Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout88-004RESOLUTION NO. 88-4 013 REL:mb : 6/18/87(27) REV. 12/29/85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADDING AN EDUCATION ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after duly noticed public hearing, approved the addition of an Education Element to the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana; and WHEREAS, this Council, after duly noticed public hearing, concurs in the Planning Commission's approval of said Education Element; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA as follows: 1. The General Plan of the City of Santa Ana is amended by adding thereto the Education Element reviewed and considered by this Council on the date of adoption of this resolution. 2. The Clerk of the Council is directed to attest to this Council's approval of said Education Element on the face thereof and to maintain the same among the official records of the City of Santa Anao ADOPTED this ]9th day of 0anuar¥ , 1988. ATTEST: C~ ir~eofC ' t~UeYcou/ncl~ COU N CI LMEMBE RS: Young McGuigan Aye Ha rt A,ye May A.¥e Acosta A.¥e Pu 1 ldo Aye Griset Aye ~ Daniel H. Young ~ \ Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Edward f. ~Coo~er City Attorney ~TiON ELEMENT OF,THE GENE{OiL PLAN CITY OF SANTA ANA 0'{5 75A EDUCATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL Dan Young, Mayor Patricla McGuigan, Vice Mayor John Acosta Wilson Hart Daniel Griset Miguel Pulido Ron May PLANNING COMMISSION Hector Godinez, Chairman Frank Spevacek, Vice Chairman John Casteix Roy Uno Dan Miller Genet Chavez-Gomez Donald Sizemore David N. Ream, City Manager John Raya David Brandt Louisa Soils Susan O'Brien Sara Ryland Shirley Tiseo Richard Merrttt Rose Garcla · Genet Chavez-Gomez, Chairperson Robert Balen Alberta Christy David Markowitz Esther Marval Pat Pleshe Sam Raneri Klm Salceda James Sumrow Melanie Fallon Linda Hale Tom Ponsford Carol Lustig CITY STAFF Planning Manager Associate Planner Assistant Planner Secretary ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY: Dr. Anthony DaLessi Santa Aha Unified School District Dr. Ronald Walter Garden Grove Unified School District ~ABLE OF CONTE~ITS List of Tables, Figures and Appendices Introduction ....... Educational Services and Facilities Educational Services ..... Current and Projected Enrollment Enrollment History .... Enrollment Factors . . . Attendance Areas . School Facilities . . Planning Factors .... Population and Housing . Residential Development Facilities Needs 'nd Housing Alternatives Constraints and Opportunities ....... State School Construction Funding . . . Developer Fees . . ....... City Funding of Local School Construction Goals, Objectives and Programs ....... Goals ............. Objectives ........... Implementation Policies ..... Implementation Programs APPENDIX A i 1 1 1 2 8 12 - 017 I 018 EDUCATION ~.LI~ENT LIST OF FIG~JP. ES, TABLES AND APPENDICES Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure SA: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figures School Districts in Santa Aha Elementary School Boundaries Intermediate School Boundaries High School Boundaries General Plan Land Use Map 1987 General Plan Land Use Map Residential Development in Santa Aha 1984-1985 Proposed School Sites Potential School Sites Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Tables 1: Santa Aha Unified School District Enrollment Projections 1988-1998 2: Garden Grove Unified School District Enrollment Projections 1987-1994 3: Garden Grove Unified School District Enrollment Projections - Santa Aha River Corridor Sites - Santa Aha Residents Only 4: Santa Ana Unified School DJ stri~L-6.,uo2im~.~ :::~i! 1979-1984 5: Garden Grove Unified School District Annual October Enrollments 6: Garden Grove Unified School District - Santa Aha River Corridor Sites Enrollments March 1987 7: Santa Ana Unified School District Inventory 8: Garden Grove Unified School District - Santa Aha River Corridor Sites Facilities Inventory 9: Comparison of Enrollment to Design Capacity 10: Garden Grove School District - Santa Aha River Corridor Sites Comparison of Enrollment to Design Capacity 11: Portable Buildings by School - Stmmmr 1987 12: Garden Grove School District - Santa Ana River Corridor Sites Portable Buildings by School - Fall 1986 13: Population and Housing 1980-1986 14: New Residential Development in Santa Ana 1984-1986 Appendix A: Appe~Jix Impact of Residential Development on School Enrollment I I EDUCATION h"LEqENT OF THE GENERAL PIAN 019 INTRODUCTION Educational services and facilities are principal contributors to a co~unity's quality of life, Often the level and character of such services become key factors in the locational decisions of families and businesses. In the provision of educational services, traditionally the agency responsible for providing the services conducts the long range planning for facilities and programs. Such is the case in Santa Aha ~ahere four independent districts, each under the auspices of a board of trustees, are responsible for providing public education within the City. The General Plan, by establishing land use and development policy, directly impacts the future growth o£ the City and the student population to he served by these districts. Though independently £unctioning political entities, the City and the four school districts are best able to plan for the future growth of Santa Ana and the quality of its educational services by a coordinated, cooperative approach in their long range planning activities. This education element addresses the physical planning issues related to the provision of education services such as the location of facilities and the projection of student enrollment as it relates to the need £or additional schools. As a mid-term planning document, this Element addresses education planning activities into the year 2000. Prograa~natic issues such as staffing, budgeting, salaries, etc. are handlea by district boards and will not be addressed in this document. . EDUCATIONAL SI~RVICES AND FACILITIES Educational Services The City of Santa Ana's school age population is presently served by £our school districts - Santa Aha Unified, Garden Grove Unified, Tustin Unified, and Orange Unified. These Districts, as shown in Figure 1, are located either entirely within Santa Aha as is the SAUSD, or partially as is Orange, Tustin and Garden Grove Unified. However, public education in the City is provided primarily by SAUSD whose facilities account for approximately 90 percent of school resources available in the City. The Garden Grove Scheol District serves students residing ~est of the Santa Aha River and more than one-sixth of the City's total student population. Supplemsnting Santa Ana and Garden Grove are the educational services provided by the adjacent districts mentioned above and a variety of private, parochial and commercial schools. Higher education in Santa Aha is provided by Rancho Santiago College whose main facility is located in the City. As there are no plans for the physical expansion of Rancho Santiago College within Santa Aha over the 13-year time frame o£ this element, it w111 not be addressed here. This element focuses on the primary and secondary educational services provided by the public school systems within the City of Santa Ana and addresses those areas in which the planning process can be better coordinated between the districts providing these services and the City. 'SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN SANTA ANA SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL D(gTRICT ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FIGURE 1 2 I i 021 Current and Projected £nrollmen~ The SAUSD is responsible for educating more than 37,000 students during the current 1987/88 school year. In addition, Garden Grove has 16 schools ~est of the Santa Aha River that serve 7,972 Santa~An~ students even though only five of these schools are located within this City. Orange Unified School District serves 610 students that reside in Santa Aha, and TustinUnified serves 595 Santa Aha students. The 1987-88 student enrollment total for Santa Aha is approximately 47,500 ~hen special students are included. ks can be seen in Table 1, enrollment data £ro~ SAUSD indicates an increase of more than 5,200 rngular students over the next five years and an additional 1,500 in the following five years. Garden Grove will increase its student population by mere than 539 over the next six years as can be seen from the projections in Table 2. This increase ~rill include 231 Santa Ana students by 1990 as sho~n in Table 3 ~?flich indicates the projected enrollments for Garden Grove's Santa Aha students. Enrollments in Santa Aha Uni£ied and Garden Grove Unified will increase by more than 12,000 over the next ten years, taking total enrollment in the City fro~ approximately 47,000 to more than 60,000. The increase in students over this same ten-year period in the Tustin and Orange Districts will be proportionately smaller due to the smaller nt~nber of Santa Ana students they serve -- 1,200 of 47,000. A conservative estimate of their growth would be 100 additional students. In addition, the growth in Special Education and other special programs is expected to increase from 1,275 to 1,650 during this period in the Santa Aha Unified District and from 100 to 300 in the Garden Grove District. The projected rate of growth in student population for Santa &ia Unified is more than five percent over the next five years, and an additional four percent by 1998. In the Garden Grove Unified District, the growth rate is slo~er, averaging less than one percent annually through 1990 and increasing to 1.5 percent by 1994. 