Laserfiche WebLink
bond issue in terms of whether or not it's an option in building another school; and whether or <br />not there's support in the community for that. The School District has the authority to override <br />the Council on where it will site schools, but it can't override the City's land use designation <br />on surplus school sites. The City has a General Plan review process that is doing the same <br />thing, and he disagreed with processing this application separately. He felt that one or more <br />community meetings is a necessity on this issue. He suggested joint Board and Council meetings <br />which include the developer, the state, the community in general, businesses, and PTA's in <br />order to get the issues aired. He is not necessarily saying that he would not support an earlier <br />process after that is done, but that process has to come first. He stated that he did not want to <br />unnecessarily delay or prolong getting the ultimate decision made and suggests getting started <br />immediately. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr spoke with the developer and is not comfortable to vote for this issue because <br />she feels the community has not had the opportunity to know both sides of the issue. She felt <br />the community has been left out and that is what is causing all the problems. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico felt that if the process described by the Mayor is gone through and there was <br />clear support for a land use change on the property, then we could end up with a good project <br />for the City and the School District would be fal~y compensated for the property; there's not <br />really a big hurry. There's a backlog of growth management and the project is not likely to be <br />able to be built until 1997 or 1998 at the earliest. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti stated that the School Board has an offer on the table with a limited <br />option, which is one factor. The developer is looking for a window of opportunity for growth <br />management. That may not be taken up this year, but there may be an opportunity at this time <br />that may not be available later. She'd like to see where the community stands but wondered if <br />another developer comes along, will the same type of development again be proposed. She <br />questioned Mayor Tarver's direction which seemed to tell the developer to go on hold. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver wanted to convene as soon as possible a joint meeting of School District <br />representatives, along with a representative of the State Superintendent's office, to meet with <br />residents of the Del Prado neighborhood and parent teacher associations, in order to discuss <br />various issues. Those issue include the matter outlined in the letter from Assemblymember <br />Sweeney such as how decisions are made to declare surplus school property, how schools are <br />financed and how school facilities are utilized. The development community should be involved <br />to discuss what could be built on the site; parent teacher organizations should discuss what their <br />members believe is best for a particular school. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti stated then the issue calls for a continuance of the decision until these <br />meeting are held; because if it gets resolved fast enough then it might work into the time frame <br />the School Board is looking at in order to sell the property. She asked if this delay is short term <br />that would work into the time frame that this applicant is looking at. <br /> <br />05/09/95 - 11 - <br /> <br /> <br />