Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Letter: Hacienda rezoning will be detriment to schools

Dear Editor,

I am a resident in Valencia at Hacienda. I oppose the rezoning of the Hacienda Business Park for high-density residential buildings ("City planners OK rezoning 19 more acres in Hacienda Business Park for housing," News, Oct. 2, page 5).

My main concern is about the 1,500 children that will be added to the area. One of the main reasons for people to move to Pleasanton is the good public school system. The rezoning plan is going to build about 1,000 apartment houses for household of three to four persons, which typically include two adults and one to two children. This gives me the average about 1,500 children spreading from K-12.That is 100 more kids per grade. I wonder whether the city or school district is ready for this impact. I do not see or hear any plans yet.

I noticed that the article about rezoning by Mr. Jeb Bing has added a few sentences on the oppositions. Actually the oppositions at the public hearing a few weeks ago were so big that the planning commission admitted that they felt a little disappointed. There were three lots for discussion and the planning commission ended up with endorsing only two because of the oppositions. The room was full of residents in the nearby neighborhood. If it were not because of the time reason, there would be more speakers against the rezoning.

I appreciate that the Pleasanton Weekly offers such a place to express my concerns on this plan. I hope that the city will do more studies on the longer term impact before they OK the rezoning and construction plan.

Yijia Xu

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 9:35 am
Stacey is a member (registered user) of Pleasanton Weekly

Wait a minute, 1500 children? At the council meeting it was reported that the number estimated by the school district, using their methodology, was 300. I don't know if that number was based upon the maximum 1200 or so housing unit plan. Not everyone who lives or wants to live in Pleasanton has children.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Does the district still use Lapkoff & Gobalet for projections? 1500 seems overstated. More important us that students come with valuable revenue. Yes, there are still questions of what that means at the state level, but it is unlikely we would have to take on the education of children without additional income.

Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Oct 30, 2009 at 5:04 pm

"Not everyone who lives or wants to live in Pleasanton has children."

It may be hard to believe, but most people move to Pleasanton because of the schools. If I did not have children, I would still be living in the South bay, not in Pleasanton. We moved here because of the schools even if the commute to work is not ideal. Do not get me wrong, I love the community, but it is definitely a place for families with kids.

There needs to be a study about the impact to the schools. As it is, some schools have more students than they should. I cannot imagine more students added, are there plans to build a new high school? how about a new elementary?

Posted by Julie Testa, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Oct 31, 2009 at 11:33 pm

LOL, LOL ......"are there plans to build a new high school? how about a new elementary?" LOL, LOL, LOL!

No there is no plan to build a new high school....or an elementary school.

June 15, 2007

Squandering school board? page 13

Web Link

Issue date: April 28, 2000

Need another high school?

Debate over proposed new high school sparks passions on both sides

Web Link

Publicaiton date: January 28, 2000

Board OKs fourth high school

Web Link

Posted by concernedparent, a member of the Fairlands Elementary School community, on Nov 2, 2009 at 9:12 am

Oh 1500 may be a bit overstated but 300 probably too little. When the apartments were built on Owens developers said there would only be young singles who wanted to live close to bart for commuting not families with kids. How many of those no kid families live there now? All the schools are over flowing with those nonexisting students. Shame on the City for not making stipulations about classrooms before agreeing to development. The school district needs to speak up loud and clear on this one but with a lame duck superintendent it's doubtful.

Posted by Julie Testa, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Nov 2, 2009 at 10:54 am

Pleasanton school district will not be helpful, they have made a decision to overcrowd the existing schools. They want the development fees from the new homes and every new student brings ADA dollars. The development fees are intended to build new schools for the new growth but PUSD has negotiated a “gift agreement” so the fees can be used for other uses.

By state standards every campus in Pleasanton is significantly overcrowded. The belief is that overcrowding the campuses allows money that would otherwise be used to operate the additional campuses to be used for salary and benefits instead. They can always put more portables on the playgrounds or basketball courts.

The 6 MILLION dollars from the sale of the Sycamore land, the land intended to be the third high school sight, has been raided to pay salary and benefits among other uses. The money from the sale of land is legally only allowed to be used for capital projects.

Posted by Valium no prescription, a resident of the Ridgeview Commons neighborhood, on Dec 16, 2009 at 11:57 pm

timesbub sender attempting distinctness antas vfkkzr teachers yskk olrqvksa demotivating eruptions

masimundus semikonecolori