HomeMy WebLinkAbout94_033 PC Resolution ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-33
"A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE SCHOOL MITIGATION PROGRAM"
WHEREAS, rapid population growth in recent years in the City of Temecula ("City",
has resulted in large increases in the numbers of students that the Temecula Valley Unified
School District ("District") is required to educate, and has resulted in the need to enlarge
existing school facilities and construct new facilities to house the students in accordance with the
policies of the District and standards specified by state law; and
WHEREAS, new student impacting existing school facilities are due primarily tc
residential uses (except senior citizen development); and
WHEREAS, impacts from commercial and industrial development are less significant
than those of residential development and are partially offset by the contributions of commercial
and industrial uses toward a strong tax base in the City which support public services, including
schools; and
WHEREAS, adequate school facilities are a benefit to both :,tw development and thc:
community at large, and are necessary component of the City's socia: and infrastructure systems;
and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature has declared that financing the construction of school
facilities is the responsibility of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has been unable to adequately fulfill its obligation
for funding such additional school facilities and has shifted the primary responsibility for
financing of school facilities to local school districts, which, under Chapter 887, Statutes 1986,
("School Facilities Law of 1986"), may establish developer mitigation fees for residential,
commercial and industrial uses, and may establish Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
to provide for school plant facilities financing as authorized and limited by the laws of the State
of California; and
WHEREAS, the combination of state school bond monies, school district imposed
developer fees, local school bond measures, and other sources of financing have generally been
inadequate to provide for the enlargement and construction of school plant facilities sufficient
to adequately house new students in accordance with the minimum standards set forth by the
State of California; and
WHEREAS, school funding sources under current state laR s 3,1d available funding are
oriented toward the provision of interim school facilities, and a neee. exists to fund permanent
K-12 school facilities, including facilities for the special education needs of special or
disadvantage students; and
R:\STAFFRPT\SCHOLMIT.PC 11/23/94 k1b 4
WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),
has the authority to review development proposals for impacts on School Facilities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to decisions reached in Mira Development Corporation v. City of
San Diego, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1201 (1988), William S., Hart Huh School District v. Regional
Planning Commission, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1991), and Murrieta Valley Unified School
District v. County of Riverside, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1212 (1991) interpreting the School Facilities
Law of 1986, the City has the authority to condition legislative acts including general plan
amendments, specific plans and amendments thereto, and changes of zone, if it finds that the
impacts on school facilities have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance; and
WHEREAS, the provision of a quality school system to educate the residents of the City
of Temecula is important to the City's future; and
WHEREAS, the Temecula Valley Unified School District requested that the City of
Temecula adopt a resolution providing creating a program to provid; full funding for schoo'.
facilities from some types of development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council included language in the Growth Management and Public;
Facility Element of General Plan concerning the mitigation of school facility impacts; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution is being adopted at the request of the District which has
agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the City from claims resulting from the adoption,
enforcement, or implementation of the Resolution; and
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed resolution was posted at City Hall, County Library,
Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THAT THE PROPOSED
SCHOOL MITIGATION PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED
GENERAL PLAN AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE
FOLLOWING PROGRAM:
Section 1. Mitigation of School Facility Impacts
A. Except as provided below, all development projects and applications that are
submitted to the City of Temecula and that require a General Plan amendment, zone change,
development agreement, pre-annexation agreement or Specific Plan approval or amendment
shall be reviewed for their potential school facility impacts and mitigation of such impacts.
B. No conditions of approval on General Plan amendment, zone change, development
agreement, pre-annexation agreement or Specific Plan approval or amendment shall require any
applicant or developer to provide mitigation in excess of the amounts authorized by Government
Code Section 65995 unless a School District Mitigation Plan ("Mitigation Plan") has been
prepared by or on behalf of the District and approved by the City Council.
RASTAFFRMSCHOLMU.PC 11/23/94 klb 5
C. Any of the following shall be considered to be adegaate mitigation of school
facility impacts associated with approvals by the City for General >'lan amendments, Specific
Plans and Specific Plan Amendments, development agreements, pre-annexation agreements and
zone changes:
1. A legally enforceable School Facility Impart Mitigation Agreement
("Mitigation Agreement") between the District and developer that specifies the exact nature,
amount, process and conditions of mitigation to be provided by the applicant/developer or other
appropriate documentation.
2. A finding pursuant to CEQA by the appropriate City review body that no
significant impacts on school facilities will occur as a result of the proposed development.
