►
Description
San Bruno City Council Meeting February 24, 2015
10b. Support Resident Petition to Transfer School Territory
B
B
Unintel
fairly
recently-
and
that
is
the
site-
this
item
is
to
support
a
petition
by
the
residents
initiated
by
residents
of
the
merriment
subdivision,
which
is
I
think
you
know
was
developed
in
the
beginning
in
about
2006,
through
about
2008
by
summer
hill
homes
off
of
evergreen
drive
on
the
site
of
san
bruno
park,
school
districts,
former
Carl,
Sandburg
school.
This
location
is
within
the
rolling
wooded
area
and
at
the
far
northern
border
of
our
community
adjacent
to
the
city
of
south
san
francisco.
B
I
mentioned
that
this
item
results
from
a
petition
initiated
by
or
an
initiative
of
residents
of
this
mariemont
subdivision.
I
would
note
at
the
outset
here
that
the
city
has
not
received
a
request
from
those
residents
or
from
anybody
other
than
itself
to
take
this
action.
But
staff
concurs
with
a
request
that
we
received
from
the
joint
the
subcommittee
that
represents
us,
in
collaboration
with
school
district
council
members,
Medina
and
Salazar,
who
work
together
with
subcommittee
of
the
bore
of
the
school
board
to
address
various
issues
of
our
collaboration
and
coordination
within
the
community.
B
Just
very
briefly,
on
a
historical
explanation
of
what
this
situation
is.
Is
that
in
1961
sanrio
Park
School
District
developed
the
Carl
Sandburg
school
school
on
the
10-acre
site
in
the
location
that
I've
just
described,
as
you
know,
in
2005
the
school
district
surplus
and
sold
that
site
to
summer
hill
homes,
with
the
stated
intent
by
several
hill
homes
to
develop
a
residential
subdivision.
B
Unfortunately,
for
them
they
were
surprised
to
discover
in
approximately
2009,
by
an
astute
resident
looking
at
their
tax
bill,
that
there
was
an
allocation
on
their
tax
bill
for
property
taxes
being
paid
to
the
South
San
Francisco
Unified
School
District.
Upon
questioning
that
revelation.
The
residents
learned
that,
in
fact,
that
piece
of
property
that
ten
acre
site
is
actually
within
the
jurisdictional
boundaries
of
that
school
district
and
not
those
school
districts
serving
the
city
of
San
Bruno.
And,
as
you
know,
there
are
two
school
districts
that
serve
otherwise
serve
the
residents
of
San
Bruno.
B
They
were
directed
that
their
home
area
of
attendance
would
be
in
south
san
francisco
and
if
residents
of
the
miramonte
subdivision
wanted
to
have
their
students
attend
schools
in
san
bruno
or
frankly,
anywhere
else
other
than
south
san
francisco.
Those
families
would
need
to
complete
the
inter-district
transfer
permit
process
and
receive
approval
every
year
by
both
the
san
bruno
school
district,
as
well
as
the
south
san
francisco
school
district,
which
creates
a
level
of
complexity
and
burden
for
those
families
that
some
who
frankly
chosen
it
just
not
to
bother
with.
B
As
I
indicated
the,
let
me
give
you
just
a
little
bit
more
historical
background
in
investigating
the
situation.
What
the
residents
discovered
was
that,
although
the
school
had
been
built
and
operated
by
the
san
bruno
park,
school
district
beginning
in
1961
through
the
time
that
that
school
closed
in
1978
for
the
majority
of
that
period
of
time,
that
property
actually
was
physically
located
in
the
unincorporated
San
Mateo
County
territory
in
1977.
B
There
was
no
taxes
were
collected
or
exchanged,
and
until
the
property
was
developed
for
residential
use,
the
suit
of
the
situation
simply
existed
and,
as
I
indicated,
did
not
create
any
attention
or
issue
from.
It
was,
however,
at
the
time
that
the
residents
discovered
this
anomaly
and
began
to
question
it
that
a
there
ensued,
a
situation
where
the
the
district's
south
san
francisco
and
san
bruno
districts
could
not
reach
an
agreement
about
tax
sharing.
That
would
have
allowed
students
to
regularly
attend
san
bruno
schools.
B
B
A
second
issue
that
stood
out
in
my
review
of
this
issue
and
in
learning
a
little
bit
about
this
anomalous
situation,
was
that
situation
that
you
may
recall
from
the
time
that
the
mariemont
subdivision
was
developed,
and
that
was
that
as
part
of
that
development,
there
was
a
specifics
decision
as
it
as
it
turns
out
by
the
city
of
South,
San
Francisco
to
physically
block
the
opportunity
for
roadway
connection
between
evergreen
or
the
merriment
subdivision,
and
into
South
San
Francisco.
So
there's
a
road.
B
My
recollection
is
anyway
that
there's
a
road
that
is
essentially
physically
blocked,
so
is
that
convenient
for
residents
of
the
merriment
subdivision
physically
to
get
to
school
in
south
san
francisco?
That's
a
long
ways
around
in
another
direction,
and
I
think
that
the
residents
are
residents
are
correct
and
some
of
the
materials
that
I
read
that
that
situation
appears
to
indicate
what
I
think
has.
It
is
true
that
nobody
really
knew
nobody
really
was
paying
any
attention.
B
As
I
mentioned,
it
didn't
create
any
issues
until
residents
moved
into
the
subdivision,
but
nobody
really
knew
that
this
property
was
not
already
incorporated
into
the
boundaries
of
this
of
the
San
Bruno
school
districts.
