|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
On Sept. 29, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law 15 bills addressing California’s housing shortage.
By streamlining the approval process for development applications, encouraging sustainable housing districts through zoning incentive payments, increasing and enforcing housing element requirements, placing a bond on next year’s ballot for more veteran and affordable housing funding, and making it easier for homeowners to construct second or accessory dwelling units, every city will be impacted.
We have a paradox in Pleasanton.
In a recent community satisfaction survey, 61% of residents stated that providing affordable housing for working families is important; yet, an equal amount are also concerned about the pace of development and associated traffic impacts and overwhelmingly want to retain our small-town character.
How do we manage this paradox? To ensure state and regional planning efforts don’t redefine our small-town character, the following pillars should frame our housing policy.
Growth Management Ordinance: Our current ordinance limits us to 235 residential units annually. We must adhere to this but need to think creatively about workforce and elderly housing within the confines of growth management.
Encourage accessory dwelling units: To protect single-family neighborhoods from higher-density developments, we can encourage accessory dwelling units to provide our kids and grandparents with compact and affordable places to live.
Plan future development near transit stations: The state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) identifies the total number of affordable housing units each jurisdiction must accommodate. For the 2023 RHNA cycle, we could specify new housing be built only where transit, bike and pedestrian infrastructure exists; for example, near BART stations.
Sustain strong design and development standards: Strong standards ensure that design guidelines maintain our look and feel.
Strengthen local Affordable Housing Ordinance: We should strengthen our current ordinance so that affordable housing is built with all new multi-family housing. Often, developers choose to pay in-lieu fees instead of building affordable units, and we can strike a better balance. We recently tasked the Planning and Housing commissions to jointly address these issues soon.
Ensure infrastructure needs: Development impact fees provide resources for infrastructure — transportation, schools, water — and haven’t been adjusted since 1998. We should update these fees to ensure our infrastructure needs keep pace with any new development. And our planning efforts with the school district are keeping us on track for when we will need to build another school.
We know from past experience that we must adhere to state housing mandates, and yet we must also do everything we can to control our housing decisions in our own community.
With this framework and proactive planning in advance of any new housing requirements, I am confident we will be able to address the housing shortage and demonstrate to our residents and the region why we call ourselves the “City of Planned Progress.”
Editor’s note: Jerry Thorne is completing his third two-year term as mayor of Pleasanton after serving seven years on the City Council. A retired corporate executive with more than 40 years in the private sector, he also served for 10 years on the city’s Parks and Recreation Commission.
Editor’s note: Jerry Thorne is completing his third two-year term as mayor of Pleasanton after serving seven years on the City Council. A retired corporate executive with more than 40 years in the private sector, he also served for 10 years on the city’s Parks and Recreation Commission.
I appreciate the Mayor’s proactive and thoughtful perspective and generally agree with his points. Especially appreciate having and more strategic approach to where high density housing should be placed near freeways and BART stations with easy public transit and also where there are other generally taller/larger structures.
On ADUs, I agree with thoughts but wondering why ADUs do not count toward our growth management ordinance. I was told the state allows them to count toward RHNA so hoping we update our growth management ordinance so they count there too. Otherwise, we are just adding housing units and not getting credit within the city for the units.
Also, should we be planning for certain areas that will have more moderate density housing (like duets) so we do not end up with just high rise apartments and estate lots.
I encourage the Mayor to have community meetings to help educate the public and also to refine strategies to address. This letter is a great start.
Rhetoric, misleading and empty words:
Mayor Thorne owes Pleasanton honesty and concrete policy.
Last year Mayor Thorne told me he believed our community was happy with Pleasanton’s increased housing. The voices of special interest are who he hears from most often, so he could allow himself to believe that. However, during a campaign voters are invited to speak. They told him they were not happy with the impacts of housing on our limited infrastructure.
What we have seen over the past year is asking the question in different ways to get an answer that can be interpreted to fit the desired outcome. The support for housing is not split, overwhelmingly residents Do Not support more unmitigated housing! Of course, our caring community supports affordable housing done in a way that maintains the quality of life and character of our community. That is not how Mayor Thorne chooses to interpret our answer.
Truth: school mitigation fees have been adjusted many times since 1998. Not one new school has been built since Mayor Thorne has been Pleasanton’s Mayor, although thousands of housing units have been approved and built. Mayor Thorne takes credit for joint cooperation that was navigated before his leadership but is unwilling to do what is needed to mitigate growth. He supports a policy saying schools are not the cities responsibility. Past Pleasanton City Councils have take responsibility which has gotten schools built.
