|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Those of us involved in local government talk about the importance of local control. The thinking is that those who live in the community know best what the community needs. I agree. Therefore, if we don’t want the state deciding our fate, we need to act in our own best interest.
Like many decisions, this requires conversation and compromise. At its December council meeting, Pleasanton relinquished another chance for local control by voting against a compromise solution that would put the Pleasanton Unified School District on an economically viable path to achieve teacher workforce housing with a local solution.
PUSD is facing a very real problem finding teachers and staff to support and educate our children. Like any employer, their challenges are numerous: recruitment and retention, vacillating state funding, fluctuating student enrollment and affordable teacher workforce housing, to name a few. It should come as no surprise that PUSD is looking for viable solutions.
PUSD has been dutifully participating in the city’s Housing Element process by asking that two of its properties be evaluated for housing.
In a letter to the city, PUSD affirmed their desire to find solutions to address teacher turnover and acute staffing shortages by “converting unused or underutilized property to build teacher and workforce housing.” For success, PUSD requested that its district office site (on Bernal and First) be granted a density range of eight to 20 dwelling units per acre and their Vineyard site (on Vineyard and Thiessen) be granted a density range of three to five dwelling units per acre.
Under recently passed state legislation, AB 2295, which was discussed at the December council meeting, school districts are now allowed to bypass city zoning requirements and build on their own land for teachers and others. The city may only impose basic design standards.
Moreover, school districts operating under the banner of AB 2295 are required to develop projects with a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre, with 30% of the units restricted to lower- or moderate-income levels.
After receiving this information, the council voted 3-1 to lower the density range to eight to 12 dwelling units per acre at the district site, well below the district’s requested eight to 20 dwelling units per acre, and less than half of the minimum 30 dwelling units per acre available under AB 2295. At this lower density, it won’t pencil out for our school district to build urgently needed teacher and workforce housing given current building costs.
If you were our school district, what would you do?
We want local control to be able to design and locate housing that is compatible with our existing neighborhoods and community. We want the ability to address Pleasanton’s challenges with innovative solutions in partnership with others. We want to strengthen our partnership with PUSD to support our children and families.
However, having local control comes with the responsibility to use it judiciously in finding solutions to achieve the best outcomes for our community. The school district came to the City Council in good faith and sought a compromised local solution. Some of us chose not to take it.
The council is to discuss this topic at a special meeting on Jan. 26. Voice your opinion by emailing your City Council at citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca.gov.
Editor’s note: Vice Mayor Jack Balch is in his third year serving on the Pleasanton City Council. He was the lone dissenting vote in the 3-1 decision from the Dec. 20 council meeting related to the PUSD property. This opinion piece was submitted before the Planning Commission meeting took place on Wednesday.
I will be speaking at Council regarding this subject. I am outraged the our City isn’t doing everything possible to help PUSD achieve maximum value for its property.
Why? Ask the 3 members who voted not to agree to the compromise submitted by the school district. Makes no sense. The school district will be forced to go the route of State AB2295 which will require far more homes – and up to 5 stories on the Bernal property. Is this really what anyone wants? What is wrong with the 3 City Council members who voted no to the proposal by the school district? Going to battle the state again – was anything learned from past battles with the state? Maybe time to go back to school for a 3 council members.
For decades, Pleasanton has refused to allow the development of lower cost / higher density housing. Rather than being the community of character, it is the community of elitist selfishness.
Since the teachers can’t be paid the salary that would allow them to buy even a low end home in the city, PUSD should move forward with developing their property without the city’s participation- just work with the state.
MsVic is right that more lawsuits would be crazy and a bis waste of money.
Since Pleasanton schools have seen a large drop in quality by not having any distinguished schools on the latest listing (ref. the story in the latest edition of the weekly), are teachers going to want teach here? And will all the people who have moved here for the schools frcide to move elsewhere?