0verall, the rate of student enrollment increases is higher than the City's population growth rate ~hich has averaged 1.6 percent annually since 1980. The current population of 225,774 is projected to increase by nine percent to 246,737 by 1990 and an additional nine percent to 256,368 by 1995 according to the Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center. Student enrollment as a percentage of total population will remain stable during this growth period -- it is presently 21 percent and is projected to be at 21 percent in 1995 also. Enrollment Histor~ In order to assess future enrollment, it is i~portant to analyze past enrollments and acknowledge any trends in order to make projections for future enrollment as accurate as possible. For this purpose, data for the santa Aha District has been taken fro~ the "Five Year Plan for Student Enrollment and Housing" ~hich indicates the total number of students by grade level for the last five years. These figures, shown in Table 4, reflect the enrollment of 'regular" students only and does not include students in special programs. When special students are included, the totals would be at least 1,200 students greater than indicated. TABLE 1 SAUSD ENROLLMENT PP, OJECTIONS 1988-1998 YEAR 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 K 4091 4086 4082 4078 4073 4069 4065 4060 1 3778 3773 3769 3765 3760 3756 3751 3747 2 3776 3442 3437 3433 3429 3424 3420 3415 3 3457 3743 3408 3404 3400 3395 3391 3387 4 3021 3424 3710 5375 3371 3367 3362 3358 5 2836 2831 3233 3519 3185 3181 3176 3172 6 2888 2923 2918 3321 3607 3273 3268 3264 7 2774 2745 2780 2775 3178 3464 3129 3125 8 2640 2633 2603 2639 2634 3037 3323 2988 9 2914 3156 3149 3119 3155 3150 3553 3839 10 2743 2628 2870 2863 2834 2869 2864 3267 11 2035 2207 2092 2334 2327 2298 2333 2328 12 1595 1667 1839 1724 1966 1959 1930 1965 TOTAL ELEM 29259 29599 29941 30309 30636 30965 30886 30517 TOTAL HIGH 9287 9658 9950 10040 10~81 10275 10679 11399 TOTAL 38546 39257 39891 40349 40918 41240 41565 41915 ANNUAL CIIANGE 870 711 635 458 569 322 325 350 96/97 4056 3743 3411 3382 3354 3168 3260 3121 2984 3504 3553 2731 1960 30478 11748 42226 310 97/98 4052 3738 3407 3378 3349 3163 3255 3116 2980 3500 3219 3017 2363 30439 12098 42537 311 TABLE 2 GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SOtOOL DISTRICT ENROL~ PROJECTIONS 1987-1994* Oct. Oct. Oct. Oct. Oct. OCt. Oct. Oct, Grad.e, 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 K 3,110 3,127 3,143 3,159 3,175 3,191 3,207 3,223 1 3,008 3,018 3,018 3,033 3,049 3,064 3,080 3,095 Z 2,788 2,851 2,895 2,895 2,909 2,924 2,939 2,954 3 2,619 2,757 2,838 2,882 2,882 2,896 2,911 2,926 4 2,523 2~655 2,782 2,864 2,909 2,908 2,922 2,937 $ 2,477 2,555 2,676 2,804 2,886 2,931 2,931 2,945 6 2,481 2,591 2,553 2,674 2,801 2,883 2,928 2,928 7 2,549 2,541 2,644 2,606 2,729 2,859 2,942 2,988 8 2,667 2,542 2,507 2,609 2,571 2,692 2,821 2,903 9 2,719 2,774 2,733 2,695 2,805 2,764 2,894 3,033 .LO 2,771 2,718 2,752 2,711 2,674 2,783 2,742 2,871 11 2,769 2,633 2,529 2,561 2,523 2,489 2,590 2,552 12 2,616 2,495 2,360 2,266 2,295 2,262 2,230 2,321 023 K-6 19,006 19,554 19,905 20,311 20,610 20,797 20,918 21,008 7-8 5,216 5,083 5,151 5,215 5,300 5,551 5,763 5,891 9'12 10,875 10,620 10,374 10,233 10,297 10,298 10,456 10,777 K-12 35,097 35,257 35,430 55,759 36,207 36,646 37,137 37,676 hange revious -112 +160 +173 +329 +448 +439 +491 +539 ~arden Grove Unified Office of Business Services 4/1/87 024 3 GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Business ~rvtees ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SANTA ANA RIVER CORRIDOR SITES SANTA ANA RESIDENTS ONLY Current Elementary 1986 1987 1988 Clinton 295 285 292 Hnzard 522 551 564 Heritage 718 729 761 Monroe 474 496 533 Newhope 595 559 590 Northcutt 304 272 256 Riverdale 272 275 289 Rosita 606 621 650 Russell 794 843 860 Woodbury 64 65 67 4,644 4,696 4,862 Intermediate 1989 300 576 794 573 623 241 303 680 877 69 5,036 1990 309 588 829 616 658 227 312 712 894 71 5,216 Doig 377 379 386 393 401 Fitz 734 728 745 762 784 Irvine 348 372 401 432 465 1,459 1,479 1,532 1,587 1,650' High School La Quinta 296 Los Amigos 849 Santiago 729 1,874 Total 7,977 Difference (+/-) +104 Additional Classrooms needed +4 +231 +8 280 264 248 866 862 858 760 757 754 1,906 1,883 1,860 8,081 8,277 8,483 + 196 +206 +7 +7 244 854 750 1,848 8,714 RW:ds 4/1/87 6 TABLE ~ ENROLLMENT HISTORY 1979-84 SANTA ANN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Grade 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 025 K 2880 3415 3458 3597 3685 1 3082 3181 3335 3243 3113 2 2435 2884 2916 2979 3015 3 2539 2706 2794 2791 2948 4. 2350 2628 2679 2733 2795 5 2135 2512 2533 2581 2657 6 2050 2147 2376 2503 2589 7 1968 2020 2185 2239 2476 ~ l~? 1941 1984 2207 2167 9 1871 2069 2085 2104 2381 10 1652 1751 1895 1962 1888 11 1505 1452 1509 1618 1617 12 1059 1171 1076 1162 1185 K-12 27,265 29,657 30,803 31,719 32,512 7 Historical enrollment fitures sho~n for Garden Stove in Table $ indicate that District's enrollment has declined from $8,7?6 in 1979 to $$,209 in 1986 which is Just over 10 percent. A disproportionate share of this decline -- 2,017 students -- has occurred in hil~h school grades. O{ the 3,557 decline in students, only 672 ~ere in elementary school with the remaining decline occurring at the intermediate level. Contrary to delining districtwide enrollment, Garden Grove District schools on the Santa Aha River corridor have experienced increasing enrollments which are projected to continue. Table 6 sho~s the current enrollment £igures in these schools. Enrollment Factors The school enrollment increases in Santa Aria have been in contrast to an overall decline of the school age population nationally; specifically, when contrasted to surrounding Orange County cii~ies. During the years 1946-64, birth rates in all parts o£ the United States increased at a rapid rate, but, after 1964, these same rates £ell almost as £ast as they had risen. Demographers are now discussing a second "boom" which is an echo of the original "baby boom." Thus, on a nation,ride basis, general school enrollments are expected to rise, first at the elementary level and £ina11¥ at the intermediate and high school level by the end of this decade and the early part of the next. A recent study by the Western Interstate Comission for Higher Education, indicates that states such as Cali£ornia, Colorado and Utah are expected to turn out 19% more graduates by the end of the 1990's than they are currently producing. Projections such as these are based on current data and drop-out rates. If the drop-out rates for both racial and language minority groups were to decline during this time period, the number o£ graduates would conversely increase. Another policy factor which could - i,d.~u~.~ ~',~ da,o is a ~.~,~e'-in United States imigration policy. According to Dr. Carlos krce, Executive Director of the National Chicano Council on Higher Education, the granting of a~nesty or the enhancement of the status of nonresident aliens will very likely affect school enrollments in the border states such as California and Texas. Other factors which might lead to increasing enrollments are the continuing migration of United States residents to the sunbelt areas, ~hich of course, includes California. Ail regions in the country, except the mountain states, sho~ed a decrease in the number of live births from 1960-1977. These same states also showed a significant outmigration to other areas, particularly the southwest. Other similar demographic considerations ~hich indeed can influence our enrollment is the fact that the vast majority of the states in which the total fertility rate was above replacement level fertility are in the west. Women o£ Spanish origin have the hilhest nu~her o£ li£etime births expected (2,428 per 1,000 women), £ollo~ed by black ~omen (2,258 per 1,000 women), and other white women (2,096 per 1,000 women). Because of their s~a11 percentage of the total nation, ride population, Asians .have not been included in ~any demographic studies. Local experience seems to indicate that as a group, Asian ~omen experience a higher than average rate of births per 1,000 women. 