PUSD has a $270 MM capital bond but if the City does not share responsibility NO new school will be built. Step Up Mayor Thorne.
“And our planning efforts with the school district are keeping us on track for when we will need to build another school.“
Pleasanton schools at all levels exceed Pleasanton’s planning document (General Plan). Every Pleasanton middle and high school is overcrowded by both General Plan and PUSD enrollment limits. What is Mayor Thorne doing to keep Pleasanton on track to build another school?
For whatever reason Pleasanton government will not build the needed road infrastructure to support the demands of new development. I have given up complaining about this.
So… the better way to to cram the new development in where it will have the least impact on the existing, non-expandable road infrastructure. Build the schools and grocery stores with the houses so people do not have a need to drive across the town on already overloaded roadways. I would submit that this leads one to locate new, high density developments as close as possible to freeway on-ramps, especially I-680. The new Costco store location seems an obvious choice. Mandate all new development along that section of Johnson Dr. be grocery stores, fast food restaurants, and such that will accommodate the needs of that local community.
Mayor Thorne and his followers on the city Council need to start packing their bags and look for jobs that have nothing to do with PTown politics, the citizens are finally starting to see what’s been going on in this town and we are way overdue for a fix!
June I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s easy to criticize but ms tests needs to layout some specifics. Is she suggesting she wouldn’t abide by laws and subject us to more lawsuits? The school district needs to decide if they want to add a new school. From my observation that decision needs to be made first.
@June & @ FactChecker
The voters have overwhelmingly already decided that they want a new school.
Pleasanton voters approved a $270MM debt, to be repaid through property taxes (voter approved debt lineitem on your tax bill), which specifically states that a new school will be constructed using those funds.
Now we are hearing that the PUSD have the flexibility NOT to construct a new school, and can divert those taxpayer $ to other “needs”
The PUSD Board has authorized $1MM to start the process for a new school, however, the PUSD staff has made no public mention thus far in their facilities meeting regarding getting started with the process of constructing a new school.
http://www.pleasantonusd.net/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=297078&type=d&pREC_ID=706581
It IS a bait & switch.
If schools are not important to our community, and if the City really has no authority over schools, why is the subject of schools even addressed in the General Plan?
It IS a City problem…as the Mayor & every council-member encouraged a YES vote on Pleasanton’s largest taxpayer debt it has every incurred.
John
Mayor Thorne would have been wise to not bring schools into his editorial because what he said is misleading and untrue. School fees have been adjusted many times since 1998, and Mayor Thorne is doing nothing to keep Pleasanton on track to get schools built.
Only the district can collect the small statutory mitigation fee, but the district would not be collecting the much larger developer fee without the strong arm of the City. The City should be ensuring that those fees are going to true mitigation as was done in the past. Instead, they are siphoned off and we have nothing capital to offset growth.
Mayor Thorne makes the choice to take the easy path and say “schools are not my problem” but past mayors have recognized that is is their responsibility and done what was needed. He has often asked me and I have shared the specifics of what should be happening. With only one potential term left in his leadership, I have little hope that he will make up for the six years he has done nothing.
June, and the ironic moniker “Factchecker”, I am happy to meet for coffee to discuss specifics of growth mitigation, I am easy to reach julietesta.com. But that would require giving your identities.
Kathleen, just a moment here. I am the one who said we should identify exactly what we wanted before going to to voters. Specifically, if we wanted a new school that should have been called out on the bond. You are the one who said that we need to find out how much money we could bet approved and go from there because we need to be able to trust the board. Well guess what? we went for $49 dollars per $100,000 and got it so then we say. What are we going to build. In the private sector you would be fired for doing this. We get what we deserve.
@ Kathleen Ruegsegger. Didn’t know that ponderosa homes had their eyes on that Neal site, did they run out of Church property to put homes on?? City staff needs to put the halt to that idea unless PUSD has a fair trade on another more desirable piece of property in mind, sure glad I didn’t vote for that school bond money it was a sure bet that we would never get that new school that we need.
I didn’t vote for it either.
But, I am paying for it.
I voted against it for the simple reason that I thought this would happen because it was not specific. Kathleen, where did the $49 dollars per $100,000 of assessed value come from? It should have came from agreed to, budgeted items, with a quote or at least an estimate. Instead the $49 dollars was chosen, well because it sounded better than $50. When will you people learn about this town? Nothing wrong with portables and our test scores show it. Good luck trying to get more money out of the taxpayers.
