CCMIN071691 - Laserfiche WebLink

314 Mr. Mercer proposed that the Stoneridge property be given to the District as a gift. He added that houses on the Abbie Street property would be good, without Growth Management exemption, and that the corner of Bernal Avenue and First Street should be reserved for a park. He continued that the City should review alternative uses for school-designated surplus properties, as well as specific site proposals for the 42.5 acre Sycamore site. He pointed out that development on the Del Prado property is the District's decision and that like any property owner, the District can request a General Plan amendment for the City's review. With respect to exploring plans and options for new schools, he indicated that the City has always considered new schools, over and above the school mitigation fees, in its discussions with developers. Mr. Clark Gunson, a member of the Pleasanton Unified School District Board, stated that he was not personally in favor of exchanging the District's 7.2 acre and two acre properties for the City's 13.5 acres on Stoneridge because the District's property is significantly of more value than what the City is giving up. All other provisions of the agreement refer to what the City will do in the future. He inquired what would happen to the agreement if there were a change in the Council's composition before the tasks were accomplished. Mr. Mercer replied that generally, a future City Council cannot encumber another Council's actions. Ms. Judy Markolf, a member of the Pleasanton Unified School District Board, stated that a guarantee of Growth Management approval would be valuable. She inquired, however, what assurance the District would have that a future Council would give the District that kind of consideration. Ms. Acosta proposed that an agreement be drawn which would include a procedure guaranteeing that the District would be given first priority for any Growth Management allocation. Mr. Roush stated that the proposed procedure on Growth Management allocation could be made part of a real property exchange agreement between the District and the City, which would make the procedure a bilateral agreement which could not be changed by a future Council. The person to whom the property is sold would then be the beneficiary of that agreement. Ms. Scribner indicated that she could not support Staff's recommendations because the arrangements appear vague. She stated that she would prefer to see the written agreement before voting on the issues. - 18 - 7-16-91