8 GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Business Services TABLE 5 ANNUAL OCTOBER ENROLLMENTS' Grade 1979 1980 1981 1972 1983 1984 1985 1986 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 2704 2798 2627 27:0 2728 2856 3084 3172 2572 2645 2686 25:~4 2641 2631 2748 2878 2605 2508 2549 25d3 2451 2562 2547 2660 2706 2548 2515 25~1 2488 2451 2499 2529 3016 2729 2656 24'1 2541 2507 2441 2479 2923 2951 2788 2~65 2464 2564 2492 2475 2822 2882 2956 275~ 2607 2532 2580 2483 K-6 19,348 19,061 18,777 18,221 17,920 18,103 18,391 18,676 7 3101 2859 2953 3003 2785 2689 2536 2699 8 2994 3016 2789 2873 2975 2805 2644 2518 7-8 6,095 5,875 5,742 5,8?6 5,760 5,494 5,180 5,217 9 3437 3174 3159 3001 3124 3241 3074 2824 10 3533 3418 3132 3061 3029 3134' 3175 3017 11 3348 3247 3160 2889 2948 2764 2806 2948 12 5015 2861 2835 2858 2679 2594 2405 2527 9-12 13,333 12,700 12,286 11,809 11,780 11,733 11,460 11,316 K-12 38,776 37,636 36,805 35,906 35,460 35,330 35,031 35,209 * This report reflects regular student enrollment only. It does not include Continuation, Special Education, PMP/SMP. RW:ds ali TABLE 6 GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Bt~iness Semtlces ENROLLMENT - MARCH 1987 SANTA ANA RIVER CORRIDOR SITES Santa Ana Total School Elementary Enrollment Enrollment Percent Clinton 295 651 45.3% Hazard 522 522 100.0% Heritage 718 718 100.0g Monroe 474 496 95.6% Newhope 595 595 100.0% Northcutt 304 309 98.4% Riverdale 272 601 45.3% Rosita 606 606 100.0% Russell 794 794 100.0% Woodbur~ .... ~:~ ~'~." 9.9% Intermediate Doig 377 884 42.6% Fitz 734 734 100.0% Irvine 348 705 49.4% High School La Quinta 296 1,609 Los Amigos 849 1,522 Santiago 724 1~726 18.4% 55.8% 41.9% Totals 7,972 13,116 60.8% RW:ds 4/1/87 lO TABLE 7 SAUSD INVt~TORY 029 ~.lement ary Adams Diamond Fxiison Franklin Fremont Margaret Grant Greenville Hoover Jackson Jefferson Lincoln Lowell Mad i son Mart in Manroe Monte Vista Muir Remington Roosevelt Sant iago Sepulveda Tar t Washington Wi 1 s on Intermediate Carr Lathrop MacArthur McFadden Sierra Spurgeon Willard Hiih School Mt. View Saddleback Santa Aha Valley Special School Horwy Mitchell Taft H.I. Other Sites Administration Ac~a~e 6.7 5.6 3.6 2.5 2.9 2.1 7.5 4.5 9.5 9.6 9.5 S.1 6.1 6.8 6.6 10.6 8.9 4.1 5.6 9.0 5.8 10.0 .. ~.~.. 3.9 32.3 7.7 10.0 24.2 11.2 19.0 9.8 6.4 36.4 21.2 50.0 3.0 4.2 Constructed 1958 1951 1937 1937/51 1974 1980 1979 1953/73 1961 1965 1963 1972/73 1957 1951 1972/73 1956 1969 1953 1972/73 1953 1986 1971 19~2' 1951/51/72 1956 1974 1981/82 1964 1955/56 1973/74 1974 1966 1967 1935/37/62/74 1959 1978 1968 1973 1958 * Leased from Tustin Unified School District' I I 030 Attendance Areas Attendance areas for the SAUSD are divided into three grade levels: elementary (K-S); intermediate (5-8); and high school (9-12). In the GGUSD, the 7th grade is included in the intermediate level. The basis of each attendance area is a centrally located school facility that serves the students within its boundaries. Attendance areas serve primarily as the basis for the "neighborhood school" philosophy, but also as a tool for plannin~ and program development. As such, these boundaries are not permanent, but are adjusted as necessary to meet changing student housing needs. Over the next few years, for example, boundaries in the SAUSD will be cbanl~ed to reflect the new high school under construction in the southeast portion of the City and the eleven new elementary schools that are proposed for construction at various sites throughout the City. Because of the districtwide decline in enrollment in Garden Grove, it is unlikely that any boundary changes will occur as a result o£ new school construction. Figures 2 and 4, respectively, show the elementary, intermediate, and high school attendance area boundaries in Santa Aha for all districts. In the Garden Grove District, the boundaries reflected do not necessarily indicate the presence of a school facility as in Santa Ana. This is indicative of the £act that Santa Aha borders the .Garden Grove District and some attendance areas include parts o£ Santa Ana~ even thongh the school £acility is in Garden Grove. The irregularity of School District boundaries is also apparent in northern and eastern Santa Aha where portions o£ the City are included in the Orange and Tustin Unified School Districts. Unlike west Santa Ana, however, these areas cover only a small part of Santa Ana and are characterized by. low-density residential development. The low number of Students generated in this area is reflected in the fact that there are only two schools outside of the SAUSD--one in the Orange District and one in Tustin's District. School Facilities There are presently a total of 57 public school facilities within Santa Aha. The SAUSD maintains 24 elementary schools, seven intermediate schools, three high schools and five special education facilities. Table 7 indicates these schools, their acreage, and the year o£ construction. There are 16 GGUSD facilities either located in Santa Aha or serve a large number of Santa Ana students. These facilities are listed in Table 8. The dates of construction are indicated because after a SO-year period, each school facility is eligible for rehabilitation funds £rom the State to upgrade the site. Twenty-six, or nearly hal£ of the City's schools have become eligible to receive rehabilitation funding. This number includes two elementary schools in the Orange and Tustin Districts. One o£ these facilities, the Gladys Wallace School in the Tustin District, is leased and operated by the SAUSD. In order to provide an indicator of the City's current educational facilities and their potential for housing additional students or expansion, a capacity to design schedule is indicated in Tables 9 and 10 for SAUSD and GGUSD, respectively. The optimum design capacity is defined as that capacity which provides maximum use of available square footage without overcrowding both classroom and other related instructional areas (i.e., library, music roo~s, speech therapy rooms, etc.). 12 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BOUNDARIES ~ OVER CAPACITY FIGURE 2 .13 I I INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL BOUNDARIES OVER CAPACITY 14 FIGURE 3 I I -, Fi HIGH SCHOOL BOUNDARIES ~ OVER CAPACITY 15 FIGURE 4 I I 034 GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Business Services Elementary Clinton Hazard Heritage Monroe Newhope Northcutt Riverdale Rosita Russell Woodbury Intermediate Doig Fitz Irvine High School La Quinta Los Amigos Santiago TABLE 8 FACILITIES INVENTORY SANTA ANA RIVER CORRIDOR SITES Acreage 11.4 10.0 11.0 10.0 9.7 10.0 9.2 10.0 10.0 8.2 20.0 19.0 20.0 42.6 40.0 43.6 ,Construet ed 1955 1956 1962 1964 1950 1973 1957 1959 196i 1957 1961 1962 1961 1963 1968 1961 RW:ds 4/1/87 Eleeentary Adams Diamond Edison Franklin Fremont M. Grant Greenville Hoover Jackson Jefferson Lincoln Lowell Mad/son Martin Monte Vista Muir RemtnStOn Roosevelt Santiago Sepulveda Taft Washington Wilson TABLE 9 COMPARISON OF ENROLLMENT TO DESIGN CAPACITY Permanent September 1987 1988 Capacity4- 1989 626 872** 937** 925** 920YRS 927** 966** 961'* 768 YRS 838** 928** 957** 633 YRS 629 645** 632** 1284 YRS 889 884 898 0 YRS 399** 370** 392 928 942** 940** 940** 716 763** 789** 825** 756 1020'* 938** 918'* 820 669 740 790 ]038 YRS 990 957 976 1125 YRS 1237'* 1315'* 1383'* 1027 YRS 1266'* 1197'* 1185'* 950YRS 1092'* 1220'* 1251'* 656 633 676** 759** 1123 YRS 1183'* 1329'* 1357'* 400 405** 430** 430** 250 603** 626** 642** 1125 YRS 1161'* 1668'* 1605'* 776 799** 826** 844** 500 524** 526** 540** 756 660** 687 720 814 1004** 1061'* 1126'* 1015 871 878 884 Intermediate Feraanent 1986 Septeeber 1987 1988 1989 Capacity Cart 1250 1212 1407'* 128&** 1299'* Lathrop 1200 1238'* 1324'* 1237'* ,1220'* MacArthur 900 880 996 1020'* 1020'* NcEadden 1200 1137 ll00 1156 1206'* Sierra 575 783** 752** 847** 876** Spurgeon 1200 126]** 127]** 1259'* 1260'* Willard 1200 1067 1160 1240'* 1260'* Secondary Saddleback 2065 2583** 2867** Santa Aaa 2242 3067** 2932** Valley 2260 2313'* 2359** Design Capacity-+ Capacity w/th current Year Round School programming **Enrollment s. rvnsses oermanent butldine caoacitv 2823** 3342** 2603** 2864** 3377** 2424'* GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIS*ICRICT Office of Business Se~ces TABLE COMPARISON OF ENROLLMENT TO DESIGN CAPACITY SANTA ANA RIVER CORRIDOR SITES Elementary' Clinton Hazard Heritage Monroe Newhope Northcutt Riverdale Rosita ~usse!l .