@ Pete
Based upon how the PUSD is proceeding with spending taxpayer money, they will need more than luck getting more money out of taxpayers in the future.
The $49 is only an estimate of the tax rate to service the debt taken on by the PUSD…it is only an ESTIMATE. CA statute states that taxpayers can be assessed a max of $60 per 100k of assessed value per voter approved bond.
This is all clearly spelled out in the “fine print”…click on the link I’ve posted previously in this thread for the details.
Don’t be fooled by test scores. It is amazing what results are when a public education is supplemented with outside tutoring.
John
The they are not the students. The students are the product of the factory, the they are the investments in human and capital. As stated you make investments in performing factories as we should schools.
@Pete. “Nothing wrong with portables” WHAT? Obviously you haven’t spent much time with our kids inside those sardine cans they call classrooms, something needs to be fixed here before PUSD fritters away all that bond money. Giving those guys a pile of cash is like passing a Bart bond and giving them a blank check, oh wait a minute those easily fooled voters passed measure RR also, when will people wake up??
I agree with PP. student need to be capable when they graduate. June, regarding taxes don’t forget we are going to lose our state and local tax deduct from federal. Also property tax deduction will be capped at $10,000.
Portables are fine if maintained. All 4 of my kids graduated here and did well.
Kathleen,
last child was 2008. You are making my point or at least the point which was made before the bond was approved. They do not maintain anything and use the maintenance expense line item as a piggy bank for staff and teacher increases which should be illegal. So if they do not maintain anything then why give them new stuff that they will not maintain? See my point? On the stats you put up why do we have so many people non english speakers? Are we teaching them english? I don’t think class size or enrollment is an issue as much as using the facilities we have and maintaining things.
@June The statutory fee is a small portion of the much larger school fee. My offer to meet with you to help you better understand still stands, otherwise read more carefully to avoid making ignorant comments.
“Only the district can collect the small statutory mitigation fee, but the district would not be collecting the much larger developer fee without the strong arm of the City.”
@julie testa. I would caution you that insulting statements and name calling are violations of the terms of service for this forum. I have reported you and have requested that you be blocked. In case you are still puzzled as to why you lost the Mayoral election by a huge margin it is because of your inability to engage in respectful exchanges and your lack of experience. You should be shamed of yourself.
Kathleen,
I don’t know what’s happened but the portables were fine then. Clean, painted and kept up.
Please consult a dictionary, ignorant is not an insult nor is it name calling, it points out a lack of information. The post I was correcting had suggested incorrectly that I was providing misinformation.
” ignorant: not having enough knowledge, understanding, or information about something”
@ Perry Mason
Don’t you think your action(s) are a little extreme?
I applaud Ms Testa for staying engaged with Pleasanton’s politics, and not posting behind the cloak of anonymity.
(Regardless if you agree/disagree with her positions or not)
John
@John/FN&AF No I don’t think they are extreme at all because she did the same thing to me on different posts. Most reasonable people would consider calling someone ignorant an insult – it is certainly not complimentary.
No cloak of anonymity here…
-Perry
Julie Testa and Kathleen Ruegesegger are to be admired and applauded.
They write their commentary on this forum and exhibit courage in doing so.
While everyone else on this topic post their cowardly commentary anonymously.
Someone is fishing….any biters?
LOL, irony?
“Ms Testa, Isnt the school impact fee collected by PUSD roughly double than the amount mandated by the State? Im sure Ms Ruegesagger knows those numbers but I think you may be unaware of it because it is not a small statutory amount. I only point this out because of the mis-information factor.”
You make direct personal attacks from a position of anonymity. I understand it does not feel good to be told you do not have the knowledge to make your point.
Again to clarify, the statutory amount is the smaller amount required by law that is then combined with the larger negotiated amount.
PP is correct, I should not be baited. I’m done with this schoolyard dialog.
Everything on here shows they waste our money.
I think we should put the ball back in the state’s court – provide safe, reliable, consistent transportation options that support affordable housing.
Bart is a joke.
Our freeway utilization and planning is a joke.
Our schools are a joke (from student density)
Before the state mandates we execute on their asks, we should be holding the state accountable for providing the required infrastructure upgrades to support it.
There is a difference between affordable housing units which are restricted to low income households and affordable-by-design housing like duets and townhouses which are smaller in size and therefore typically less in market price.
