Irvine's 5th High School

[irvinehomeowner]

Homie should just buy a cluster of 8 Beachwood homes and we'll convert it into PewPew High.

 

[bones]

.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Bones:  It seems like to me that they have been planning for Site A but Agran threw a wrench into approval.  The superintendent's letter clearly states that:

As you may have heard during one of our recent Board of Education meetings, there has been an extensive amount of work involved in studying two potential sites for our next comprehensive high school. This letter is being sent to bring you up to speed and to clarify some of the facts.

Site A is the preferred site because the district went through 5 years of planning and it's very close to being shovel ready.  Site B is nowhere near ready and has not even been cleared by the EPA.  So, if the district scraps its plan for Site A, there needs to be alternative to either give up students or find an spot that is immediately ready.

The approval was for the adoption of the final EIR for Site A...it's basically the last major hurdle as to the environmental review.

The IUSD article stated that the 5th HS could be ready to go in 2016 if the district starts construct in August of this year.  If not, it will not be ready.

If that's the case, shouldn't they have negotiates that in their deal with fivepoints?  The agreement should have included a date for the land grant and a date for te grading of the site to be completed.  Isn't that pretty basic stuff?  Or was that in an agreement and fivepoints isn't complying. So many questions. Not so many answers.

Absolutely...it's all very confusing.  No one (IUSD, Five Point, or Irvine city) has raised the issue of any agreement restricting what IUSD can do.  FP would have the most to  lose but the tone is pretty mild:

Parham also said the developer, FivePoint Communities, which owns the land where the high school is to be built, is partially to blame for not putting the district?s priorities first.

FivePoint, however, described its relationship with the district as productive and said progress is being made toward opening the high school on time.

?We don?t understand the concept proposed late Tuesday by one of the board members because it is entirely inconsistent? with the agreement between the developer and the school district, according to an emailed statement from a FivePoint representative.

Just looking on the Internet:

FivePoint also negotiated an agreement with the Irvine Unified School District to provide a fully funded, state-of-the-art high school together with the Irvine Company that will support development of Great Park Neighborhoods and surrounding communities. In addition, Great Park Neighborhoods will build all required K-8 schools to support the project.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...nt-of-great-park-neighborhoods-138407374.html

I would also imagine that the IUSD members have already been briefed about the potential legal consequences of such a move. 

 

[bones]

.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Ahhh local politics. That's why I maintain it's posturing. This is so out of left field. Plus the svusd thing sounds great - except do they even want to take on all of GP?  Seems kinda one sided on iusd's part...

I get posturing but IUSD is not really gaining anything by posturing.  If there is any holdup by 5P, it's ridiculously dumb.  IUSD would not lose anything by just telling PP to go to SVUSD...there is sufficient tax base in Irvine to sustain the district for a long time.

SVUSD needs the students...

At the same time, development within the Saddleback Valley district is set to expand by thousands of units in coming years, including more than 4,000 in Lake Forest alone.

The district needs more students because years of declining enrollment have reduced the amount of state money it receives. In response to the enrollment trend, Saddleback Valley trustees closed two elementary schools in Mission Viejo in 2009 and another in Lake Forest in 2011.

The transfer would be a win-win for both districts, said Saddleback trustee Dennis Walsh. He said the idea of moving boundaries between the two districts has always been on the table, but in the past month, the probability grew.

 

[bones]

.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Here are the slides of the presentation given to the IUSD...estimate for a site B school could open as late as 2018.
https://www.iusd.org/board_of_education/documents/FifthHSSiting03-18-14.pdf

Next board meeting is April 8...it's apparently televised!

 

[notTHEoc]

Funny everyone seems to look at this like it's 5P and GP causing overcrowding issues. It's more a TIC issue than a GP issue.

All of GP built out after ~10 years is still only responsible for 30% of the over-enrollment. The other 70% is from the newer TIC developments (CV, WB, SG, PS, LA, etc.). No new high school built since 1999. You are overcrowded from newer TIC projects already. GP just adds marginally on that.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Funny everyone seems to look at this like it's 5P and GP causing overcrowding issues. It's more a TIC issue than a GP issue.

