PC 111302 - Laserfiche WebLink

r- Commissioner Sullivan agreed to the condition but stated that he believed that the agreement was voluntary on the part of the developers rather than legally required. 7. MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Sullivan stated that it was disturbing that the Commission, Council, City, and development community had come together, approving the development and putting the funds forward to build the infrastructure so the school can be built; then the School District decides not to build the school. He indicated that he, as an individual Planning Commissioner, would like to ask the City and the City Council to determine three things: (1) What recourse, legal and otherwise, does the City have to compel the District to build a school as soon as possible and open in the fall of 2004? (2) What Growth Management option does the City have, if the school is not built, to limit the number of children going to school by not building new houses? (3) With respect to the agreement with Signature Homes to build a school for $8.5 million, what recourse does the City have, as party to this agreement, to hold Signature Homes to build the school without escalating the cost to the reported $14 million estimate? Commissioner Sedlak asked Commissioner Sullivan if the District talked about proposed attendance with respect to forecasting a drop in attendance, considering that it is getting more expensive to live in Pleasanton and more difficult for younger couples with school-aged children to move into the community. /""', Commissioner Sullivan replied that school attendance has been going up every year and that the attendance number is understated. Commissioner Roberts indicated that she would also like to have answers to Commissioner Sullivan's comments on demographics because the District's numbers are way off-base. She stated that one thing the City could do is make it very clear that the District cannot sell that property, which has been improved with infrastructure, for housing development, as it did with the Hansen and Sycamore properties. Commissioner Arkin agreed with Commissioners Sullivan and Roberts but indicated that the Commission may be overstepping its boundaries. He suggested that a formal recommendation be made to the City Council to agendize this matter. Ms. Nerland advised that if the Commission wishes to take action on the matter, it would need to agendize the item since it is not on tonight's agenda. She stated that it is her understanding that the questions regarding certain impacts ofthe school issues with Growth Management can be discussed with the Growth Management plan. She indicated, however, that the issue regarding the City's recourse to compel the District to build the school is a City Council decision based on advice from Legal Counsel and that it would not be appropriate for her to discuss the matter with the Planning Commission without direction from the City Council. --- Commissioner Sullivan clarified that he was not asking the City Council to do anything or tell the Planning Commission anything; rather, he was requesting the City Council to look at what recourse the City may have regarding this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2002 Page 20