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

act . . . on the provision of adequate school facilities." Section 65995(i) prohibits an agency from
denying or refusing to approve a legislative or adjudicative act involving development "on the
basis of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts
authorized [by SB 50]."
As with the limitations on the police power in Government Code Section 65995, SB 50 makes its
limitations on a city's or county's power under CEQA to mitigate school facilities impacts
applicable to both adjudicative and legislative decisions. The new version of Government Code
Section 65996 also recites that the development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be "full
and complete school facilities mitigation" for the purposes of CEQA or for any other reason. A
local agency may not deny approval of a legislative or adjudicative action under CEQA relating
to real estate development on the basis of the inadequacy of school facilities.
D. Restoration of Power to Deny Legislative Approvals. If at a statewide election in 2006 or
thereafter, a statewide general obligation measure for school facilities is submitted to the voters
and the measure is not approved, Government Code Section 65996 would become inoperative
and the provisions of Section 65997 would go into effect. Section 65997(d) provides that
"notwithstanding any other provision of law [which would include Section 65995(i)], a public
agency may refuse to approve a legislative act" involving property development on the basis that
school facilities are inadequate. While Section 65997 would permit a complete denial of a
legislative development approval, it still would prohibit a public agency to require payment of "a
fee, charge, dedication, or other financial requirement" in excess of those authorized by SB 50 as
a condition of approval. It would also prohibit a public agency from denying, pursuant to CEQA,
approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities.
E. The Effects of SB 50 on Mello-Roos Districts. SB 50 forbids requiring the use of the
Mello-Roos financing for schools as a condition of approval of any legislative or adjudicative
action. A person's refusal to participate in a Mello-Roos school funding program may not be
taken into account when considering any legislative or adjudicative action relating to land
development. If a person voluntarily participates in a Mello-Roos program approved by
landowner vote, the present value of the taxes to be paid are to be calculated as an amount per
square foot of assessable space and credited against any developer fee liability.
Mello-Roos taxes may still be used to make new development bear more of the costs that it
imposes on school districts. To comply with SB 50 however, the taxes would need to be
approved by two-thirds of the registered voters within the boundaries of a Mello-Roos district
created by the school district (which could include the entire school district territory). Because
the tax is approved by registered voters rather than landowners, the amount of the tax is not an
offset to developer fees (although it would be taken into account in the justification studies done
for the developer fees). It may also be possible for a school district to propose to its voters that
they approve a Mello-Roos tax that is levied on any property that receives approval for
development that will lead to increased enrollment on the theory that the tax is not a condition to
the approval of development; it is a consequence of that approval.
F. Site Designation. SB 50 severely limits cities' and counties' consideration of school facilities
issues in the land use approval process, but one section of the new law preserves the traditional
power of cities and counties to use the general plan and zoning to reserve areas for schools. New
Section 65998 of the Government Code states that nothing in SB50 shall be interpreted to "limit