All of GP built out after ~10 years is still only responsible for 30% of the over-enrollment. The other 70% is from the newer TIC developments (CV, WB, SG, PS, LA, etc.). No new high school built since 1999. You are overcrowded from newer TIC projects already. GP just adds marginally on that.

I don't know about marginally...GP is scheduled to add 10,000 units.  That's more than Woodbury, Stonegate, and CV combined (8,500 units).

 

[notTHEoc]

a

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Funny everyone seems to look at this like it's 5P and GP causing overcrowding issues. It's more a TIC issue than a GP issue.

All of GP built out after ~10 years is still only responsible for 30% of the over-enrollment. The other 70% is from the newer TIC developments (CV, WB, SG, PS, LA, etc.). No new high school built since 1999. You are overcrowded from newer TIC projects already. GP just adds marginally on that.

I don't know about marginally...GP is scheduled to add 10,000 units.  That's more than Woodbury, Stonegate, and CV combined (8,500 units).

Just look at the slides you posted. 70% of the overcrowding is from TIC projects. You could shut down GP today and you're not going to solve much.

The issue isn't whether Irvine is going need another HS (it is).  The question is the timing.  As a part of developing GP, it was anticipated that a 5th HS would be needed in 2016.  If that cannot be accomplished, the district has to either find a new school or give up students.  Since the students have to go somewhere and SVUSD is willing, the obvious choice is to give up PP to SVUSD.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

The notes from the March 4 meeting were interesting on the topic though.

Member Wallin requested staff to provide the number of students projected to be generated by the Irvine Company development, and the number of students projected to be generated by Five Point Communities development.

Member Parham requested staff to provide enrollment projections for IUSD's existing high schools if High School #5 does not open in 2016.

Facilities Director Lorrie Ruiz discussed the potential impacts of the additional Five Point
Communities entitlements, assuming all 9,500 units were within the Irvine Unified School District.

http://www.iusd.org/board_of_education/documents/Minutes-030414.pdf

I wonder if they are going to have another meeting on the matter to address those issues.

Going back to Bone's question...there is nothing set yet.

Irvine Unified School District likely won?t have to make a firm decision on the location of its fifth compressive high school until the spring, but it plans to use the interim to push full-speed toward getting state approval for its initial site choice.

The district moved a step closer Tuesday when the school board voted to certify its Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the fifth high school, approve the project and submit the document to the state.

The resolution?s language confused some at the board meeting into thinking the board had finalized its choice of school site (a misconception later repeated by Irvine Mayor Steven Choi at a city council meeting).

But the board?s plan remains the same as it has been since it was offered up an alternative site two months ago: continue with a schedule that will allow the district to open a school at Site A by September 2016, while simultaneously analyzing the alternative Site B.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/site-536859-district-school.html

 

[notTHEoc]

a

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Funny everyone seems to look at this like it's 5P and GP causing overcrowding issues. It's more a TIC issue than a GP issue.

All of GP built out after ~10 years is still only responsible for 30% of the over-enrollment. The other 70% is from the newer TIC developments (CV, WB, SG, PS, LA, etc.). No new high school built since 1999. You are overcrowded from newer TIC projects already. GP just adds marginally on that.

I don't know about marginally...GP is scheduled to add 10,000 units.  That's more than Woodbury, Stonegate, and CV combined (8,500 units).

Just look at the slides you posted. 70% of the overcrowding is from TIC projects. You could shut down GP today and you're not going to solve much.

The issue isn't whether Irvine is going need another HS (it is).  The question is the timing.  As a part of developing GP, it was anticipated that a 5th HS would be needed in 2016.  If that cannot be accomplished, the district has to either find a new school or give up students.  Since the students have to go somewhere and SVUSD is willing, the obvious choice is to give up PP to SVUSD.

To your earlier posted question, I think you found where the 70% comes from. So, yes, this is a TIC issue too.

As far as timing, GP just moves up the issue one year from 2017 to 2016. If as you say the obvious choice is giving up PP, what is the obvious choice after that? Doesn't matter if you make it all of GP, you only bought yourself 1 year. Starting 2017, TIC projects would have to go somewhere. If LIFO is the obvious choice, I guess it would be CV, SG, WB to SVUSD as well from '17?

