Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Upper West Side topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees press for binding school‑funding commitments in Upper West Side development
Summary
District staff warned the multi‑phase Upper West Side development lacks firm mitigation for school construction and raised safety, infrastructure and capacity concerns; trustees said they may adopt a resolution to oppose the project unless developers provide specific, enforceable commitments for all phases.
Natomas Unified trustees focused much of a special meeting on a proposed multi‑phase development known as the Upper West Side, with staff saying the plan currently lacks guarantees that developers will fund and build school sites beyond the first phase.
Associate Superintendent Doug Orr said the project "would have 4 schools" in full build‑out but that the first phase contains only about 6 acres for a TK–8 site — "the smallest school size in Natomas" — and that the district has seen no firm proposals for phases 2–4. He warned, "One of the fears is that the development team that's working on phase 1 will move on and then we don't know who we're dealing with at that point and they may not feel, beholden." The district flagged unresolved infrastructure issues including sewer and water capacity, and transportation and student‑safety concerns where students would be routed across or under freeways.
Several trustees said the board should press for binding mitigation covering all phases. One trustee urged the board to consider "upping our rhetoric" and preparing a resolution if the developers do not provide the specificity the district needs to protect student safety and financing. Staff said they have been pursuing a mitigation agreement with the development team and plan to continue negotiations and attend upcoming county supervisor meetings.
The presentation included demographic projections staff said show potential significant growth — a scenario the district said would increase pressure on facilities planning and funding. Trustees requested further written proposals from the developers, additional legal and financial analysis, and possible board direction to prepare a formal opposition if adequate mitigation is not secured.