Section 2. School Facility Impact Mitigation Plans
A. Any school district located partly or totally within the City may prepare and
submit a School Facility Impact Mitigation Plan to the City to address the impacts on school
facilities which may result from new residential development projects within that district. The
City shall review and consider approving a proposed Mitigation Plan if the Plan adequately
addresses the impacts resulting from increases in the number of students within the school
district submitting the Mitigation Plan.
B. The following development projects shall be exempt from the requirements of an
approved Mitigation Plan. These projects shall be required to pay onl the statutory school fees
or any other amount previously agreed to by the District and the owner/developer of the
proposed development project:
1. Residential projects which have been approved by a hearing body(Planning
Commission or City Council) prior to the effective date of this Resolution.
2. "Quasi judicial" land use approvals, including but not limited to
subdivision maps, use permits, plot plans and variances.
3. Subsequent approvals for the components of a larger project which has
already met the requirements of this Resolution (e.g. a tentative tract map within a specific plan
which has already mitigated school facility impacts).
4. Commercial or industrial projects.
5. Senior citizen housing as defined in Government Code Section 65995.l(a).
6. Any residential development proposal for which an Impact Mitigation
Agreement has already been executed between the developer and the .District.
7. Any or all changes of zone needed to make the Official City Zoning Map
consistent with the Iand Use Designations contained in the City's first adopted General Plan as
required by Section 65860 of State Planning and Zoning Law.
RASTAFFRMSCHOLMIT.PC 11/23/94 klb 6
r i
8. Any amendments to an approved specific plan or tract map that changes
only the layout of the project, make minor changes to design and development standards, or
make other administrative changes and does not increase the total number of residential housing
units in the project.
Section 3. Preparation of School Facility Impact Mitigation Plans
A. The Mitigation Plan shall contain documentation of the need for any level of
mitigation that exceeds the total of revenue anticipated to be received by the school from
Statutory School Fees and any other sources of funding available to or anticipated by the
District. The Mitigation Plan shall be adopted by the District Board of Trustees. At a minimum,
all Mitigation Plans shall contain the following information:
1. Student Generation Factors.
a. The District Student Generation Factor (SGF) shall be based upon
a household survey. The SGF shall include peak student loading for all elementary, middle and
high school grades.
b. The SGF Household Survey shall be based upon and consist of the.
following:
(1) A minimum random sample of 250 dwelling units that were
constructed in the preceding three years.
(2) A representative sample of the current or anticipated future
characteristics of the community, including consideration for any resort or second home
characteristics of the community.
(3) The survey shall exclude senior citizen housing.
(4) A representative sample of the housing product types within
the district (i.e. single family detached, single family attached, or multi-family rental properties and
mobile homes).
(5) The SGF shall be based on an assessment of student "pass
through" from new homes over at least a five-year period.
C. The District may propose additional survey factors and conditions
to be included in the survey. The use of any additional survey factors and condition (that could
affect the SGF) must be approved by the City's Director of Planning prior to doing the survey.
2. Tvoical School Land Cost Factors
a. The Typical School Land Costs Factor (TSF) shall be based on the
State's standard cost and shall be based upon a finished and improved, construction ready school
site, including the extension of necessary infrastructure.
R:\STAFFRFT\SCHOLMPr.PC 11/23/94 klb 7
b. Development of school sites shall bs based on California
Department of Education standards for infrastructure, location, and acreage.
C. School construction costs shall be as autVorized by the State Office
of Local Assistance (OLA), or as required by local and state codes.
d. All costs for plans, test, inspections, furniture and equipment, and
contingencies shall be in accordance with OLA requirements.
3. Optimum Facility Utilization
a. This District shall demonstrate, in the Mitigation Plan, optimum
utilization of its facilities.
b. The Mitigation Plan shall include consideration of a year-round,
multi-track education program, double school sessions, and alternative student loading programs.
4. Bond Issues and Other Funding Sources
a. The District shall certify, and provide supporting evidence in the
Mitigation Plan that the District has used, or committed for use, all its available funding sources.
b. The District shall certify, and provide supporting evidence in the
Mitigation Plan that the District is pursuing state and alternate facilities financing.
C. If the District is not pursuing, or does not anticipate pursuing
alternate financing, it shall include an explanation and rationale in the Mitigation Plan for not
doing so.
d. The Mitigation Plan shall include considerations of methods of
financing the payment for and construction of School Facilities, to ensure the provision of
adequate facilities and to minimize actual costs to future residents, including the use of developer
loan funds based on anticipated state bond fund reimbursement and community facilities districts.
5. Central Administration and Support Facilities and Interim Facilities
The District shall have the opportunity, through the Mitigation Plan, to
present an argument justifying mitigation for impacts on administration and support facilities and
interim facilities. The justification shall include information on staffing, work loads, and other
data to demonstrate that the District is using its administrative funding in a manner which
maximizes productivity and minimizes costs. In addition, if the District elects to present this
justification, the Mitigation Plan shall demonstrate that the mitigation requested is proportional
to the impacts directly attributable to new development.
