My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
5B
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
042715 CITY-SCHOOL
>
5B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2015 2:52:25 PM
Creation date
4/24/2015 2:41:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/27/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
5B
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Task Force, which would make its final recommendation and staff would forward <br /> the Plan to the various City commissions and committees, and ultimately City <br /> Council. The final decision on adopting the EPSP could also involve a public vote. <br /> c. SB 50. At the City/PUSD Liaison Meeting on April 14, a member of the public <br /> expressed a desire that the City advocate for reform of SB 50. SB 50 (also known <br /> as the Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act of 1998) made significant <br /> amendments to existing State law governing school fees. In particular, SB 50 <br /> prohibited State or local agencies from imposing school impact mitigation fees, <br /> dedications, or other requirements in excess of those provided in the statute. The <br /> legislation also prohibited local agencies from using the inadequacy of school <br /> facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of projects. Concern <br /> about SB 50 from school advocacy groups often focuses on the insufficiency of <br /> fees generated by SB 50 to cover the costs of new school facilities necessitated <br /> by development. Some school districts, including PUSD, have imposed additional <br /> "gift" fee requirements on development projects to assist in bridging the gap <br /> between the fees generated by the lowest fee statutorily allowed by SB 50 and the <br /> actual costs of developing new school facilities. <br /> d. Questions for Discussion. The following questions may be considered by City <br /> Council and the Board of Trustees in regard to the previous discussion: <br /> 1. Should the goal of maintaining a target elementary school average enrollment <br /> of 600-700 students be revisited? <br /> 2. Will the long-term stream of school funding be adequate to operate a new <br /> elementary school built in the EPSP area sometime after 2024? <br /> 3. Based on the data in the Student Population Projections, is there a desire to <br /> reduce the number of residential units that would be developed as part of the <br /> EPSP Base Plan by potentially reducing the amount of school funding paid by <br /> EPSP property owners? <br /> 4. Does the Board of Trustees have any thoughts or suggestions related to the <br /> City Council's upcoming discussion on whether to continue with the EPSP? <br /> Submitted by, Approved by, <br /> Brian Dolan Nelson Fialho <br /> Assistant City Manager City Manager <br /> Attachments: <br /> 1 - Figure 5.1, Land Use Plan, from Draft Plan, including potential public school and <br /> park site <br /> 2 - Executive Summary, Student Population Projections <br /> Page 4 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.