-. Woodbury Intermediate Doig Fitz Irvine High School La Quinta Los Amigos Santiago Design Current Projected Capacity Oct. '86 1987 1988 464 619'* 628'* 645'* 406 551'* 552'* 564'* 638 705** 729** 761'* 638 492 519 558 557 537 559'* 590'* 435 293 276 260 406 589** 607** 637** 551 601'* 621'* 650** 638 827** 843** 860** 609 646** 656** 675** 1989 663'* 576'* 794** 599 623'* 245 669** 680'* 877** 694** 667 853** 858** 874** 890** 812 727 728 745 762 812 694 742 800 862** 1,827 1,639 1,527 1,433 1,350 2,001 1,588 1,552 1,544 1,537 1,769 1,816'* 1,814'* 1,807'* 1,800'* ** Enrollment surpasses capacity RW:ds M1/87 18 These data are very important because they identify those schools ~hich are corrently or soon will be overcrowded. In SAUSD, for example, ten of the 21 elementar~ schools are presently overcrowded, and by 1988, 13 will bare exceeded their design capacity. By 1989, 14 schools, two-thirds of the elementary facilities, will have student enrollments that exceed their capacity. In Garden Grove, seven of ten elementary schools are overcrouded and by 1989, eight of the ten will be over capacity. One of three intermediate schools are now overcrowded but by 1989, ~o of three will exceed their capacity. At the high school level, tqeo of three schools is overcrowded with no increase (Figure 3) in the ntl~ber of ~overcro~ded facilities through 1989 (Figure 4). In SAUSD, the overcro~diug situation is in reality ~orse than it appears considering that nine elementary schools are on a year-rouud school calendar to increase enrollment capacity (year-round school prosrameing increases a facility's enrollment capacity by approximately 25 percent). Each of SA~JSD's three high schools are presently well over their original design capacity and are projected to remain so until construction is complete on the new Century High School scheduled for opening in the fall of 1989. Nith respect to growth at the intermediate school level (grades six through eight) the SAUSD ~ras faced with a severe shortage of classrooms several years ago. As a result of that shortage, one new intermediate school ~as built (MacArthur) and an elementary school ~ras converted into an intermediate school (Sierra). Thus, for the past several years, there bas .been su~£icient classroom space at the intermediate level. However, several hundred students are bussed from east-central Santa Ana to other intermediate schools (McFadden, Spurgeon and Willard) in order to maximize the vailable use of student housing in grades six through eight. It is projected that by 1990/91 school year, there will be another 550-600 regular students at the intermediate level. Busing and the use of additional portables will not be ~d~ua[~ ~c~ ~,.,,dl~' this ~o~ch from approximately 7,700:to over 8;$00 regular students (there are approximately 250 intermediate students in special education programs). The SAUSD will apply to the State for a new intermediate school during 1987. At this time, it appears the host logical placement of such a facility would be in the east-central area of Santa Aha. In Garden Grove, because of the declining enrollment, the District is ineligible for new construction funding. To supplement school capacity and relieve the overcrowding until new schools can be built, Districts have relied heavily on the use of portables as an alternative housing method. As can be seen in Tables 11 and 12 for Santa Ana and Garden Grove, respectively, those schools with enrollments over their design capacity accomeodate their excess student population through the use of portable classrooms. Portables are not utilized exclusively for overcrowding, he.ever, they are also used for special programs and to provide additional specialized facilities. The overcrogting situation in the City's schools can be seen graphically in Figures 2 through 4 for the elementary, intermediate and high school facilities. Overcrowded facilities will be addressed in the follo~ring section on planniug factors as they relate to proposed sites for new scheols and other factors which impact school enrollment. 03 7 19 PORTABLE BUILDINGS BY SCHOOL - FALL 1987 Elementary Portables Trailers Adams 6 2 Diamond 5 2 Edison 7 4 Franklin 8 1 Fremont 0 0 Grant 16 2 Greenville 6 0 Hoover 2 0 Jackson 6 1 Jefferson 2 0 Lincoln 2 ~ Lowell 6 2 Madison 15 5 Martin 7 ~ ~onroe 0 0 Nonte Vista 8 5 Muir 8 2 Remington 15 1 Roosevelt 2 ~ Santiaso 0 0 Sepulveda 0 4 Taft 0 0 Washington 2 3 Intermediate Cart 3 1 Lathrop 1 4 HacArthur 24 3 McFadden 1 2 'Sierra 5 11 Spurgeon 3 1 ~illard I 2 High School Mt. View 15 0 Saddleback 21 4 Santa Aha 8 ? Valley 0 Special School Harvey 0 0 Mitchell 1 0 Taft B.I. 0 0 Other Sites Administration 2 0 TOTAL: Portables: 208 Trailers: 2O 88 GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Business Services 039 TABLE 12 PORTABLE BUILDINGS BY SCHOOL - FALL 1986 SANTA ANA RIVER CORRIDOR SITES Elementary Portables Clinton 8 Hazard 6 Heritage 7 Monroe Newhope 4 Northcutt 1 Riverdale 9 Rosita 6 t~ossell ....... 11 Woodbury 3 Intermediate Doig 11 Fitz 3 Irvine 1 High School La Quinta .3 Los Amigos 0 Santiago 3 Total 77 RW:ds 4/1/87 'l I PLANNING FACTORS As indicated earlier in this element, there are many factors that impact student enrollment at any given time. ~hjor determinants of enrollment, however, are population and growth rates, household size, birthrates, migration, and indirectly the City's economy and overall quality of life. This section of the element will discuss some of these factors as they relate to the City's development and long range planning for school facilities. Population and Bousir~ The City of Santa Ana's current population is 225,774 according to figures cempiled by the California State Department of Finance (IX)F). (This figure is based upon DOF's annual housing survey which uses the number of housing units as the basis for determining an areats population). As can be seen in Table 13, the City's population has gro~ at an average rate of approximtely 1.6 percent per year since 1980 when the population was 203,713. This has resulted in a population increase of 8.1 pe~rcent over this time period. Cemparatively, the housing stock has increased by an average o£ only 4.9 percent over that same six year time period from 67,181 in 1980 to 70,487 in 1986. This is an average growth of approximately .67 percent per year. The lack o£ available housing in the City has created severe overcrowding problems in some of the City's older neighborhoods where the housing is more a£fordable. Indicative o£ the overcrowding, the average increase in the number o£ households over this period was 1.2 percent. According to State guidelines, overcrowding is defined as a household which has more than 1.01 persons p~,, rc :,,;. T;~ li,~.~ c~.,_as repor~ '.hat appr~xlmately 17.2 percent of the Ci*cy's households are overcrowded. The City's Code Enforcement staff, however, estimates that overcrowded households comprise a larger percentage of the total than is represented by the census. Code en/orcement activities as well as the pro. orion of af£ordable housing of all types will help to mitigate the overcro~ting situation. The overcrowding has resulted in larger household sizes and an inability of the District to predict enrollment based upon standard calculations o£ expected students per household. P/hile there is no hard data upon which to quantify the impact, undocumented residents and their families contribute significantly to the increased enrollment experienced by the District. It should be noted that there is not a direct correlation between increased housing production and an increase in population. Population increases are more a function of job availability; the level and quality of City services, and social and cultural enviroement/a~enities than availability of housing, though housing is a factor. Approximately half of the population increase in the past ten years has not come from new development, but £rem multiple households sharing existing units. This phenomena is home out by data in Table 13 frem 1981 to 1986 which show a 1.6 percent average annual increase in population; a .67 percent average annual increase in housing units; a 1.2 percent average annual increase in households per year, and an increase from 2.88 persons per household to 3.27 persons per household over this time period. 22 041 TABLE 13 POPULATION Ah'D HOUSING 1980-1986 HOOSIN6 YEAR POPULATION UNITS 1980 203,713' 67,181 1981 208,724 67,960 1982 214,539 68,581 1983 219,019 68,903 1984 ..:2~0.~33 .... - ~9,~! 1985 221,637 69,925 1986 225,774 70,587 PItONS PIeR HOUSI~IOLOS HOUSI~OLD 185 118 2.88 205 007 3.14 210 678 3.18 214 914 3.23 ??.6 .'..~,9 .. 3.~6 217 105 3.24 221 675 3.27 Source: California State Department of Finance * U.S. Census Bureau I I One of the most important long-term influences upon enrollment figures for the past, present and future is the City's General Plan. The Land Use Element reflects the present and anticipated future development patterns in the City. ~ne knowledge of location and density of housing development is crucial in determining future capital facility needs and potential sites for new puDlic facilities such as schools.. Newdevelop~ent and redevelopment that has occurred in Santa Ana since the adoption of the revised General Plan in 1982 were based upon heavy use of "Mixed Use Oorridors" and "District Centers" as areas targeted for retail, office and higher density multi-family projects. Figure 5 indicates those areas of the City that were District Center and Mixed Use Corridor where there was no limit to residential density. Figure 5A is the City's c~rrent General Plan Land Use Map adopted in June 1987 which reflects significantly lower densities and correspondingly lower student generation potential. Since a 1987 General Plan a~enc~nent, unlimited density in the City is now restricted to the immediate downtown area, Main Place area, Hutton Centre, and South ~oast metro area as indicated in Figure 5A. Residential Develo~ment The number of residential units in an area can generally be used as a predictor of school enrollment. As defined in the Housing Element of the General Plan, a "unit" is the place of abode of a person(s) in a single-family dwelling or in a multi-family dwelling (does not consider the numDer of bedrooms). As discussed earlier, because of the extent of overcrowding in Santa Ana, the n~ber of residences is not an accurate predictor of enrollment, but it can be used as an indicator. For purposes of predicting future enrollment, it is important to look at development trends and consider the new resid~nt.ai~u¥~ ~.