RASTAFFRPT\SCHOLMrr.PC 11/23/94 tlb 8
6. Level of Support From New Development
The Mitigation Plan may provide for total mitigation school facilities
impacts that are shown to result from new residential developments from all potential funding
sources. The Mitigation Plan shall not be used to provide for mitigation of impacts attributable
to existing development.
7. Coordination of Planning Review for School Site Development.
The Mitigation Plan shall include provisions for consultations between the
District and the City on school facility location and site development plans, in order to promote
compatibility with City land use, circulation, and other plans, and coordination on public
improvements, including streets, sidewalks, and traffic control mechanisms.
B. The District shall submit its adopted Mitigation Plan to the City for its review and
approval as to whether it conforms to these requirements and could reasonably mitigate the
additional impacts on the District school facilities. Upon submittal of the Mitigation Plan to the
City the following procedures shall be followed:
1. The District shall submit the adopted Mitigation Plan to the Director of
Planning. The submittal shall be accompanied by fee to cover the City's cost of reviewing the
District's Plan.
2. Within 30 days following receipt of the District's Mitigation Plan, the
Director of Planning shall review the plan to determine whether it conforms to the requirements
of this Section. After reviewing the Mitigation Plan, the Director shall take one of the following
actions:
a. Notify, by written notice to the superintendent of the District, that
the Mitigation Plan conforms to the requirements of this Resolution. The notice shall also
contain the anticipated meeting date for the Planning Commission's consideration of the.
Mitigation Plan.
b. Notify, in writing, the superintendent. of the District that the
District's Mitigation Plan does not conform to the requirements of this Section and describing
the deficiencies that need to be corrected. Any major changes in the District's Mitigation Plan
must be approved by the District's Board of Trustees.
3. Within 60 days following the Director of Plam:ing's notification of the
completeness of the District's Mitigation Plan, the Planning Commission shall review and
consider the plan to determine whether it conforms to the requirements of this Section and will
reasonably mitigate the impacts of new development on school facilities. After considering the
Mitigation Plan, the Commission shall recommend that the City Council approve, deny,
condition, or continue the approval of the District's Mitigation Plan.
4. Within 30 days following the Planning Commission's recommendation on
the District's Mitigation Plan, the City Council shall review and consider the Plan to determine
RASTAPPRYnSCHOLMIT.PC 11/23/94 klb 9
whether it conforms to the requirements of this Section, and will reasonably mitigate the impacts
of new development on school facilities. After considering the Mitigation Plan, the Council shall
approve, deny, condition, modify, or continue consideration of the District's Mitigation Plan.
C. Upon approval of the City Council, the Mitigation Plan shall thereafter be
regarded as the basis for the identification by the District of specific impacts attributable to
individual residential development proposals, and mitigation measures which may be appropriate
to eliminate or reduce to a level of insignificance the impacts attributable to such residential
development proposals. The City shall not adopt any financial mitigation in excess of the
District imposed development mitigation measure, unless it is found to be consistent with the
provisions of a previously approved Mitigation Plan, an executed developer-District agreement,
or any measures permitted by State law.
D. The District may request, at any time, that the City amend a previously approved
Mitigation Plan. Any amendments to the Plan shall follow the approval procedures specified
in this Resolution.
Section 4. Review of Residential Projects
A. For all residential projects, the Director of Planning shall notify the District, by
means of written notice, as to any proposed development located within said District prior to the
first Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting and prior to preparation of the Initial
Environmental Study.
1. The Notice to the District shall include the following information:
a. The location of the project;
b. The name of the owner and developer,
C. The number and type of dwelling units proposed;
d. A preliminary site or development plan; and,
e. The date of the DRC meeting.
2. The District shall provide written comments on any project submitted for
their review and comment prior to the date of the DRC meeting.
3. The failure of the District to provide a written response to the Director of
Planning shall constitute the equivalent of "No Comment." In this case, the City will require
only the State mandated school impact mitigation fees.
B. All residential development proposals that do not require a General Plan
amendment, zone change, development agreement, pre-annexation agreement, or Specific Plan
approval or amendment by the City shall be reviewed for their potential impact on school
facilities as part of the Initial Environmental Study process. Nothing in this resolution restricts
R:\STAFFRPT\SCHOLMIT.PC 11/23/94 klb 10
the ability of the Director of Planning to determine that an otherwise ;xempt residential project
may have a significant impact on the environment and that an Environmental.Impact Report'
should be prepared. No mitigation of school impacts beyond the mitigation identified in State
law will be required for these projects.