I firmly believe affordable units are workable only as apartment rentals. There is no tenant cost for exterior maintenance, bigger yards, AC/Heat, etc. duets and townhouses should be market rate and not deed restricted to low income for the aforementioned reasons not to mention the challenges ofhzving a low income household qualify for a mortgage and the City having to potentially subsidize a silent second mortgage.
it is somewhat ironic to support increasing fees for new residential development (to pay for sewer and water services, street maintenance, etc.) in order to achieve more affordable housing. I read in the past that fees alone in Pleasanton are over $100,000.00 for each new home, one of the highest in the State, and we know basic economics that it will get passed to the purchase prices. And the City has a healthy budget. If the Mayor is serious, instead of raising the fees even higher (essentially a tax on new homebuyers) the city would provide general fund money as an incentive to developers to build market rate townhouse, condos, smaller homes, etc.
i wonder also if raising development fees would be applicable to a new city hall and civic center proposed plan to pay for more water, sewer, streets a bigger facility being discussed would create.
Ms Testa,
You know very well the Mayor and City Council do NOT have any authority regarding establishing and collecting school fees. That is the purview of the elected PUSD Board along with the site identification, design, funding sources, and construction of schools. The editorial by the Mayor was in regard to recent State housing laws, and not about schools.
But since Ms. Testa brought up schools, she knows the PUSD had opportunities to buy a site(s) at the Ironwood neighborhood some 10 years ago for a low price, but they decided they did not need a new school at that time. The PUSD owns the site on Vineyard Blvd. which they could trade or sell it for another site where a school facility is desired. And what about the valuable but under-utilized PUSD administration site in downtown which could also be sold or traded
Ms Testa, Please tell us exactly how the Mayor can step up when it is the legal responsibility of the PUSD Board, the Superintendent and their staff attorneys to determine impact fee amounts, find suitable sites, and obtain funding.
Dear False News,
State Planning Law requires cities to address goals and policies related to city-wide land use and infrastructure in the City General Plan, so public school location crieria and size guidelines are identified there with guidance from the PUSD. The District establishes the enrollment boundaries as a note, not the City.
Your comment about the parcel tax being approved is not being disputed by me although we personally think its a better use of money to improve existing schools and explore campus expansions if enrollment will fluctuate.
Again, the Mayor and City Council do not have the legal responsibility or power to decide on school locations, funding, etc. so to criticize the Mayor is mis-informed especially when the editorial is about housing conformance. Hellooooo rock throwers
June, The City has plenty of power when it comes to dealing with developers. They also can assist in purchase of property by the District. I believe it is fairly well-known that Ponderosa wants the Neal site and City staff supports it–tax dollars and fees drive that desire.
Expanding existing schools isn’t actually a healthy or supported plan. According to the state, we are well beyond “large school” status on most campuses. Many campus play spaces are crowded with old portables. Sinking bond money into those portables is a waste of money, and those leases already cost the District $215,000–every year and for many years.
What should be happening is the City and District collaborating on the whole picture for our community. The pots of funding may be separate, but how Pleasanton will look and feel and support its citizens, young to old, should be a shared vision. Doing so, in the past, brought us shared gymnasiums, play space for Mohr students (a five acre campus), and a better outcome for the Amador theater.
In the absence of serious collaboration, three elementary campuses are over 700 students (one of which is over 800). We also have two high school campuses over their capacity by hundreds of students and Village in a frightening state of disrepair. Yet the District’s first priority is to tear down Lydiksen, a school that qualified for only $600,000 in matching funds against a $30MM price tag. That move alone has ensured we will not have a new facility for five to seven years, and then only if the District takes action in two years with the next sale of bonds.
Taxpayers will pay $270MM, plus potentially just as much in interest, for a plan that is being run backwards. I’m just sorry more people are not aware.
Pete, I am confused by your comments. I lobbied for specificity on all requests for funds from this district (two parcel taxes and the bond); I spoke to the board to get the new elementary school included in the bond–which **was** in the 75-word ballot language; and stated multiple time the project book and estimated costs should be created before one dime was spent.
If I said “we need to find out how much money we could get approved and go from there”, please show me that quote because it doesn’t sound like me.
There was a broad list of where the money would go—Lydiksen for $30MM, paying off old debt $12MM ish; technology, maintenance, etc. Spending was not listed by school site, so much of the $270MM isn’t specific enough. Do you have children, Pete? Students and their teachers deserve better than overcrowded campuses and portables. Students and their families work hard for those grades and test scores as well as for the funds they provide to the district. We should not be treating schools like factories.