~.~:;..in cunj~n.tion'~i~k existing housing data. Figure 6 is b graphic display of the new residential development that has been permitted between 1984 and 1986 in Santa Aha. As the corresponding data in Table 14 indicates, the a~ount of new residential construction approved treoled from 627 in 1984 to 1,737 in 1986. The Housing Element of the General Plan, which was prepared in 1984, stated a goal of 1,534 as the average annual increase in units through 1989. From 1984-86, multi-family development accounted for 97 percent of all new development, as only 126 of the 3,551 units were single family. Even though areas designated for low density single-family land use is more than four times the areas designated for medium to high density residential, the vast majority of new development has been in multi-family projects. One reason for the few single-family developments is the dearth of parcels large enough to accommodate new single-family developments. Further, most redevelopment in the City has been occurring in areas zoned for multi-family projects that were originally developed with single-family units. ~he downtown area of Santa Ana has seen the most development activity in terms of new residential construction. This area is generally bound by Seventeenth Street to the north, First Street on the south, Bristol Street on the west and the Santa Aha Freeway on the east. ~is area has had more than 500 new units approved since 1984. Up to five hundred units have been approved for the area immediately southeast of downtown. Most of these units have been in the Eastside neighborhood. Areas west of the Santa Ana River north of First Street, and east of Santa Aha River north of Seventeenth Street also have up to 500 new units approved for development. New residential development west of the river south of First Street has been in the 100-300 unit range. These developments will impact the Garden Grove School District. I I I GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP 043 Figure 5 2S I I CITY OF SANTA ANA JH.I. · GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP ~.,T~j~ DC DISTRICT CENTER ~ ~BD GENERAL BUSINESS D~TR~T ~ MU MIXED USE HR HIGH D~NSITY RESIDENTIAL 35 du/ac ~ MHR MED. HI(~H DENSITY RES 22 du/ac :::~:~:::~:;::MR MED~M DENSITY RES. 15 du/ac ~ LR LOW DENSITY RES. 7 du/ac ?~ O OPEN SPACE ~ m~TR~AL 'l RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1984 -1986 FIGURE 6 500 end over ~ 100-300 units ~ ~0 ~nltt [~].nder26.nlts 26 046 1984 Multi Family Single Family TOTAL 1985 Multi Family Single Family TOTAL TABLE 14 NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN SANTA ANA 1984-1986 Total Sq. Ft. 561,825 sq.£t. 6,612 sq.£t. 568,437 sq.£t. 726,851 131,651 858,502 No. o£ Dwelling Units 611 6 617 Average sq.ft. Per Dwellinl Unt~ 920 sq.£t 1,102 sq.£t 1986 Jan. to Dec. Multi Family 1,468,333 Single Family 17,309 TOTAL 1,485,642 962 109 1,071 1,878 14 1,892 756 1,207 850 1,~7. TOTAL 1984-86: 2,912,581 3,586 I 047 ~/hile the i~pact of much of the City's approved residential development has not yet been felt in school enrollment because many of these units have not yet been constructed, there is an indicator of the number of students that will be generated from these units. "Impact of Residential Development on School Enrollment in Santa Aha,' a study conducted by Cotton/Beland/Associates in March 1986 (Appendix A), provides data that indicate the number of students generated by both single-family and multi-family developments. This report states that "Census data and building permit data from the City together with recent population projections from the California Department of Finance~ indicate that increases in school population have probably resulted from changes in household size and structure much more than from growth due to ne~ construction. In addition, apartment development would be expected to have little impact on school enrollment, particularly for large projects.'* This view is supported by the fact that of the 15 elementary schools that are currently over capacity, only four (Lo~e11, Grant, Remington and Roosevelt) are located in the hilh growth areas of the City (300 + new units). Four of the proposed sites are in medium growth areas (25-300 units) and five are in areas of low growth (0-100 units) based on units permitted over the past three years. The location of the proposed 11 new elementary school sites are sho~rn in Figure 7. These facilities will be discussed further in the following section on Housing Alternat ives. Based upon the data presented above, it is apparent that the City will continue to experience population growth and much of this growth will be in the Spanish-speaking segment of the city's population. Because females in this group have a higher than average birthrate, it is expected that the school enrollment figures will likewise continue to rise. The overcrowding situation in the City's housing stock is also expected to continue even given the significant increase in new units approved over the past few years. While construction of new residential projects will relieve overcrowding in the short-term, the subsequent slowdown in new development coupled with the increase in population is expected to render a continued shortage in the amount of available housing. Facilities Needs and Housing Alternatives The enrollment and population data presented in this element support the contention of the SAUSD Co~nity Task Force on School Facilities in their 1984 report: 'Santa Ana will continue to experience growth within its school age population .... considering the £act that nearly every school currently exceeds its design capacity(82%), and the above-mentioned growth, it is obvious that any new growth will necessitate the need for additional classroom space." Because there are simply not enough classroums in current school facilities to meet student housing needs, new construction has been the obvious focus of the SAUSD's long range planning. In Garden Grove, the alternative of new construction is not available because of State restrictions on construction in areas of declining enrollments. This puts the GGUSD in a position of serious shortage of classroom space 28 · FIGURE 7 PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE8 FOR SAUSD PROPOSED ELEMENTARY scHOOL SITE8 HIGH SCHOOL (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) 29 I I because even though enrollments have declined district~ide, in tho area of Santa Ina ~est of the River, enrollments are.increasing and facilities there are already experiencing overcrouding. In th~ Orange and Tustin Districts whore there is similar districtwide declining enrollments, overcrouding in Santa Ina schools or those that serve Santi Aha students is not tho problem it is in other districts. The first consideration regarding new facilities in Santa Aha is thoir location. State standards recommend at least 10 acres for an elementary school, 20 acres for an intermediate and 40 acres for a high school. Acreage of those sizes are very scarce in Santa Ina, particularly in tho City's built-up core. P/hile the City does not have the responsibility or the authority to identify and approve school sites, there are land use considerations that it uses to consider tho appropriateness of sites. The SAUSD has identified 11 elementary school sites and one high school site, all o~ which have approved funding from the State. These sites are indicated in Figure 7. The Districts are legally mandated to co~ply with selection responsibilities set f-orth in the Slate Department of Education's "School Site Selection and Approval Guide." The criteria establishod in this guide are more co~rehensive in scope than the City's criteria which primarily addresses the land use compatiblity issue of site selection. Thie guide is available at local District offices or tho State Department of Education, 721 Capitol ldall, Sacremento, C~ 95814. The areas determined to be potential school sites based on population grouth ante.n,-.,-- re.