PC 111302 - Laserfiche WebLink

,-- Management allocation authority does the City have over that considering that Growth Management allocations are done after the final map is approved. Mr. Iserson explained that Ruby Hill is a special case because when the project was annexed to the City a few years ago, a Growth Management Agreement was worked out with the developer that basically gave it the right to build a certain number of houses over time. Chairperson Maas asked Commissioner Arkin ifhis concern with Growth Management has to do with the ultimate financing of the school. Commissioner Arkin replied that financing is not a problem because the District has the money to build the school. He stated that the Development Fee Agreement in place has a mechanism in which fees are paid for school operation. He indicated that there seems to be a discrepancy between what the District and the City think regarding the number of students per school. He asked if the City can build more homes based on its Growth Management policy if the District is not building schools. Chairperson Maas asked staff if the City has made this consideration regarding the school issue in the past. Mr. Iserson replied that the Growth Management Report looks at the infrastructure needs of all City services, including schools. He explained that State law gives the District a lot of autonomy regarding when and how to build schools. He noted that what Commissioner Arkin is referring ,-- to in the General Plan is a quality-of-life goal which the City thinks would be ideal to meet, but there may not be any legal authority to back that up. Commissioner Arkin requested that staff prepare an analysis to shed light on what the City's position is, Commissioner Sullivan commented that it was his understanding that schools are considered a part of the infrastructure analysis that the City is supposed to determine before Growth Management allocations are granted. He added that he would also like to see how SB 50 is tied up to this because there may be some limitations that SB 50 mayor may not put on what cities can do with respect to approving or not approving houses based on schools. He indicated that these issues need to be identified and which developments the City has Growth Management authority over or otherwise. He stated that the basic question is whether we have the ability to not approve more houses if we do not have enough schools for the children who will be in these new houses. Commissioner Roberts inquired if the City can go back to what it did before Hearst Middle School was built wherein the developers had to wait until the school was under construction. Commissioner Kameny stated that the developers were not allowed to sell the houses until the school was constructed; the closing of escrow had to coincide with the opening of the school. ".- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 13,2002 Page 19