I saw an ad yesterday for a new, 2000 sq fr + home on Peters Ave, a block from Main Street with 4 bedrooms. The monthly payments are said to range from more than $8,000 to $12,000, depending on the loan, with a selling price tag of $1,788,000. The median teachers salary in Pleasanton is $50,262, making the monthly house payment more than double the teacher’s income! Yet our council majority continues to believe this is acceptable and the ratio of houses to acres must remain at lower levels? On school-owned properties? Methinks it is time for a serious adjustment in council priorities.
This is Mark Miller, former trustee for Pleasanton Unified. I greatly appreciate councilman Balch’s position on this very important decision.
When we (your PUSD Board) decided to put these properties, specifically a portion of the District Office and what’s known as the Neal Property, in the element, it was with the overarching goal to add value for our children, our future. Money from the sale would supplement the recently passed measure I in helping address the $625MM gap between measure I and the over $1B need identified in our Facility Master Plan, providing much needed facility improvements for our schools. Additionally, the affordable teacher housing we envisioned would go a long way toward attracting and retaining teachers, a major challenge all California school districts are facing, and something we can all agree would greatly benefit our students. Council’s December direction would severely curtail these benefits for our students, and I implore them to reconsider.
Every member of the council and our mayor ran on platforms highly supportive of schools. While mayor Brown and council member Testa seemed to forget that when endorsement of measure I was requested, I hope all will remember that when voting on the Housing Element.
Julie Testa was just elected running on a platform combative against the state house mandates, willing to challenge them in court if needed. This vote is an example of why the State had to step in and mandate additional housing.
If pusd thinks teacher retention and attraction is important maybe they should give them raises before administrators.
Maybe the district should focus on making the schools top ranked schools in the state and nation vs “global citizens “
Pusd is becoming greedy and focused on revenue not education.
Pleasanton Parent, I think you might be missing the point of the opinion piece. This is not about the school district being greedy this is about how our city council is giving up local control over housing and land development of school owned property. The school proposed a very fair amount of housing to go on the bernal property but our council wanted less. The school district can now go to the state and our local council loses all control as the state can completely bypass the council. The state will move forward with more than double the homes the school district wanted and the state can move forward with 5 story multi family residences at the cordern of bernal and 1st. That’s the whole point nothing more. Our 3 council members think we can once again sue the state, were you here for that last losing law suit?
Pleasanton Parent, I think you might be missing the point of the opinion piece. This is not about the school district being greedy this is about how our city council is giving up local control over housing and land development of school owned property. The school proposed a very fair amount of housing to go on the Bernal property but our council wanted less. The school district can now go to the state and our local council loses all control as the state can completely bypass the council. The state will move forward with more than double the homes the school district wanted and the state can move forward with 5 story multi family residences at the corner of Bernal and 1st. That’s the whole point nothing more. Our 3 council members think we can once again sue the state, were you here for that last losing law suit?
keeknlinda,
If you are trying to help teachers find housing in Pleasanton, you may want to search a little more. I searched apartments in Pleasanton and found:
eaves Pleasanton apartments has a 1 bed/1 bath apartment 659sf available for ~$2250. If the teacher is married to a spouse that also makes $50K, the numbers can work.
They also have a 2bed/2bath, 972sf, for $2800. So single teachers can get a roommate and be paying $1400/month. That seems to work.
Also, if those rents I sampled above are still too high, the ACE train goes right through Pleasanton. Rents to the east are even more affordable.
So my question is…. Are you trying to finding “affordable” housing for teachers? Or are you trying to get subsidized home ownership for teachers?
keeknlinda/PUSD, I think this problem is now solved.
You’re welcome!
G.T.
1. Agree with Karl A.
2. Agree with Pleasanton Parent
3. Talk about greedy: the district does NOT need a new multi-million dollar facility (where did this money come from?); majority of our schools are in worse condition than the district facility (hence the bond)
4. Teachers NOT district “executives” deserve better pay; reduce executive pay and STOP giving them raises