court seeking a review if it determines that the
override was arbitrary and capricious. The extent to which
school districts exercise this authority is unclear. Current
law prohibits a governing board of a school district to override
a city or county ordinance for a charter school unless the
charter school facility is physically located within the
geographical jurisdiction of the school district.
Purpose of the bill. The author states, "Current law provides
that a school district board may, by a 2/3 vote, exempt
themselves from local zoning ordinances for a school district
use. This relieves them from a long, cumbersome, and expensive
process through the city's conditional use permitting process.
AB 1344
Page 6
This process can take several months and is not a guarantee. The
current law also permits school districts to exempt a charter
school within their geographical boundaries from local zoning
ordinances. However, there is no requirement that the board take
this action. In addition, current law provides no criteria upon
which a school district must base its decision and offers no
mechanism for charter public schools to appeal the district's
decision. Without a zoning exemption, charter public schools
must either petition the district to grant the exemption on
their behalf or apply to the city through its traditional zoning
process intended for commercial activities. All of this can
take over a year and several thousands of dollars to achieve -
dollars that could be spent in the classroom."
What does this bill do? This bill extends the authorization to
exempt a city or county zoning ordinance to COEs and requires
school district governing boards or COEs to render a local city
or county zoning ordinance inapplicable on behalf of charter
schools for charter school facilities. The bill requires the
action to be placed on a governing board agenda within 60 days
of a written request and requires the governing board of a
school district or a COE to approve the request unless the
governing board or COE, in a public meeting, adopt written
findings that an exemption of the zoning ordinance will endanger
the health and safety of the charter school students. If the
governing board fails to approve the exemption, the charter
school may appeal to the COE. If the COE fails to approve the
exemption within 60 days of an initial request to the COE, or
within 30 days of a request based on an appeal, the charter
school may appeal to the SBE. The SBE is required to place the
request on its public meeting agenda within 120 days. The bill
does not indicate whether the SBE is required to approve the
request.
Should a school district governing board or COE be required to
render a city or county ordinance inapplicable for charter
schools without any discretion or ability to appropriately
AB 1344
Page 7
review the property? Under this bill, charter schools are
simply required to provide to the school district governing
board or COE the following: 1) the address of the charter
school facility or other evidence that the facility is located
within the geographical jurisdiction of the school district or
COE; 2) a deed, purchase agreement, lease or similar contractual
document to establish that the charter school has control over
the facility; and 3) payment of a fee not to exceed $500 to
process the written request. A school district, even when
overriding a local ordinance for its own district facilities,
conduct environmental, including CEQA and toxic, reviews; seek
approval from the Division of State Architect for seismic,
structural safety and accessibility reviews; and is prohibited
from siting schools near specified areas, including near
airports, pipelines, freeways, or on hazardous waste disposal
sites. These reviews can take more than a year and cost tens of
thousands of dollars. It would be impossible for school
districts or COEs to conduct a thorough review within 60 days,
and be able to do it under $500. This bill will put school
district governing boards and county boards in a situation of
approving exemptions for local ordinances without adequately
understanding the full environmental, health, and safety risks
of a site.
Questions the Committee may wish to consider:
Should a school district or COE be required to approve
waivers for charter school facilities without environmental
and safety site reviews?
If school districts or COEs are expected to conduct
reviews, would they be able to do so in less than 60 days?
Should school districts or COE be expected to conduct
reviews and be allowed to collect only $500 "to process the
AB 1344
Page 8
written request"?
Would most school districts or COE, especially smaller
school districts, have the capacity or ability to conduct
such reviews?
Would a school district or COE be liable for any harm to
charter school students at a site where the school district
waived a zoning ordinance for a charter school?
Appeals. The bill allows a charter school to appeal to the COE
if a school district governing board does not grant the
exemption and the SBE if a county board fails to approve a
request. According to the sponsor, the California Charter
Schools Association Advocates, this bill is modeled after the
process for authorizing charter schools. It can be argued that
school districts are most familiar with the community and
overall planning for school sites and should therefore be the
only entity with authorization to override zoning ordinances.
However, a school district may not wish to be liable for
providing an exemption for a charter school that the district
did not authorize. The bill requires COEs to take action within
30 days if the original request was denied by a school district.
If a school district determines that there are health and
safety risks at a school, it would be impossible for COEs to
determine that there are no health and safety risks within 30
days. It is unclear why the SBE should be injected in local
community planning decisions.