Kathleen I completely disagree. We absolutely should be treating schools like factories.
They should support execution of a larger vision
They should be measured on performance
They should be measured on output
They should be driven to improve yr over yr
They should run year round
They should have an engaged workforce
High performance should be contously rewarded
Poor performing should be giv n a chance to improve but dissolved if they don’t
They should be assets to the community and engage in them
Conversely the community should engage back
They should recruit and grow talent
They should leverage and track asset utilization and investment
A progressive learning factory is a good thing to drive for
You realize “they” are actually human beings, and largely the youngest in our community. Tell me the job you’d take in a portable, for years, without modernization and repairs.
“High performance should be contously rewarded” – certainly! How about the reward being proper learning and teaching environments?
Ms Testa,
Isnt the school impact fee collected by PUSD roughly double than the amount mandated by the State? Im sure Ms Ruegesagger knows those numbers but I think you may be unaware of it because it is not a small statutory amount. I only point this out because of the mis-information factor. I see no need to meet personally, although thank you for the offer (although it kind of sounds like you are calling me out). My name is June. If I attend and speak at hearings, meetings, write letters to the editor as a community activist, I will give my full name as you have.
Kathleen, as I have posted before, I have been in many modular buildings and they are energy efficient, spacious, attractive, and a lot less money than new construction. They are not the portables of the past and could address fluctuating enrollments at a more cost responsible approach than building and staffing a permanent new campus. The bond puts another burden on us and many others on top of already high property tax that the pre Prop 13 households dont shoulder. That is why we are sensitive to wanting the monies spend wisely and for the PUSD to manage properly. Look to the Superintendent and elected school board to solve the school issues —let the City Manager and elected Mayor and councilmembers concentrate on traffic, affordable housing, seniors, park and street maintenance, etc just to name a few.
There are problems with some of our modulars—Hart for example. But, I’m talking about portables, leases and owned.
Where do you place a school, the roads to it, manage the traffic at start and ending times, make sure students in affordable housing have a school to attend, etc.? It takes collaboration to make a community.
Pp (not PP?), the investment is not in portables or the product and producers suffer.
Well, portables haven’t been maintained and they cost us $215,000 a year, money more wisely spent on “students needing to be capable when they graduate” via program.
Pete, were your children in portables when they were new? Far different than today. They are temporary structures. Temporary.
I thought I would add some information about how well (or not) we are serving all students in Pleasanton:
Valley View: https://www.caschooldashboard.org/#/Details/01751016002349/1/StudentGroupReport
Donlon: https://www.caschooldashboard.org/#/Details/01751016001366/1/StudentGroupReport
Lydiksen: https://www.caschooldashboard.org/#/Details/01751016001416/1/StudentGroupReport
Wanut Grove: https://www.caschooldashboard.org/#/Details/01751016002356/1/StudentGroupReport
Mohr: https://www.caschooldashboard.org/#/Details/01751016114318/1/StudentGroupReport
These are, in order, a diverse elementary, a school over 800 students, two schools over 700 students, a school considered to be one of our best. There is a lot of information on this new site, which I hope will fill in over time with additional data.
Pete, so 9 years have passed and the same, unmaintained portables remain. That doesn’t make your point at all.
Unfortunately, many structures are frightening when you consider children are in them. Go see the water damage (and probable mold?) on Hart’s library walls. So it takes all the money they didn’t spend and more to mitigate the neglect. I don’t like it either. But it is not a reason to cram kids into every nook and cranny and leave them in junky old portables. This community’s children and their teachers deserve better—see the other thread on 37 students in a classroom.
Ms Testa, You insulted me.
It is obvious you believe you know more than anyone else. And people who disagree with you are ignorant, trying to bait you, engage in school yard behavior and are cowards. Im sorry you are so angry.
The combined State statuary fee and local fee paid by developers to supplement the State mandate totals about $ 9.00 per square foot of new house construction last time I looked into it. Conservatively, a new 3,000 square foot house as an example would result in roughly $27,000.00 of school impact fee money. Added to the other impact or mitigation fees per each new house according to the City Building Department is approximately $ 100,000.00 ( including those school fees).
I think a meaningful discussion about providing a range of market rate housing types that can be provided for apartments, condos, townhouses, and detached homes, as well as income restricted units has to include how fees, land costs, density and supply can affect housing prices.