Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pajaro Valley board reviews feasibility study for educator/workforce housing on district sites
Summary
Architects presented options for workforce housing on multiple Pajaro Valley Unified sites, estimating roughly 80—100 units per feasible site and costs in the tens of millions; trustees supported staff surveys and community engagement before selecting sites. Public commenters urged safeguards for unhoused youth and attention to neighbors.
Architects hired by Pajaro Valley Unified presented a feasibility study on Dec. 11 outlining how the district could use surplus or underused school property to build workforce housing for educators and classified staff.
The study, introduced by Chief Business Officer Jenny, outlined models districts elsewhere have used to fund projects (a bond seed plus construction loans repaid with rental income) and showed precedents including Jefferson Union and Santa Cruz City Schools. Consultant Ralph Leroux said typical yield studies for district sites suggested ‘‘roughly 80 to 100 units’’ for many parcels, and provided ballpark development costs in the range of $70 million to $80 million for several three-story schemes with mostly two-bedroom units.
‘‘We typically look at a mixed unit program, keep some units lower-market rate and some at market,’’ Leroux told the board. He recommended a staff survey to measure interest and said entitlement timelines — including city review and environmental review — could push projects into a three- to five-year window for approvals and longer for delivery.
Why it matters: Board members and staff said workforce housing is one tool to recruit and retain employees in a high-cost county. Trustee DeSerpa noted local voters approved Measure M in part to support workforce-housing planning tied to the bond. Trustees repeatedly urged the consultants and staff to return with refinement after a district-staff survey and targeted site tours.
Public comment: Parents and community members welcomed the concept but warned of gaps the district should address, such as whether housing plans will serve unhoused youth or create conflicts for staff uncomfortable living next to coworkers. Several speakers urged the district to preserve local playing fields and to consider how projects affect nearby neighborhoods.
Next steps: The board directed staff to proceed with outreach — including a recommended district staff survey and additional analysis of the highest-yield sites — before making any formal site selection or funding decisions.
