My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18 ATTACHMENT 09
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
050217
>
18 ATTACHMENT 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2017 12:20:19 PM
Creation date
4/28/2017 12:16:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/2/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
18 ATTACHMENT 9
Document Relationships
18
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2017\050217
18 ATTACHMENT 08
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2017\050217
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
278
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Joint City of Pleasanton and Pleasanton Unified School District Liaison Committee <br /> December 12, 2016 <br /> Page 2 <br /> H. SCHOOL FACILITIES FEES <br /> A. Historical Context' <br /> Before the 1970's, school districts supported their activities mainly by levying ad valorem taxes on real <br /> property within their districts. In the early 1970's,in the wake of increased resistance throughout <br /> California to rising property taxes,local governments began the practice of imposing fees on developers <br /> to cover the costs of new schools made necessary by new housing based on their police powers under <br /> the California Constitution. <br /> In 1977,the Legislature passed the School Facilities Act,which granted local governments specific <br /> legislative authorization to impose school facility impact fees. This Act,however, was somewhat <br /> limited. It did not authorize school districts to impose school impact fees themselves. Under the Act, <br /> school districts were authorized to make findings that their schools were overcrowded and there was no <br /> feasible method of reducing that condition. If the city concurred with such findings,it could impose a <br /> fee to provide only temporary classroom facilities. <br /> In 1986,the Legislature substantially revised and expanded the School Facilities Act by authorizing the <br /> governing boards of the school districts themselves to impose school impact fees subject to certain <br /> limitations. It was at that time the Legislature made it clear that the state preempted the field of school <br /> fees and development requirements to the exclusion of all local measures. <br /> Subsequent court decisions however,concluded that the limitations contained in the School Facilities <br /> Act only applied to adjudicative decisions of local governments,such as the issuance of subdivision <br /> maps and conditional use permits. Under these holdings,developers that were requesting legislative <br /> actions,such as general plan amendments or rezonings,were not protected by the provision that limited <br /> mitigation measures to the capped school facilities fees. <br /> B. Senate Bill 50("SB 50") <br /> In 1998, the Legislature passed the Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act of 1998,creating a framework <br /> for school funding that combined state bonds,local school district bonds,and developer fees. ((Ed. <br /> Code, § 17070.10 et seq.)("SB 50").) As it relates to developer fees, SB 50 made at least three <br /> important changes in the law. <br /> First, SB 50 contains a state-wide cap on the amount of fees,charges,dedication or other requirements <br /> which can be levied against new development to fund construction or reconstruction of school facilities. <br /> Three different levels of fees are authorized by SB 50. <br /> Level 1 fees are applicable state-wide where the need for new school facilities is triggered by new <br /> developmentāthese fees are capped at$1.93 per square foot for residential development and$.3 I per <br /> For a more comprehensive background of the early legislative history of school facilities fees,see Grupe Development <br /> Company v. the Superior Court of San Bernardino County(1993)4 Cal.4t 911. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.