~id~nt.i~l develot~ent are indicated in Figure 8. The circles in this Figure indicate spheres o£ inflnence or "service areas" ~hich will generate the student population of a future facility in these areas. In working with the District to identify school sites as the need arises, tho City will utilize the abovementioned criteria to evaluate recommended sites. Item seven above is an option that. is currently being used by tho SAUSD to alleviat.e the severe overcrouding in elementary schools over tho next two to three years until new facilities are constructed. At least three park sites are being utilized for the location of portable classrooms to service adjacent school sites. Note inl~ormation regarding those agreements betueen tho City and the District are discussed in the follouing section. Other housing alternatives also considered viable have been identified in tho "Five Year Plan for Student Enrollment and Housing 1984-1989" prepared by tho District. These alternatives are: New Construction: One of tho most obvious alternatives for student housing is tho construction of additional pormanent classroo~ space. This alternative is being pursued by the SAUSD for the construction of 11 elementary schools and one high school to satisfy housing needs over the next five years. New construction is, of course, limited by the availability of 049 30 300-500 units 25-100 unltm ['""1 under 25 unltm' 31 I I funds from the State. Eleven proposed elementary schools and the high school mentioned earlier have been approved by the State. Because of declining enrollments District-wide, new construction is not an alternative for consideration by the Garden Grove District. Portable Housing: Both the GGUSD and khe ~D have long made it a practice to utilize portable classro.o? facilities to meet "temporary classroom needs." Enrollment fluctuations between various neighborhoods tn the City have been most economically served by the use of portable classroem facilities. When such facilities are no longer needed at one school, they are usually in demand at several others. There are several concerns regarding the use of portables. The first is that while they provide additional classroom space, there comes a point in time in ~hich increased school size places demands on other such facilities which portables cannot normally address. For example, restroom facilities and lunch-serving capacities at some sites are hard pressed by the expanded enrollment possible through the use of portables. Portable classrooms have relieved the instructional overcrowding at these sites, but exacerbated other overcrcn~ing problems. Another negative aspect of the use of portables is that these units, while temporary, are included as classroom space for the purposes of the distribution of new school construction funding. If these classrooms are leased rather than purchased, they ~ould not be included and the leasing District ~ould be in a more favorable position to obtain Green Act funding for new school construction. Boundary Chanies: Together with the use of portable classrooms, boundary changes havebeen the alternative most often used to meet chansing student ~s!.,o. needs in th~ City during the last 20 years. This was essentially the met,~Od'used in the bAUSD to equalize enrollment between District intermediate schools last year. That it is not always completely successful demonstrates this alternative's short term nature. Alternative Schools: The lack of boundaries is also an alternative which can be used to e££ectively meet student housing needs. Alternative schools, such as the £und~ental school program, with their "open enrollment" help to reduce overcrowding. Other forms of alternative programs or "magnet schools' could serve as a viable method to house students who ~ould normally otherwise be in an overcrowded neighborhood school. Another type of aagnet scheol which could lead to the reduction of overcrewding at the high school level ~ould be the creation o£ "mini high schools.'t These ~ould be programs £or several hundred students which could become an integral part of the District's Applied Curriculu~ Program or the "strand" concept ~hich is in the ieplementation process. For example, a program stressing electronics eight he housed in a factory or other similar industrial facility in an area ~hich contains several large electronics corporations. The curriculum ~ould be oriented around the academic requirements of beth the District and the electronics industry. The proximity to these types of business ~ould be necessary to provide the working partnership between the District and its quality academic program, and the practical skills and knowledges o£ the specific industry. The housing alternatives discussed above include only physical considerations such as structures and boundaries which affect long range planning. Other factors which impact long range planning are programmatic and economic factors which this element only briefly discusses because these factors are not within the City's control. These £actors are addressed in the folloving section on constraints and opportunities. ,05i CONSI~,AINTS ~ OPPORTdNITIES State School Construction Fundir~ Since the Proposition 13 tax code changes want into effect in 1978, the public schools in California rely on the State for operating and construction £unding. Becuse this element £ocuses Oh planning £or the physical expansion and new construction of schools within the City, £inancial constraints and opportunities which a££ect school construction are bein~ considered here. The State authorizes site acquisition and construction £unds through an allocation system based on demonstrated need. Each year only a certain emount of money is pledged to new school construction and rehabilitation of older scheols. ~ach school district in the State ~ust co~pete £or this limited a~ount o£ £unds each year. Santa Ana's four Unified School .Districts mUst apply to the State Allocation Board for fundin~ for each school built or expanded. Eased on current formulas and the extreme overcrowdio/ in scheols, the SAIISD is the only district elilible £or new school construction at this time. The remaining Districts in Santa Aha are experiencing declining enrollments and are not eligible for £unding for new construction. Because of recent legislation and voter approval of bonds, the Sta~e will fund the land purchases and construction for 11 new elementary schools in the SAUSD. These funds have only become available this year.. Due to past £unding formulas that severely restricted any District's abili.ty to successfully compete for State allocations under the Leroy Greene Act, SAUSD was unable to keep up with demand for new classroom space. This has left the SAUSD in a catch-up position even though it is now eligible for at least 11 new schools. The · constraints are even treater in the Garden Grove District where parts of the district ate expm£ienclng ~evete overcrowding yet, based upon financing formulas, are still ineligible for new school construction funding. Developer Fees A major opportunity £or local school construction funding was adopted by the State Assembly effective January 1, 1987. This legislation regulates the impact £ees bein~ imposed on new development in local jurisdictions on a statewide basis. It authorizes school districts to impose fees on new residential, co~nercial and industrial projects ii the district finds that the construction is having a signi£icant impact on demand £or additional classroom space. Previously, each city or county jurisdiction would have to adopt impact fees and pass them throu/h to the school district. The new law allews districts to impose the fees independemtly of local governments and directly assess the developer. These £ees are used as the District's required local match £or State £unding on new scheol construction. Thus, these £ees are heio/ passed through the District to the State. Adoption o£ the developer fee legislation resulted in each o£ the £our Uni£ied Districts in Santa Aha enacting resolutions to begin collecting £ees on new developments to serve as the required local amtch for State allocations for new school construction. The i~pact o£ the developer £ee program on the availahility o£ £unds for new construction will not he determined until they have been in e££ect £or a period o£ at least one year. There are concerns regarding this program and its application to districts with declinin~ enrollments and those that do not have plans £or new construction. As these issues are resolved and the pro/ram survives its £irst year of implementations we will more clearly be able to detemine its bene£its to Santa Aha. City Funding of Local School Construction In 1985, the City of Santa Aha City Council authorized a special fund o£ eight million dollars to assist the SAUSD in purchasing new sites and constructing new schools. The eiBht milli~ dollars is based upon ~l~l~ ~s and wil! b~a¢crUed, over a period of at least four years. The City acknowledged the need for this extraordinary arrangement based on the School District's desperate need for classroom space to serve the existing co~unity. This response ~as taken to mitigate impacts on the School District from expected continued residential growth in the