01 - Laserfiche WebLink

a similar route as their existing one to East Pleasanton but fails to address concerns about the new route. Scenario 2B —serves as a an alternative to moving Ruby Hill to the new school in East Pleasanton, assigns Ruby hill to Vintage Hills Elementary where many residents are already electing to attend but fails to create a large enough resident popoulation for East Pleasanton before and possibly beyond 2022. Scenario 5 proposes the Neal Property as the second new site—this scenario combines the positive elements from previous scenarios, provides needed relief to the District's northern region, puts a facility closer to the Ruby Hill community, asborbs projected growth from East Pleasanton but fails to create a neighborhood school within the East Pleasanton development. Slide 9— East Pleasanton Specific Plan Impact— Mr. Johnson highlighted alternatives 1-6. Slide 10—Conclusions: -Scenarios 2A, 2B and 5 are the most successful in meeting the District's needs. -A facility in the Northern region of the District would be needed first. -The Neal property could be usedan alternative to a site in East Pleasanton but not in addition to an East Pleasanton site. -Based on the most recent trends approval and construction of the EPSP creates the need for an additional facility. Questions/Comments from the Board/City Council: Trustee Bowser commented, "I know we reviewed the scenarios where we allocated the District Office and as I recall that wasn't economically viable based on some of the scenarios." He noted that students are housed on the district office campus. Superintendent Ahmadi stated, That was through ouf Facilities Master Plan and it wasn't feasible for we're not just talking about administration, we have Village High School, we have Maintenance, the Warehouse and the entire facility. To relocate all of these wasn't feasible." Mr. Johnson added, "It also wasn't feasible demographically, as the scenario we propsed converted this site to a full comprehensive school site and this location would be too close to the other schools to crease an attendance area to fit 600-700 students." President Hiintzke commented, "Part of this site was suggested being used for something else like a Magnet School, Arts Academy, or Dual Immersion site, however, we never received an answer to this suggestion." Mr. Johnson responded , "That would be an alternative that would definitely attract and accommodate some of the growth across the district. The question would be, where are all of those students coming from? It becomes very difficult from a planning standpoint to project that because that ultimately becomes the parent's choice and it's impossible to predict which parents are going to apply and what standards would you have as to who would be able to qualify." Superintendent Ahmadi added, "That could be an idea that would work in any part of the district, whereever the school happens to be, could have a magnet program." Trustee Arkin clarified the scenario presented to the Board regarding the District Office and commented, "Moving the District Offices and using this as a school site." Mr. Johnson replied, "A fully comprehensive site." Ms. Arkin added, "But not considering if we moved the district offices if we sold this site." Ms. Ahmadi responded, "That was in the Facilities Master Plan." President Hintzke suggested as the City goes through their Task Force Planning to look at the Neal property to be developed into housing and what it would look like. At a previous board meeting the Trustees agreed to hire a consultant to do a feasibility study of where sites should be and as a district if we were to develop Neal ouselves to housing to make a profit. Mr. Fialho commented, "That suggestion has come up over the years and we have to work together to rezone that property. We've been supportive of looking at it, mixing the right density if that's Joint City Council Page 10 of 11 March 17, 2014 PUSD Board Minutes