C. All residential development proposals that require General Plan amendments,
Specific Plans, Specific Plan amendments, development agreements,pre-annexation agreements,
and changes of zone shall be reviewed for their potential impact on school facilities and the
environment and the mitigation of those impacts in accordance with the requirements of State
and Local law.
1. If a School Facility Impact Mitigation Agreement is required and an
Agreement has not been submitted, the Director of Planning shall notify the applicant that the
application is incomplete and that additional information (i.e. special study or environmental
impact report) is required to assess the impacts on and mitigation of the effects of the
development project on the District's school facilities.
2. Within 30 days of the submitting an application, the Director of Planning,
shall notify the applicant that either:
a. The proposed development project will not have a significan?
adverse impact on the District's school facilities or the environment, and that no additional
special studies or supplemental mitigation agreement is required.
b. The proposed development project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the District's school facilities, but may have an adverse impact on the
environment and that a special study or environmental impact report is required.
C. The proposed development project could have an adverse impact
on the District's school facilities and that a detailed impact assessment and mitigation study must'
be prepared and/or a School Facility Impact Mitigation Agreement must be obtained.
d. The proposed development project could have an adverse impact
on the District's school facilities and/or the environment, and that a special study or an
environmental impact report must be prepared and/or an Impact Mitigation Agreement is
required.
e. The proposed development project will {uve an adverse impact o':
the District's school facilities and the environment and that a special study or an environmental
impact report must be prepared.
3. If the applicant and/or developer disagrees with the Director's
determination of the project's potential impact on the environment or the District's school
facilities, they may appeal the decision to within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Director's
determination. The appeal shall be made and filed in accordance with the requirements of the
Planning Commission.
RASTAFFRPT\SCHOLMMPC 11/23/94 klb 11
4. Within 30 days of filing an appeal of the Director's decision, the Director
of Planning shall schedule the appeal for the Planning Commission's consideration.
5. If the applicant, developer, or District disagrees with the Planning
Commission's determination of the project's potential impact on the environment or the District's
school facilities, they may appeal the decision to within 10 calendar days of receipt of the
Commission's determination. The appeal shall be made and filed in accordance with the
requirements of the City Clerk.
6. Within 30 days of filing an appeal of the Planning Commission's action
the City Clerk shall schedule the appeal for the City Council's consideration. The City Council';
decisions on these matters shall be final.
D. Evidence of adequate mitigation of any significant adverse impacts on the
District's school facilities shall be established by a Mitigation Agreement. The terms of the
Mitigation Agreement, shall be incorporated by reference in the conditions of CEQA Approval;
and on the Conditions of Approval of any Specific Plan, the Resolution of Approval of any
General Plan Amendment, and in the terms of any development or pre-annexation agreement.
Section 5. Implementation of this Resolution
A. Nothing in this Resolution shall be interpreted as limiting or restricting the ability-
of the Director of Planning, Planning Commission, or Council to require additional information
or special studies on any residential projects submitted to the City f61 approval.
B. It is the intent of the Council that this Resolution be in force and effect until
amended, rescinded, suspended, superseded or until a subsequent resolution or ordinance is
enacted which supersedes this Resolution.
C. This Resolution is adopted at the behest of and for th,benefit of the Temecull
Valley Unified School District and other school districts within the limits of the City of
Temecula. It is agreed that should any claim, action, challenge, or similar proceeding be
instituted against the City for the adoption, imposition, or calculation of the school mitigation
requirements under the provisions of this Resolution, that City and District agree to share the
responsibility and financial obligations of that proceeding as set forth below:
1. District agrees that any claim, action, proceeding, etc., brought against the
City which challenges the method of calculation of impact on school facilities in excess of that
statutorily mandated shall be the full and complete responsibility of the District. To that end,
the District shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City against any loss, cost,
expense, claim, damage, settlement, or judgment, resulting from a lawsuit or any part thereof.
pertaining to the amount or method of calculation of such impact.
2. The City and District agree to share the cost on 50-50 basis of any action,
challenge, claim, demand, or other legal proceeding brought against the City based upon the
authority of the City to impose school mitigation in excess of that required by State law.
RASrAPPRPf\SCHOLMrr.PC 11/23/94 k1b 12
• s
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this� day of 1Gy�6.,-1994.
S EN J. FORD
HAIRN AN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 3 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: WEBSTER, FAHEY, BLAIR
NOES: 2 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: FORD, SLAVEN
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NONE
G0dZY THORNIEILL
SECRETARY
RASTAFFRMSCHOLMU.PC 11/23/94 klb 13