City. The City has also established a joint-staff coumittee to work ~rlth Garden Grove District to identify alternatives to mitigate the impacts of ne~ development west of the Santa Aha River on school enrollment in that District. Tustin and Orange Districts have a very lo~ percentage of Santa Aua students and ~ith declining enrollments, overcrowding has not been an issue Traditionally, State funding mechanisms for school construction have been a major constraint because of the restrictiveness of the criteria under which districts were eligible for new facilities. Exacerbating this situation has been the complexity of local public facilities funding initiatives that have been difficult to get public approval. These constraints have led to the severe overcrowding currently experienced by the schools in the City of Santa Ana. Recent State legislation has made const:ruction funding criteria less restrictive and the implementation of the developer fee program is expected to have a significant impact on new construction funding availability. What this means for the City of Santa Aha is that there is finally the opportunity to reduce the overcrowding and subsequently to address other areas of District services to upgrade the quality of education in the comaunit¥. GOAI~ OBJ~C?IV~ A~ PROG~ As in any planning document, the goals and policies established must be supported by an implementation program that assigns responsibility and accountability for achieving the intent of the plan. In this case, achieving the following goals and objectives adopted by City Council will be the primary responsibility of the Planning Department with support and assistance provided as necessary from appropriate School District staff. Goal s Provide sufficient cultural~ recreational and educational services and facilities to meet the City of Santa Ana's educational needs. Provide a cooperative foundation with each school district in the City to ensure responses to community education and facility needs. Objectives Provide social, recreational and educational services that complement those provided by public and private schools. Provide adequate mea.sures in the City's planning process to promote adequate and appropriate school sites for new schools and/or expansion of existing schools. [¸ [ 054 Create an ongoing partnership with each school district ~rithin the City to enhance service and facility planning. Evaluate City policies and the City's General Plan in light o£ their effects on school plarming, forecasting and their ability to provide services. Implementation Policies Promote the City's cultural and recreational services so that they ~ay facilitate and enhance the educational programs of all school districts ~ithin the City as~e11 as the Rancho Santiago College District. Encourage the shared use of scheol sites and their facilities as ~ell as other public facilities (i.e., libraries, recreation centers), ~here appropriate. Plan for increased cultural, recreational and educational programs and facilities within the comamity to supplement and enrich the Districts' educational programs. Support continued developer participation in the provision of coaeunity £acilities to meet the cultural, recreational and educational needs of the projected population of the City. Encourage !he continued participation of each school district in the C.:,ty's pt;~ '~_i~ proce~.. I~lemnt~tion Strategies To amend the Land Use Element of the city's General Plan and the zoning district where appropriate to designate ne~ school sites. These actions will be taken upon the District's acquisition of properties on a site-by-site basis. Establish a City policy requiring a 60-day notification to school districts on the issuance o£ building permits for properties identified as £uture school sites. Based on City population and school enrollment projections, assist school districts in identifying potential school sites adequate to handle projected enrollment needs. Prepare periodic reports to City Council outlining recommended planning methods to promote adequate and appropriate site availability to aeet these needs. Coordinate City and school district development and expansion plans to maximize joint development where feasible. Enhance City services at the public libraries, Bo~ers Museum, recreation centers and public parks to supplement and/or complement these services offered by the public and private school systems. 35 10. Il. 12. 13. Utilize redevelopment pours, developer participation and the City's General fund to provide new facilities or enhance existing facilities for additional cultural, recreational and educational services. Continue to provide City sta~£ assistatlce and coordination to school districts in the areas of site selection, site design, traffic control, circulation and site acquisition. Work with school district staffs to create and maintain a shared data base £or planning and forecasting purposes. Cooperate with City school districts to share park sites for temporary school facilities where the City dee~s feasible for satellite schools, expansion o£ existing schools and the "hop-scotch" plan of new school construction (see SAUSD report title ~-$ Housing Alternatives-Winter 1986"). Encourage each school district to collect necessary project irdormation fro~ residential developers at the time of pa~ent of i~pact £ees. This information can be verified b¥ the City.hen the project is complete and a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Analyze all discretionary actions for iq)acts on cultural, recreational and educational services and facilities within the City. The Planning Department shall prepare and present a report to the Planning Co~nission on the implementation of this element on an annual basis. The Planning :' ~issio, ~h~3] $.~ t,,~ fo~,ard the ~nnual report to .ih. School t~ard and City Council. The report should include progress regarding programs, policies and objectives o£ the Element. This Element shall be updated not less than twice ~rithin the next five years at the direction of the Planning Commission. 055 '056' APPENDIX A IHPACT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON SCHOOL ENROLLMENT CITY OF SANTA ANA Narch 7~ 1986 Co~Con/Beland/Aeeociates Urban and Environmental Planning 1028 North Lake Avenue, Suite 107 Pasadena, CA 9110& (818) 791-7682 057 IMPACT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPNENT ON SCHOOL ENROLLllENT Introduction Schools in Santa Ann have recently experienced a dramatic increase in enrollment. This increase has not been accompanied by an equivalent increase in housing construction. The purpose of this report is to su~narile information available from the U.S. Census and other sources to identify the potential impact of new housing construction on school enrollment. Su~aary and Conclueionl Census data and building permit data from .the City, together with recent population projections from the California Department of Finance, indicate that increases in school population have probably resulted from' changes in household size and structure much more than from growth due to new construction. In addition, apartment development would be expected to have little impact on school enrollment, particularly for large projects. Santa Ann Population Characteristics Detailed population characteristics are available for the City of Santa Ann only for years in which the U.S. Census is tek,~, and ar.. no~.availeble for the period of principal concern, 1980-1985. However, information from the 19~U Census is useful Ln providing a view of the population in that year which can provide · context in which to view recent school enrollment increases, Table 1 sumarlzes 1980 population and housing characteristics for the City based on the 1980 Census. Santa Ann Population and Housing Gro~th The figures on the following pages sunenarize information about Santa Ann's growth in population, housing and school enrollment from 1970 through 1985. Figure 1 on page 3 illustrates the growth in the City's population from 1970 through 1985, as weI1 as growth la number of dwelling units for the same period. Estimates for 1970 and 1980 come from the U.S, Census. Estimates for intervening years and years since 1980 are from the California Department of Finance, the source o£ official estimates of population of California cities. Figure 2 is based on Figure 1, and choys only the rate of change fro~ one year to another in population, housing and school enrollment in the Santa Ams Unified School District. Prom 1970 to 1980, the rate of housing growth and the rate of population growth tend to run together. After 1980, however, the rate of population growth substantially exceeded the rate of growth in dwelling units. This change indicates that (1) people were occupying a larger percentage of the available housing stock, (2) more people were living in each dwelling unit, or both. School enrollment after 1980 grey at · rate exceeding that of either housing or population. 