In
fact,
the
residents
were
informed
and
all
of
the
documentation
that
they
have
been
able
to
amass
in
this
extensive
effort
that
they've
undertaken
indicates
that
everybody
thought
that
the
property
was
served
by
San,
Bruno
schools,
and
so
the
residents
bought
their
properties
and,
as
I
said,
happily
engaged
in
San
Bruno
with
that
understanding
and
that
expectation.
B
B
Correct
a
situation:
that's
existed
for
a
very
long
time
that
has,
as
I
said,
gone
undetected
and
which
would
be
of
their
interest
and
their
initiative
to
fully
engage
and
become
members
of
the
San
Bruno
community
in
all
ways
that
other
residents
are
so
with
that
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Any.
C
You
know
for
those
students,
because
its
revenue
and
I
am
just
appalled
that,
with
and
I
heard
about
this
a
couple
years
ago,
was
attending
a
samra
park.
School
district
meeting
and
a
resident
got
up
and
made.
You
know,
stated
the
issue
and
I
just
couldn't
believe
it
that,
after
all
this
time
that
we
at
san
berdo,
part
of
school
district
had
fought
for
an
annexation
for
patola
school
that
we
would
go
through
this
with.
C
This
seems
like
taking
me
for
granted,
and
I
see
in
the
IC
in
the
resolution
that
whereas
residents
have
been
repeatedly
consistently
advised
relied
upon
information,
yeah
and
I,
don't
blame
RC
I
mean
I
I,
actually
blind
the
school
district.
For
not
you
know
assuring
that
when
they
sold
the
property,
I
can't
believe
it
and
the
fact
and
I
remember
reviewing
that
project
and
south
san
francisco
was
adamant.
C
They
did
not
want
the
traffic
of
that
development
to
encumber
their
their
city,
and
so
that
was
a
big
give
to
them
and
I
I
mean
at
the
very
least.
We
should
do
this,
and
because
these
these
residents
had
every
intention
understanding
of
coming
to
San
Bruno
schools,
and
you
know
they're
being
denied
that
if.
B
I
might
I
just
addressed
the
revenue
issue
very
beautifully,
and
I
will
acknowledge
that
the
front
in
here
that
I
I
don't
know
a
lot
about
the
details
of
the
financial
implications.
I
think
there's
two
interesting
points
about
this.
First
of
all,
the
south
san
francisco
unified
district,
I
believe,
is
a
basic
aid
district,
so
they
are
reliant
on
property
tax.
That's
that's
what
basically
means
they
don't
get
a
DA
monies
or
average
daily
attendance
money
as
they
get.
They
support
their
sell
themselves
based
on
property
tax,
Sam
grant
park.
B
B
The
the
second
observation,
though,
that
I
would
make,
is
that
there
was
no
tracks
revenue,
none
at
all,
paid
by
the
same
Randall
Park
School
District,
under
their
ownership
of
the
property
for
those
many
decades,
and
so
it's
only
recently,
and
only
with
the
development
of
the
mariemont
subdivision
that
that
opportunity
has
existed.
So
it's
you
know:
it's
not
a
situation
where,
at
least
to
my
understanding
that
district
would
have
had
a
historical
reliance
on
property
taxes
that
are
now
going
to
after
a
very
long
time,
go
away.
B
It's
it's
a
matter
of
money
that
they
didn't
have
and
now
have
had
for
a
short
period
of
time
would
go,
would
would
no
longer
be
available
and
there
are
legitimate
financial
issues.
I
believe
that
have
been
mounted
by
the
district
in
their
appeal
of
the
county
board's
decision,
so
I
would
expect
those
to
be
discussed
at
the
state
level
when
this
comes
up
to
them.
If.
C
I
could
I
mean
we're
doing
a
resolution
is
and
I
realize
that
they
haven't
come
forward
to
ask
for
cities
help,
but
we,
the
city,
helped
a
lot
with
the
you
know:
portola
annexation
when
it
got
close
and
I.
Just
think
that
you
know,
maybe
we
should
outreach
to
see
what
more
we
can
do
to
you
know
to
help
the
cause-
and
you
know,
convince
the
state
I'd.
D
Rico
through
the
chair,
this
is
something
that
it
was
in
light.
I
became
aware
of
when
I
went
up
and
had
national
night
out.
It's
just
stopped
by
because
the
the
neighborhood
was
having
national
night
out
as
they
had
a
Grundy
park,
and
so
I
went
up
there
after
and
lo
and
behold,
I
came
up
and
was
very
much
welcomed
and
I
appreciated
in
met
Virginia
Virginia
who's,
the
head
petitioner,
who
has
worked
diligently
up
there
to
have
all
of
this
apparent
resident
in
her
spare
time.
D
Having
this
done
and
going
through,
all
this
process
should
have
been
taken
care
of
last
last
year,
but
it
was
delayed
by
the
state,
and
so
here
here
it
comes
so
I
spoke
to
Virginia.
Today
was
we
were
talking
about
this
and
she
had
an
obligation,
so
she
couldn't
be
here,
but
obviously
we
don't
have
control
over
what
the
state
does
to
me.
It's
very
straightforward,
I
know
we
talked
to
you
may
mention,
have
them
feel
to
become
part
of
san
bruno.
I
think
they've
always
been
san
bruno.
They
are
san
bruno
they're.
D
D
So
it
was
silly
to
me
to
hear
what
they
have
to
go
through
to
enroll
their
kids
in
actually
san
bruno
schools,
which
again,
as
a
city
manager,
said,
I
was
found
an
ironic,
as
I
told
them
so
I'll
sit
in
the
city
of
south
city,
put
up
a
gate
and
didn't
want
you
driving
through
their
streets.
There
is
only
one
way
in
and
one
way
out
and
that's
through
the
city
of
san
bruno,
and
that
is
their
home.