Authorization for COEs. COEs believe that they currently have
the authority to render city and county ordinances inapplicable
due to some provisions of law that deem county boards of
education as school districts (e.g., Education Code Section
1984, which authorizes a county board of education to be deemed
a school district for the purposes of establishing and
AB 1344
Page 9
maintaining a county community school). Santa Clara County
Office of Education (SCCOE), which authorized 20 Rocketship
Education charter schools in 2011, waived local zoning ordinance
for a Rocketship charter school, that resulted in a court
challenge by the San Jose Unified School District and a local
resident. On March 7, 2014, the Superior Court found that
county boards of education are not deemed to be school districts
under this Government Code provision and granted the requested
writ of mandate by San Jose Unified School District and the
local resident. The Superior Court found the following:
"A school district is a public organization authorized
by the Legislature with a defined territory and
subordinate to the general education laws of the State
of California. It is vested with various powers of the
Legislature, which include local taxation, and pursuant
to Government Code § 53094(b), the power under specific
circumstances to override local zoning ordinances.
This power has been granted to school districts because
of their unique instructional functions. Within its
defined geographical area, a school district is
required to educate all children of appropriate grade
and age, provide all necessary classroom facilities,
teachers and instructional materials. The concept of
school district clearly encompasses the idea of mass
public education."
"County boards of education generally do not fulfill
the same unique mass educational functions which are
the duty of school districts. In short, there is such
sufficient difference between what a county board of
education does and what a normal "school district" does
that this Court believes that if the Legislature had
intended to grant the power to override local zoning to
county boards of education, the Legislature would have
so stated."
AB 1344
Page 10
Impact on local planning. The League of California Cities, the
California State Association of Counties, the American Planning
Association and the California Farm Bureau, oppose the bill, and
state that while problems develop when a school siting is in
conflict with a local general plan, AB 1367 (Wiggins), Chapter
396, Statutes of 2001, has helped by requiring early planning
communication between school districts and local agencies. The
organizations state, "AB 1344 would take things backwards by
allowing charter schools to set up in a community wherever they
like and be exempted from addressing the more comprehensive
planning issues?.If they do not get the answer they are looking
for from a school district, the bill allows them to appeal to
two more political bodies - the county board of education and
the state board of education - that are more remote,
disconnected, and unaccountable to the affected communities.
Rather than seeking to exempt themselves from local planning,
charter schools should be expected to work with the affected
cities and counties to ensure that the location of their
facilities is appropriate."
Existing avenues for charter schools to seek exemptions.
Charter schools can seek exemptions through local governmental
agencies, or make a request with a school district. In the
SCCOE case, the judge asked Rocketship why it was necessary to
seek resolution from the County Board of Education when the City
of San Jose Planning Department appeared agreeable to making the
zoning change for the school. Rocketship's response was that
the County Board of Education route was faster.
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) launched the
"Charter School Zoning Exemption Policy and Trial Program" for
no more than 10 projects in 2008. Under the pilot, the proposed
site must comply with all reviews required of district schools,
which include the environmental reviews established by LAUSD's
Office of Environmental Health and Safety, California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and environmental screening in
AB 1344
Page 11
accordance with Title 5 California Code of Regulations. Charter
schools must also agree to seek Division of State Architect
approval, which is not required of charter schools unless they
are seeking state bond funds. LAUSD also requires charter
schools to provide a $10,000 deposit, $2,500 of which is not
refundable, so that the district could conduct the proper
reviews. According to the LAUSD, only two requests have been
made and neither ultimately resulted in an exemption by the
governing board. One project was able to get approval from the
city and the LAUSD governing board decided not to approve the
exemption for the other project.
Related legislation. SB 313 (Galgiani), pending in the Senate
Education Committee, requires school district governing boards
to, prior to taking a board action to exempt a local ordinance,
notify the city or county 90 days prior, in writing, and provide
substantial evidence that a zoning ordinance fails to
accommodate the need to renovate and expand an existing public
school or locate a new public school within the city or county.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Charter Schools Association Advocates (sponsor)
StudentsFirst
Opposition
AB 1344
Page 12
American Planning Association
California Farm Bureau
California State Association of Counties
California Teachers Association
Kenneth Farfsing, City Manager, City of Signal Hill
League of California Cities
Los Angeles Unified School District
Analysis Prepared by:Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
AB 1344
Page 13