Not really...it's much easier to give up potential students from residences not yet built than those already existing.  Stonegate is probably going to build out by the end of 2015 and CV the end of 2016.  GP is like 5-7 years from completion. 

IUSD has also made commitment in CV and SG with the building of elementary schools and Jeffrey Trails.  Nothing like that has happened with the GP.  If IUSD gives up students from SG/CV, what would they do with CV and SG elementaries and Jeffrey Trails?

 

[notTHEoc]

a

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Funny everyone seems to look at this like it's 5P and GP causing overcrowding issues. It's more a TIC issue than a GP issue.

All of GP built out after ~10 years is still only responsible for 30% of the over-enrollment. The other 70% is from the newer TIC developments (CV, WB, SG, PS, LA, etc.). No new high school built since 1999. You are overcrowded from newer TIC projects already. GP just adds marginally on that.

I don't know about marginally...GP is scheduled to add 10,000 units.  That's more than Woodbury, Stonegate, and CV combined (8,500 units).

Just look at the slides you posted. 70% of the overcrowding is from TIC projects. You could shut down GP today and you're not going to solve much.

The issue isn't whether Irvine is going need another HS (it is).  The question is the timing.  As a part of developing GP, it was anticipated that a 5th HS would be needed in 2016.  If that cannot be accomplished, the district has to either find a new school or give up students.  Since the students have to go somewhere and SVUSD is willing, the obvious choice is to give up PP to SVUSD.

To your earlier posted question, I think you found where the 70% comes from. So, yes, this is a TIC issue too.

As far as timing, GP just moves up the issue one year from 2017 to 2016. If as you say the obvious choice is giving up PP, what is the obvious choice after that? Doesn't matter if you make it all of GP, you only bought yourself 1 year. Starting 2017, TIC projects would have to go somewhere. If LIFO is the obvious choice, I guess it would be CV, SG, WB to SVUSD as well from '17?

Not really...it's much easier to give up potential students from residences not yet built than those already existing.  Stonegate is probably going to build out by the end of 2015 and CV the end of 2016.  GP is like 5-7 years from completion. 

IUSD has also made commitment in CV and SG with the building of elementary schools and Jeffrey Trails.  Nothing like that has happened with the GP.  If IUSD gives up students from SG/CV, what would they do with CV and SG elementaries?

Actually, it's easier to screw the homebuyers after the homes have been sold. And just because you go to IUSD for K-8 doesn't mean you can't go to SVUSD for 9-12. And correct, GP is many years from completion. We still need to know who gets kicked out of NW starting '17 b/c kicking out GP isn't going to solve it. Anyway, this is truly all just posturing. Nice way to get everyone worked up over nothing. End of day, i think 99% HS#5 gets built at original site as part of IUSD...much ado over nothing

When have you seen a situation where students of one district for K-8 go to a different district for HS.  That makes no sense. 

It is much easier to simply give up rights to students that do not exist yet than having to carve out areas that are already in the district.  The amount of complaints and meeting it would take to do the latter especially in Irvine would be insane.  I mean people are already in an uproar of changing school boundaries.

 

[notTHEoc]

a

 

[jmoney74]

That Irvine City council though.. something else.  First they couldn't do squat with The Great Park now they are mad that things aren't moving quickly enough.  lol.  took them years just to put up a giant orange balloon for crying out loud.  PP just broke ground late last year and they are crying.

 

[test]

That Irvine City council though.. something else.  First they couldn't do squat with The Great Park now they are mad that things aren't moving quickly enough.  lol.  took them years just to put up a giant orange balloon for crying out loud.  PP just broke ground late last year and they are crying.

That was the previous council, Democrat controlled.  The public voted in a new council, Republican controlled, which is why they're pushing hard now to satisfy their constituency.  Agran is trying to sabotage the Republicans by delaying the school.

 

[jmoney74]

Wasn't Argan apart of the problem before?  Then he went into defense mode when they decided to investigate where all the money went?