058 TABLE 1 SANTA ANA POPULATION CHARACTSRISTICS, 1980 CENSUS Source: Total Population 203,713 Total Housing Units 67,163 Occupied Housing UnlCl 64,038 Vacant Units 3,125 (4.65I) Hultiple Family Units 23,041 Persons per Dvelling, Unit 3.03 Age 5-17 years &3,195, (21,2I) Age 5-17 years per dvelling unit 0.6& Orange County Boar~i of Supervisors, "1980 Census Report, Volume 3A, Selected Population and Characteristics," and "1980 Census Report, Volume 3B, Selected Housing and Household Characteristics," March 1982. Figure 3 illustrates the change in occupancy of the housing stock, measured in persons per dvelling unit, from 1970 to 1985, based on Figure 1. From 1970 to 1980, the number of persons per d~elling uniC dropped from 3.11 to 3.0&, a drop of 2.31. From 1980 to 1985, the number of persona per dwelling unit has increased from 3.04 to 3.17, an increase of &.32. During this period, the California Department of Finance estimated that the City's population increased from 204,001 to 221,800, an increase of 17,799 people of 8.7I. The simple increase in persons per unit of &.3I would account for an increase of 8,772 people over this time period. During this same period, the Santa Ann Unified School District's total enrollment increased from 28,708 for 1979-80 to 35,265 for 1984-85, an increase of 22.8I, or nearly three times the increase for the general population for that period, Figure & compares the srowth for City population, housing, and Santa Ann Unified School District enrollment using 1980 as a bane year to vhich all figures ore adjusted, Thio figure clearly shows the growth in school district enrollment dramatically higher than the rate of grot;th in either housing or general population of the City. In addition, the figure shows a significant change from a previous flat enrollment trend to s current rapid growth trend. Clearly the increase in enrollment in the school district during this period resulted from factors other than ney construction or even s general increase in population in the City from increased utilization of the housing stock. Other factors such as changes in family formation, changes in racial and ethnic balance and other factors have played a role in Chis increase. 2 Figure 1 Santa Aha Schools Impact Analysis Population ofld:Noullflg Growth 250 ~ ' I 240 t --- , ~ ~0 ,~ · o ~ ~ ~ ~ ., ~ : ~..~ : ' ' ' 19~0 1~75 1~80 1985 D PopulQtlon + Dwelling Unite Figure 2 Santa Ana Schools Impact AnalysTs Population ofld Houlln9 Growth /~otee i5.0K 4.05 ~ 2.ox ~ f.OX 1970 1975 1980 Calendar Year o Population + Houlln9 · Sohooll 19B5 · '060 Figure 3 Santa Aha Schools Impact AnalysTs ParaOna #o~' D~elllng Unit 3.193.18 ................... / ~.17 .................. *.~o ....... ~ ..... ~'~-~7 ..... 3 07 ---- ~ ~ ' ~/" ~ " ' ' ~.. ..... ~ ..... __ ..... ~ ...... ~.o~ ..... 3.00 J I ~7~ Figure 4 Santa Aha Schools Impact Analysis Growth Indexoo, (1e80 -- 100) 130 120 110 100 ?~ leTO le75 leSO le85 Golendor Year D Population + flouling ~ SGhoole 061 Table 1 Indicates that at the time of the 1980 Census, there vas an average of 0.64 persons age $ to 17 per household throughout the City. Analysis of the Census data indicates that it is probable that most of these persona live Ln single famil7 unite or duplexes rather than in larger apartment complexes. Because tbs Census does not provide reports crees referencinB age group and housing type, the housing characteristics of the school age population muir be inferred from other information available. The Census provides detailed abe breakdowns at the Census Tract level and a more limited breakdown at the block level, Housing data is available indicating the number of sinBle units, units in structures of 2 to 9 units, and units in structures with 10 or more unite by either Census Tract or Census Block. Figure 5 on page 6, based on the 1980 Census, indicates the number of persons below abe 18 per dwelling unit as a function of the percentage of dwelling units in structures with I0 or more dwelling units in the structure. The squares on the graph are the individual data points for the 108 Census blocks in the City with more than I00 dwelling units. The heavy line ia the best fit least squares linear regression line to the data points. The data Indicate, as one might expect, that Census blocks with a high percentage of larger apartment units tend to have fever residents below age- 18. As is clear from the graph) not all points lie on the lines lndicatinB ' that some Census blocks have a variety of unit types and some units in large structures have a larger number of persons below age 18. The correlation coefficient (r) for this relation il only -0.42, yielding an r2 value of 0,18. This value indicates that although population below 18 is related to the number of units located In structures with more than 10 unite, only 1az of the variance in residents below abe 18 in these blocks can be explained by this factor. Using Census tract data, one can obtain more precise age data, but one must use a much larger geographic area which is likely to contain a wider variety of housing types. Figure 6, based on census tracts, compares the same statistic tn Table 6 (percent of unite in structures with IO unite or more) for the 52 Census trlCtl in Slats Ann to the average number of people abed 5 to 17 in each dwelling unit. The lea~t .quares rescission l~ne .hoes a much stronser correlation ii this case, wzth a correlation coeff~cient of -0,6~, and afl r2 of 0,41, iodxcatinB that 412 of the variance of theaBe distribution can be explained by the variation in percentage of units in larBe structures, The stronger correlation may be partly a result of the elimination of the 0 to & age group from the sample. )62 Figure 5 Santa Aha SchOols Impact Analysis ~ In I0+ Unit 8tructurec v. Un.4cr 18 2.2 . , O~ 20~ 40~ 80~ 80~ 100~ 104. Unit Btructurem In Block Figure 6 Sohio Ano Schools Impact Analysls X In 10-1- Unit 8truc re'Age 5--17, 1980 0~; 20X 40~. 80X ~ cf unit. In 104- Unlt Structurel 063 Figure 7 Santa Aha Schools Impact Analysis 0,"; 20K 40~ 80~ Figure 8 Santa Aha Schools Impact Analysis Number of Roome vi Age 5--t?, le5O o.o Ig 2.5 D .~.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 Averoge I~oc)me Per Unit In Trout 7 064 S~uden~ 8enera~Lon £ac~ors would be expecked to wiry dependin$ on the characteristics of projects, and factors such is unl~ size, nuuber of bedrooms, open space and o~her amenities would be expected to affect student-ese population, 065 Based on the least squares regression line, oas would Ixpsct a tract with 1005 residents. Figure 7 compares the percent of all units Ln multi-unit structures (including duplexes) to the average number age 5-17 per dwelling un/t, This figure also indicates that multiple units tend to have fewer residents of school age. The correlation coefficient in this case is -0,56, with an r2 value 0.32, a weaker relation than that of Pigure 6, but still an important predictor of school-age population. Figure S compares the average number of rooms per unit in each Census tract to the number of res/dents aged 5 to 17 per unit Ln the tract. This relation shays a very weak correlation, indicating that at least at the tract level, the average number of r~oms per unit is not I good predictor of the student generation. The correlation coefficient for this relation Ls only 0.23, r2 value 0.054, indicating only 52 of the variance Ls explained by'this factor. Hot/mating Population Age 5-17 for Housing Developments Census data suggests that housing type is strongly correlated to age structure of the resident population. Of the 67,161 dwelling units in the City tabulated in the 1980 Census, 44,121 were in single-unit structures, If the entire school-age population were ~sslgned' to'~hese s£ngie iamzly units, an average of 0.98 persons aged 5-17 would be expected for each dwelling unit. In fact, some school-aged residents are likely to live in multlple-unlt structures. The school-aged population would be expected to be less as unit size decreases, and less as number of units in the structure increases. Not 811 the school-aged population would be expected to enroll in public school. Although census data cannot provide a deflnLtive answer to the number of school-age residents expected, the following conclusions ara considered justified: Single family homes are the predominant source of school-age population, and would be expected to result in 0.7 to 1.4 students per unit, with larger unL~e expected to have larger school-age population. (2) Hulciple family unite in general would be expected to have substantially fewer school-age res/den~s, rich perhaps 0.1 to 0.4 per unit a typical rinse for most projects. (3) Large multi-unit projects would be expected co result in very few school-age residents, with perhaps 0.05 to 0.15 I typical raflBe per unit for projects of sreaCer than ~0 unite. '066 Student generation factors would be expected co vary depending on the characteristics of projects, and factors ouch as unic size, number of bedrooms, open space and other amenl~Lee would be expected Co affect etudent-ale populatton.