Senate Bill 50 and School Facility Fees - California's Coalition for ...

Section 1
Suspension/Repeal of Mira/Hart/Murrieta
A. The 1986 Legislation. The School Facilities Law of 1986 authorized school districts to levy
development fees to fund school facilities. Under this scheme, the maximum amount that could
be levied was $1.50 per square foot for residential development and $0.25 per square foot for
commercial and industrial development. (With inflation adjustments, these rates had risen to
$1.93 and $0.31 in 1998.) The 1986 law appeared, on its face, to prohibit municipalities to levy
fees in excess of the statutory maximum amounts to fund schools or to deny requests for
development approvals on the basis of inadequacy of school facilities.
B. Judicial Interpretation. In a series of appellate decisions known as “Mira/Hart/Murrieta",
however, the courts found a way around the limitations of the 1986 law. In Mira Development
Corp. v. City of San Diego ("Mira"), 205 Cal. App. 3d 1201 (1988); William S. Hart Union High
School District v. Regional Planning Commission ("Hart"), 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1991); and
Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside ("Murrieta"), 228 Cal. App. 3d
1212 (1991), the courts held that the limitations of the School Facilities Law of 1986 only
applied to municipalities when they made adjudicative decisions (such as approvals of parcel
maps, use permits, and building permits) but not when they made legislative decisions (such as
general plan amendments, zoning changes, and development agreements). The courts held that,
when a municipality made a legislative decision concerning land use, it could consider the
impacts of that decision on school facilities and could condition its approval on mitigation
measures, even if the mitigation measures exceeded the limits of what school districts could
require on their own.
Mira/Hart/Murrieta allowed cities and counties to use their legislative power over land use (a
part of what is called their "police power") to assist school districts by requiring developer fees,
land dedications, or other measures to fully mitigate the impacts of development on school
facilities. In addition to exercising their police powers to control land development,
municipalities have a duty to assess and mitigate the environmental effects of development under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et
seq). Prior to the passage of Proposition 1A, Government Code Section 65996 prohibited local
agencies to deny approval of a "project" on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities. The
Murrieta case interpreted the term "project" to again limit the application of this rule to
adjudicative decisions, thereby allowing mitigation measures under CEQA for school facilities
pursuant to legislative acts.
C. Repeal of Mira/Hart/Murrieta. In essence, SB 50 completely relieves cities and counties of
the power to require development fees or other exactions in excess of the statutory maximum
amounts to help fund school facilities. SB 50 amends Government Code Section 65995(a) to
provide that only those fees expressly authorized by Education Code Section 17620 (discussed
below) or Government Code Sections 65970 and following (the old interim facilities fees) may
be levied or imposed in connection with or made conditions of any legislative or adjudicative act
by a local agency involving planning, use, or development of real property. Subdivision (h) of
section 65995 declares that the payment of the development fees authorized by Education Code
Section 17620 is "full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative