The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-02-20 City CouncilTO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE C~Y COUNCIL FROM: AGENDA DATE: CITY MANAGER February20,1995 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment CMR:151:96 SUBJECT:Palo Alto Unified School District 0~AUSD) Suggestions for Policy and Programs to be Included in the Comprehensive Plan REQUEST The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) has forwarded the attached letter dated February 2, 1996, from Walter Freeman, in which the District suggests several modifications and additions for inclusion in the Policies and Programs of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Council received this correspondence at their meeting of February 7, 1996 and continued the issue to the February 20, 1996 Council meeting to allow more time to study the request. In the interim, staff has made recommendations based on the PAUSD letter, in some instances substituting language which captures the intent of the PAUSD requests, without unduly binding the City to specific implementation strategies. RECOMMENDATIONS Staffrecommends that City Council add the policy and program modifications and additions recommended in this report. These recommendations were originated by PAUSD and modified by City staff to allow more flexibility in implementation. BACKGROUND The Palo Alto Unified School District has participated in the Comprehensive Plan Update process from the initiation of the CPAC process in January of 1993. Many of the policy and program recommendations currently in the plan reflect the efforts to coordinate throughout the process on issues of mutual interest. However, as the documents were reviewed by City and District staff this fall, it was noted that there were some "gaps" in the document pertaining to school facilities and services. A memo was forwarded to the District in October, which attempted to capture some of the issues that appeared to be unaddressed. The City Attorney provided a memorandum CMR: 151:96 Page 1 of 8 (attached) dated January 25, 1996, to the City Council, titled "City Authority and Responsibilities with Respect to Development-Related School Enrollment Impacts." These communications attempted to promote and frame interagency policy discussion. The District responded to these communications with their letter of February 2, 1996. POLICY IMPLICATIONS While most of the PAUSD recommendations are reflective of current ongoing partnerships between the City and District, there is one major shift in circumstances since the previous Comprehensive Plan that could cause a shift in City and/or District policy. It is becoming increasingly evident that there is a new need to respond to increasing demand for school facilities. In the current Comprehensive Plan, updated in the 1980s, declining enrollments led to Comprehensive Plan policies and programs which dealt with closing school sites. However, the demographic projections for school enrollments are different than was anticipated a decade ago. The previous plan anticipated that enrollment projections would continue to decline or level out in the 1990s. Instead, the 1990s have experienced continuing increases in school enrollment, with further increases projected into the next decade, as evidenced in the District’s study, "District-Wide Enrollment Forecast Update" by Lapkoff and Gobalet, January 22, 1996 (attached). These demographic changes, combined with potential new housing projects, such as the Hyatt Cabana and the Stanford West apartments, have combined to produce potential impacts on existing school facilities which go beyond minor impacts on class sizes. The need for new facilities and reexamination of school attendance boundaries is now anticipated, and the District has initiated an effort to study that probability. As outlined in the City Attorney memo dated January 25, 1996, the ability of the City to mitigate or deny a project on the basis of school impacts when legislative approvals are involved would best be facilitated by the inclusion of policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Council also has the option of not including such policies and programs in the Plan and deferring any policy action to the Palo Alto Unified School District. DISCUSSION Staff has reviewed the individual recommendations made by PAUSD and has the following response to them, in the order they are raised in the letter of February 2, 1996. In general, staff has made an attempt to draft language which captures the intent of the District, but by being more general, allows the City greater flexibility in implementation. Language which appears in bold italics is recommended by PAUSD or City staff to be inserted into Council- endorsed programs. Existing Council-endorsed language appears as unenhanced text. CMR: 151:96 Page 2 of 8 Policy GV- 11 .E PAUSD Recommendation: "Through the City/School Liaison Committee, for example, Palo Alto will continue and enhance its close and collaborative relationship with Palo Alto Unified School District to more cost effectively and better serve the entire community, especially young people, families, and seniors." Staff recommendation: Revise Policy GV-11E to read, "Palo Alto will continue its close and collaborative relationship with the Palo Alto Unified School District, through forums such as the City/SehoolLiaigon Committee, to better serve the entire community, especially young people, families and seniors." The City Attomey notes that formalization of the City/School Liaison Committee’s role will require Brown Act compliance as a "standing committee." New Program, GV- 12.F 1 PAUSD Recommendation: "Continue and consider expanding athletics programs for middle school and other school students." Staff recommends that this PAUSD language is too specific for the Comprehensive Plan. Instead,.GV- 17, B and B 1 should be expanded to read as follows: Staff Recommendation: Revise Policy GV-17.B to read, "Maintain a coordinated approach to families, children, youth and senior services in concert with private, public, and nonprofit sectors, including the Palo Alto Unified School District." Revise Program GV-17.B 1 to read: "Support and promote the provision and coordination of comprehensive child care, youth, and family services." Policy GV- 16 PAUSD Recommendation: Revise Goal GV-16 to read, "Palo Alto is endowed with a variety of community facilities, schools, parks..." Staff recommendation: Accept the PAUSD language. CMR:151:96 Page 3 of 8 Policy GV- 16.C, and New Policy 16.Da PAUSD Recommendation: Revise Policy GV-16 to read, "Maintain and!or enhance all existing park facilities, and seek opportunities to develop new parks to meet the growing needs of residents and employees of Palo Alto. The City will continue and expand its cooperative efforts with Palo Alto Unified School District to maintain and enhance the sehool playing fields, grounds, and athletic facilities that are available to the community." Add new Policy GV-16.Da: "Palo Alto will continue and expand its cooperative efforts with Palo Alto Unified School District to share library and technology resources to more cost effectively and better serve the information needs of the community." Staff considers these two recommendations by PAUSD to be to specific for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the joint field maintenance partnership is currently a "pilot program" arrangement between the City and District. The City and/or the School District may or may not select to continue the partnership after a period of participation and evaluation. Some other partnership or relationship may, even in the short term, prove to be mutually beneficial and satisfactory. Staff recommends that the intent of the PAUSD suggestions be captured in a more general policy statement, leaving the specifics of implementation out of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommendation: Add new policy GV-6.Da, "The City will mutually cooperate with the School District to maintain school facilities and libraries as valuable community resources." New Pro~am. GV- 16.Da- 1 PAUSD Recommendation: Add new program GV- 16.D.a.- 1, "Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District will jointly evaluate the practicability of merging libraries and develop implementation plans, as applicable." Staff finds that this suggestion is sufficiently included in the current program language for GV-16 B-1, "Prepare a plan or plans for enrichment and improvement of community facilities through time."and language recommended above in GV-16.Da. Staff recommendation: Do not include the PAUSD recommendation. CMR: 151:96 Page 4 of 8 New Program, GV- 16.Da2 PAUSD Recommendations: Add a new Program GV-16.Da2,"Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District will jointly evaluate the feasibility of including the District as a partner in the development of community wide communications infrastructures, such as a fiber optic network." Staff recommends that this suggestion be incorporated into the current goal BE-6, Policy BE-6B, of the Business and Economics Section as follows: Staff recommendation: Maintain the wording of Goal BE-6, "Support the development of technologically advanced area wide communications infrastructure." Revise Policy BE-6.B to read: "Cooperate with regional networks and with companies offering new or emerging information systems to determine their applicability in serving Palo Alto business, residences, schools, and other potential users." New Policy; CD-1.D PAUSD Recommendations: Add new policy and program CD1.D,"Recognizing the importance of the schools to the social and economic vitality of the City, continue and enhance City efforts to assist Palo Alto Unified School District in anticipating, managing, and mitigating development-related school enrollment impacts. Prior to the approval of development projeets which require legislative acts, including general plan amendments, zoning, rezoning or annexation, the proponents of each project shall mitigate the impact on schools as evidenced by a signed mitigation agreement acceptable to the developers and Palo Alto Unified School District and approved by the City. Prior to the approval of development projeetsfor which legislative acts are not required, collect from developers school impact fees that might be approved and imposed by the District." Add new program CD-1 .D2,"In collaboration with the District, develop and implement a system for collecting and remitting school impact fees." Staff has concern about the manner in which these PAUSD recommendations appear to attempt to shift some burden for planning school facilities and mitigating impacts from the District to the City and, more importantly, to restrict the Council’s legislative prerogative. One option is that the City not adopt policy in this area, but assert that this responsibility is solely that of PAUSD. CMR:151:96 Page 5 of 8 Should the Council decide, instead, to support the District in this area of District responsibility, the following language is recommended versus the policy and program suggested by PAUSD. However, staff would recommend that Council exercise caution in endorsing such policy without being more informed regarding the mechanics and options of implementation. Staff recommendation: Do not endorse the policy language recommended by PAUSD. Instead, substitute the following New policy CD- 1 .D, "Recognizing the importance of the schools to the social and economic vitality of the City, continue and enhance City efforts to assist the Palo Alto Unified School Distriet in anticipating and addressing development- related school enrollment impacts. The City should encourage the School District to implement appropriate school impact fees." Substitute an additional New Policy CD- 1.E, "Prior to the approval of development projects which require legislative acts, including general plan amendments, zoning and rezoning, the City should consider the project’s impact on schools." Prior to completing Phase III and endorsement of the above policy and program, it is recommended that Council direct staff and the City Attorney’s office to return to Council with a detailed selection of options for impact mitigation. This would supplement the City Attorney’s report and provide a better information base for detailed Council policy consideration of the matter prior to any final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. New Program, CD-1 .D1 PAUSD Recommendation: Add new program CD-1.D1, "To improve the forecasting of school enrollments, provide regular status reports to Palo Alto Unified School District on potential and approved development projects." Staff recommendation: Staff does not object to regular status reports to the District on potential and approved development projects, and can recommends adding the PAUSD recommended program. New Program, CD-1.D2 PAUSD Recommendation: Add new program CD-1.D2, "In collaboration with the District, develop and implement a system for collecting and remitting school impact fees." Staff recommendation: The suggested new program should not be endorsed by the City Council. To ensure that any future School District fees are properly collected and calculated, CMR: 151:96 Page 6 of 8 the District should directly administer them. If the Council desires, the City can require that verification be provided by the District that the fees have been paid prior to issuance of the building permit. This is common practice followed in cities where school impact fees are imposed by the corresponding school districts, and recommended by staff. This administrative practice should not be described in the Comprehensive Plan, as it is an administrative detail. ALTERNATIVES As an alternative to accepting the staff recommendations in this report, the Council can 1) accept those offered by PAUSD; 2) modify either set of recommendations; or 3) provide direction to staff and request revisions to return at a later date, or with the Draft Comprehensive Plan in Phase V, the future public review process. FISCAL IMPACT The recommendations in this report have potential to cause fiscal impacts. It is expected that all Comprehensive Plan policies and programs will be implemented over a long-range time frame. Implementation tools and financing options will need to be explored. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The environmental impacts of all goals, policies and programs will be the subject of a Master Environmental Report to be prepared prior to public review of the Draft Plan. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Any goals, policies or programs recommended by the City Council for inclusion in the Draft Plan will be included by staff in preparation of the Plan, for further public review. ATTACHMENTS Letter from PAUSD, Walter Freeman, February 2, 1996 Report from the City Attorney, January 25, 1996, titled "City Authority and Responsibilities with Respect to Development-Related School Enrollment Impacts" "District-Wide Enrollment Forecast Update," Lapkoff and Gobalet, January 22, 1996. CC:Walter Freeman, PAUSD Susie Richardson, PAUSD CPAC Planning Commission PREPARED BY: Nancy Lytle, Paul Thiltgen and Ken Schreiber CMR: 151:96 Page 7 of 8 DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: PAUL THILTGEN Director of Community Services DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: !5 ! :96 Page 8 of 8 PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 25 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 Business Services Phone: 415-329-3706 Fax: 415-329-3803 February 2, 1996 June Fleming, City Manager City of Palo Alto P. O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mrs. Fleming: At its last meeting, the City/School Liaison reviewed a list of topics which are of mutual interest to the City and the District and which should be considered as the City revised the Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the list of topics is attached for your convenience. Nancy Lytle and I have reviewed the list of topics to identify those which are not sufficiently addressed in the draft Comprehensive Plan. Although most of the items are addressed in one or more sections of the plan, a few specific items are not covered or might be enhanced. The enclosure proposes modifications which the District believes would incorporate or amplify current and proposed subjects of mutual interest. Changes and additions to the plan draft dated January 22 are indicated in bold type. If we can provide any other information, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you, as always, for your assistance to the District. Sincerely, Walter Freeman Business Manager cc: Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official TOPICS FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1.-Child care 2.Library services and technology 3.Community use of meeting facilities 4.Community use of and maintenance/improvement of playing fields, parks, and open spaces 5.Recreation programs and facilities 6.Middle school athletics 7.Traffic safety and school/home commute 8.Transportation 9.Location and provisioning of community services including health and human services 10. Role of schools in defining "neighborhoods" 11. lnteragency collaboration and cooperation including Lease-Covenant Agreement 12. Codification of City/School Liaison Committee 13. School impact of commercial and residential development including financing, such as school impact mitigation fees 14. Population and school enrollment growth 15. Emergency preparedness Proposed Modifications to City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Draft V of January 22, 1996 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES Although the draft Comprehensive Plan may not yet specifically address the topic, Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District should continue and enhance their cooperative efforts in emergency preparedness. Page 4, GV-11 .E. Through the City/School Liaison Committee, for example, Palo Alto will continue and enhance its close and collaborative relationship with Palo Alto Unified School District to more cost effectively and better serve the entire community, especially young people, families, and seniors. Page 6, GV-12.F1. Continue and consider expanding athletics programs for middle school and other school students. Page 10, GV-16. Palo Alto is endowed with a variety of community facilities, schools, parks... Page 10, GV-16.C. ...of Palo Alto. The City will continue and expand its cooperative efforts with Palo Alto Unified School District to maintain and enhance the school playing fields, grounds, and athletic facilities that are available to the community. Page 10, GV-16.D. Palo Alto will continue and expand its cooperative efforts with Palo Alto Unified School District to share library and technology resources to more cost effectively and better serve the information needs of the community. Page 10, GV-16.D1. Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District will jointly evaluate the practicability of merging libraries and deveTop implementation plans, as applicable. Page 10, GV-16.D2. Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District will jointly evaluate the feasibility of including the District as a partner in the .development of community wide communications infrastructures, such as a fiber optic network. COMMUNITY DESIGN Page 3, CD-1.D. Recognizing the importance of the schools to the social and economic vitality of the City, continue and enhance City efforts to assist Palo Alto Unified School District in anticipating, managing, and mitigating development-related school enrollment impacts. Prior to the approval of development projects which require legislative acts, including general plan amendments, zoning, rezoning or.annexation, the proponents of each project shall mitigate the impact on schools as evidenced by a signed mitigation agreement mutually acceptable to the developers and Palo Alto Unified School District and approved by the City. Prior to the approval of development projects for which legislative acts are not required, collect from ~ developers school impact fees that might be approved and imposed by the District. Page 3, CD-1.D1. To improve the forecasting of school enrollments, provide regular status reports to Palo Alto Unified School District on potential and approved development projects. Page 3, CD-1.D2. In collaboration with the District, develop and implement a system for collecting and remitting school impact fees. FROM CITY ATTORNEY January 25, 1996 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California RE:City Authority and Responsibilities With Respect to Development-Related Schoo! Enrollment Impacts Dear Members of the Council: During the Council’s Comprehensive Plan update deliberations last year, questions arose about the scope of the City’s authority and responsibility to condition or modify development projects to address schoo! enrollment impacts. More recently, in connection with the staff-proposed Community Services policies and programs, the City Manager indicated that Palo Alto Unified School District staff were working on their own comprehensive plan proposals. This report sets forth our analysis of the current state of the law in this area. ~ SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS The City may not, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").or the Subdivision Map Act, deny a quasi-judicia! or administrative project approval (e.g., conditional use permit, variance, subdivision, etc.) because of inadequate of school facilities. The exclusive methods of mitigating schoo! impacts under CEQA are a variety of fees and other financing techniques, which geaerally must be approved and imposed by the school district. (See Government Code section 65996 and Attachment A.) The Palo Alto Unified School District has not yet taken action to enact schoo! fees or other mitigation requirements. The City has broader authority when legislative approvals are involved, e.g., a comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance amendment. When the project approval is legislative, the City may apply appropriate mitigation measures or deny approval of the project because of inadequate of school facilities. Recent case law casts some doubt on the City’s ability and duty to mitigate schoo! enrollment increases as an environmental impact under CEQA, even when legislative approvals are involved. The City still has a clear duty to analyze school enrollment 960125 bdc 0051494 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL January 25, 1996 Page 2 RE:City Authority and Responsibilities With Respect to Development-Related School Enrollment Impacts impacts, but the City’s power to mitigate these impacts independently of District adopted schoo! fees is now questionable unless substantial evidence of physical impacts beyond minor enrollment increases is found. Finally, the City may have authority, independent of CEQA~ to use its police power to impose conditions to mitigate school enrollment impacts. However, to exercise this authority the City must enable it through appropriate comprehensive plan policies and an implementing program (typically an ordinance to create a nexus-justified fee program).~ Creating school impact-related programs and policies and programs during the comprehensive plan update would be the most effective means of assuring mitigation without schoo! district action. Given the broad impact mitigation powers granted to school districts, however, Council could defer any policy action to the Palo Alto Unified School District without impairing the District’s ability to address school impacts should it so desire. DISCUSSION Government Code section 65995 provides that: "Except for a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement authorized under Section 53080, or pursuant to Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970), no fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement shall be levied by the legislative body of a local agency against a development project, as defined in Section 53080, for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities." (Emphasis added.) Section 65995 expressly preempts the field: The "Legislature hereby occupies the subject matter of mandatory development fees and other development requirements for school facilities finance to the exclusion of all local measures on the subject." (Gov Code, § 65995(e).) Government Code Section 65996 establishes exclusive procedures to mitigate "development project" school impacts under CEQA: "(a) The following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of mitigating environmental 960125 bdc 0051494 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL January 25, 1996 Page 3 RE :City Authority and Responsibilities With Respect to Development-Related School Enrollment Impacts effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development project, as defined in Section 53080, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code: [See Attachment "A"] (b) No public agency shall, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code [CEQA] or Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) [Subdivision Map Act] of this code, deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities. (c) This section shall become inoperative on January i, 1993, and shall remain inoperative unti! the date that Assembly Constitutional Amendment 6 of the 1991-92 Regular Session fails to receive the approval of a majority of the voters voting on the measure, and as of that date this section shall become operative." (Emphasis added.) ACA 6 (Prop. 170) was rejected at the November 2, 1993 election. (West’s Annotated California Codes, Government Code Section 65996, fn. i.) Thus, Section 65996 is still operative.!/ However, these limitations apply only to quasi-judicialand administrative approvals, not to legislative approvals.- Thus, when the project at issue is legislative, such as a comprehensive !/An overview of the various statutes referenced in Government Code section 65996 is attached as Attachment "A." ~/ In 1992, the Legislature amended section-65996 so that it provided the exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects of a "development project," regardless whether the approval was "administrative" (quasi-judicial) or legislative. (Stats. 1992, c. 354.) That amendment, however, was repealed by operation of law on November 2, 1993, upon rejection of ACA 6. (West’s Annotated California Codes, Government Code section 65996, Historical and Statutory Notes.) 960125 bde 0051494 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL January 25, 1996 Page 4 RE :City Authority and Responsibilities With Respect to Development-Related School Enrollment Impacts plan or zoning ordinance amendment, the City is authorized to apply appropriate mitigation measures (other then a fee not authorized by Government Code section 65996) and even deny approva! of the project due to inadequate school facilities. (Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1234; William S. Hart Union High Sch. Dist. v. Regional Planning Comm’n. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1621; Mira Dev. Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201, 1217; see also, Corona-Norco Unified School District v. City of Corona (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1577, 1587.) In 1995 the law developed further with the court of appeal’s decision in Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of University of California (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d ii0. In Goleta Union, the EIR for UC Santa Barbara’s long range plan identified a projected school enrollment increase of about 200 students. The EIR further identified a range of mitigation measures, including larger class sizes, year-round schools, and new classrooms. The EIR disclaimed any responsibility to undertake the mitigation, however, leaving that task to the school district. To confuse matters further, at least with respect to interpreting the court’s decision, the university also voluntarily offered to contribute a fair share of the cost of mitigation. The school district challenged the EIR claiming that the university was obligated to fund new classroom construction. The court of appeal rejected the district’s contention on the theory that classroom overcrowding, absent related physica! impacts (like new school~ construction), was a soclal’ or economic impact3! whichCEQA specifically disclaims as an environmental impact.- The Goleta Union decision has been described by some analysts as significantly limiting CEQA’s role in compelling school enrollment mitigation. (See McCutchen Update (Oct. 2, 1995), appended to CMR:I19:96.) We believe it is premature to read the ~/ "Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic or socia! changes. The intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the analysis shal! be on the physical changes." (State CEQA Guidelines, Cal Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15131(a).) 960125 bdc 0051494 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL January 25, 1996 Page 5 RE,:City Authority and Responsibilities With Respect to Deve!opment-Related S~hool Enrollment Impacts case in so sweeping a fashion. Goleta Union substantially limits the reach of its own holding by distinguishing, rather than conflicting with,, the long line of cases that have recognized schoo! enrollment-related impacts as legitimate environmental issues. Moreover, the court of appeal expressly relied upon, and limited its holding due to, the (relatively) small size of the enrollment impact: ". in sc~e cases socio-economic effects may cause physical changes that significantly effect the environment. An example might be a fivefold increase in student enrollment. Such a large increase would likely necessitate the construction of additiona! classrooms. That is not the case here. (Id., at p. 1032; emphasis added.) In short, Goleta Union .throws more silt into the already murky waters surrounding the role of CEQA and school enrollment mitigation. We believe it simply stands for the proposition that school enrollment impact mitigation pursuant to CEQA must be accompanied by and predicated upon a showing of direct physical impacts. Notwithstanding CEQA, a city should have authority to use its police power (the power to protect the health, safety and general welfare) to condition development to address factually supported schoo! enrollment impacts. Such authority must, however, be justified and implemented (or enabled) through legislative action. Typically, land use-related police power actions are justified from a policy viewpoint in the local comprehensiVe plan. Comprehensive plan policies are then implemented through programs which include ordinance amendments necessary to establish the constitutionally required "nexus" between the school enrollment mitigation program and a specific project’s impacts. Likewise, implementing ordinances help to fulfil! California’s statutory requirements that limit fees and exactions. (See Gov. Code § 66000, et seq.) On the other hand, the Palo Alto Unified School District has clear authority to enact and impose school enrollment impact mitigation fees, provided they are factually justifiable. Accordingly, if the Council chooses to take no action, the District would not be precluded or hampered in its efforts to pursue .mitigation should it so desire. 960125 bde 0051494 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL January 25, 1996 Page 6 RE :City Authority and Responsibilities With Respect to Development-Related School Enrollment Impacts In closing, we would note that this report is meant to be an advisory survey. If Counci! wishes to pursue comprehensive plan policies and implementing programs to address school enrollment impacts, substantial additional legal and factual research would be necessary to define the parameters APC:apc of a legally~fensible, pro~?. City Attorney ~ cc:June Fleming, City Manager Bernie Strojny, Assistant City Manager Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning & Community Environment Jim Brown, Superintendent, Palo Alto Unified School District Susan Case, Senior Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney 960125 bde 0051494 ATTACHMENT OVERVIEW OF VARIOUS MEASURES DISCUSSED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65995 AND 65996 The fol!owing statutory provisions are the exclusive provisions for mitigating school impacts authorized by Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996. Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part i0 of the Education Code. Chapter 22 is the Leroy F. Green State School Building Lease-Purchase Law of 1976. This law establishes the State Allocation Board, and authorizes the Board to construct any project it may deem advisable. Chapter 22 is essentially a school building financing mechanism. Loans to small school districts are authorized with certain matching share requirements. Section 17708 of the Act creates in the State Treasury the State School Building Lease-Purchase Fund. That section further continuously appropriates all money in the fund for expenditure pursuant to Chapter 22. The Board is authorized to apportion funds to school districts for the purposes of Chapter 22 from moneys in the fund. Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part i0 of the Education Code. Chapter 25 is the "State Relocatable Classroom Law of 1979" The legislative intent in adopting this chapter is stated as follows: "In adopting this chapter, the legislature recognizes that the ad va!orem tax is no longer available as a source of revenue for the construction of necessary school facilities. The legislature considers that the greatest need in school construction is ~for classrooms for the education of public schoo! pupils. It is the intent of the legislature to satisfy this primary need to the greatest extent possible before providing any additional educationa! facilities, regardless of how desirable such additional facilities may be." Chapter 25 is primarily a mechanism for leasing and purchasing portable classrooms. Limits on the extent to which portable classrooms can be used .are also set forth,- as are standards for participating in this program. Priorities for the acquisition and leasing of classrooms are required to be established by the State AllocationBoard. 960125bdeO051494 Attachment "A", page i Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part i0 of the Education Code. Chapter 28 is knownas the "California School Finance Authority Act". The legislative intent of this act is as follows: "The legislature hereby finds and declares that it is in the interest of the state and its people for the state to do all of the following: (a) Reconstruct, remodel, or replace existing school buildings which are educationally inadequate or which do not meet current structural safety requirements. (b) Acquire new school sites and buildings to be made available to school districts and community college districts for the pupils of the public education system, which is a matter of general concern inasmuch as the education of the state’s children is an obligation and function of the state. (c) Assist school districts and community college districts by providing access to financing for working ~capital and capital improvements." The Act establishes the California School Finance Authority, and the California School Finance Authority Fund, to be administered by the Authority. Section 17881. The Authority is authorized to issue revenue bonds for purposes of this chapter. The Fund is a method of financing acquisition and construction of educational facilities. Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code. Article 2.5 authorizes school districts to lease school facilities from a non-profit corporation. The sale of bonds for the accomplishment of a schoo! facilities plan is authorized by Section 39327.2. 5.Section 53080 of the Government Code. Government Code Section 53080 authorizes the governing board of any school district "to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any development project within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, subject to any limitation set forth in chapter 4.9 (commencing with Section 65995) of Division 1 of Title 7. This fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement may be applied to construction only as specified in the statute. Standards for imposition of the levy are set forth Section 53080. Subsequent sections address procedures for adoption or increase of the levy, protests, repayment of the levy, and other details involving this financing mechanism. 960125bd~00~149~Attachment "A", page ii Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. Chapter 2.5 is the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. The Act provides for the formation of a Mello-Roos district to finance the construction and rehabilitation of certain public capital facilities and services. Schoo! facilities may be financed by a community facilities district. Government Code Section 53313.5 and 53313.9. Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. Chapter 4.7 is entitled "School Facilities" and addresses issues of overcrowding. The legislative intent is declared to be as follows: "The legislature finds and declares as follows: (a) Adequate school facilities should be available for children residing in new residential developments. (b) Public and private residential developments may require the expansion of existing public schools or the construction of new schoo! facilities. (c) In many areas of the s~ate, the funds for the construction of new classroom facilities are not available when new development occurs, resulting in the overcrowding of existing schools. (d) New housing developments frequently cause conditions of overcrowding in existing school facilities, which cannot be alleviated under existing law within a reasonable period of time. (e) That, for these reasons, new and improved methods of financing for interim school facilities necessitated by new development are needed in California." Chapter 4.7 provides a method for a school district to finance interim school facilities made necessary by overcrowding. Section 65971 provides that if a school district board makes findings that conditions of overcrowding exist, and that all reasonable means of mitigating conditions of overcrowding have been evaluated and are not feasible for reducing those conditions, then the board can notify the city council or board of supervisors. If the city council or board of supervisors concurs, Section 65972 is applicable. That section provides that when the findings specified in Section 65971 are made, the city counci! or board shall not approve an ordinance rezoning the property to a residential use, grant a discretionary permit for residential use, or approve a tentative subdivision map for residential purposes, within such area, unless the city council or board of supervisors makes one of the following findings: "(I) that an ordinance pursuant to Section 960125bdeO051494 Attachment "A"~, page iii 65974 has been adopted, or (2) that there are specific overriding fiscal, economic, social, or environmental factors, which in the judgment of the city council or board of supervisors would, benefit the city or county, thereby justifying the approval of a residential development otherwise subject to Section 65974." Government Code Section 65974 provides that when the findings required by Section 65971 are made, a city or county may by ordinance require the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for classroom and related facilities for elementary or high schools as a condition of the approval of the residential development, provided that certain specified events occur. 9601251~dc 0051494 Attachment "A", page iv LAPKOFF &GOBALET DEMOGRAPHIC 22361 Rolling Hills Road, Saratoga, CA 95070 7650D Canyon Meadows Circle, Pleasanton, CA 94588 (408) 725-8164 (510) 463-0863 RESEARCH, INC FAX (408) 725-1479 , ~AX (5~0),,463-0864 District-Wide Enrollment Forecast Update by Shelley Lapkoff, Ph.D. Jeanne G. Gobalet, Ph.D. January 22, 1996 We have been providing Low, Medium, and High enrollment forecasts for PAUSD since 1992. Each year, we review new information about kindergarten enrollments and births. This report describes revisions of our previous forecasts that incorporate 1995 data. Comparison of 1994 Enrollment Forecast with Actual 1995 Enrollments Chart I Actual and Projected Fall 1995 Enrollment Grade Last year’s Medium forecast was relatively accurate for f~rst through twelfth gades. However, kindergarten enrollment was about 70 students higher than projected. There were more seventh and eighth ~aders than expected, but this was somewhat offset by smaller numbers of sixth graders. The forecast of total middle school enrollment was close to actual enrollment. Chart 1 illustrates the contrast between actual and projected 1995 enrollment. Kindergarten Forecasts It has been difficult to forecast kindergarten enrollment accurately. Our forecast of kindergarmers is based on bir~to District residents five years eaxlier.1 The ratio of kindergarten enrollments to births has varied tremendously over the last four years, and there is no cIear trend. Table 1 shows kindergarten enrollment, bixths five years earlier, and the kindergarten to birth ratios since 1985. Table I Relationship between Kindergarten Enrollment and Births Five Years Earlier Kindergarten Stanford K Enrollment, Excluding Births Five Kindergarten Divided Enro!lment .En.r.o.llment Stanford and Younq Fives Years Eadier ~ 1985 532 50 482 483 100% 1986 560 50 510 509 100% 1987 558 50 508 491 104% 1988 550 50 500 495 101% 1989 528 .50 478 507 94% 1990 571 50 521 537 97% 1991 621 50 571 552 103% 1992 571 47 524 567 92% 1993 677 61 616 570 108% 1994 618 46 572 582 98% 1995 681 58 623 559 111% Italics indicate estimates. Historical Average 101% ’ We forecast resident kindergarten enrollment~ but treat Stanford births and e~ollment separately in our model. This is because the birth to kindergarten relationship at Stanford differs from the rest of PAUSD. Interdistrict transfer students are also considered separately. 2 Chart 2 Kindergarten to Birth Ratio The 1995 kindergarten class had the highest ratio since" we began measurement. However, ratios for Fall 1994 and 1992 enrollments to births five years earlier were below average. For the last eleven years, the average ratio was 10! percent, with significant fluctuation. We assumed in previous forecasts that 98.5 percent of births would result in kindergarten enrollment (the historical average as of 1992). We raised the value to 10! percent in our new forecast. Birth Data We have new birth data for !994 and 1995. Chart 3 . Birth Forecast for Santa Clara County 30,000 ] 15,0CO In general, births have been declining in the .county, state, and nation since 1990. Chart 3 shows Santa Clara County births (solid line) and forecasts of county births by state demographers (dotted hne). Although Santa Clara County will be gaining housing units, state demog’raphers have predicted large decreases in the number of births through 2005. Chart 4 PAUSD Resident Births (Excluding Stanford) .500 Year county and state trends. Birth trends in PAUSD have not exactly followed the county trend. The number of PAUSD births increased significantly in !991 and !992, while county births declined. Births declined during 1993 and 1994, matching However, preliminary dam for 1995 show PAUSD births increasing again. It is not clear whether PAUSD birth trends will continue to deviate from the county trend. The 1995 increase may have been random variation, to be expected when population size is relatively sma!l. Chart 5 Birth Trend in Sama Clara County and PAUSD 1,,q82 1984 1~6 1988 1990 1992 1994 Year Chart 5 compares the trend in county births to the trend in PAUSD births. The y axis shows the percent change in births from the 1980 level. For example, 1986 county and PAUSD births were 14 percent higher than 1980 4 births. Be~nning in !989, the PAUSD trend deviated from the county’s. It is important to keep in mind that the county had si~cant housing growth in the 1980s while Palo Alto did not. As a result~ births per housing unit rose more since 198~ in PAUSD than in the county. Effect of Birth Data on Forecasts The birth increase in 1995 means that our enrollment forecasting model wi!l predict an increase in kindergarten enrollment five years hence. This will affect enrollments for the next 13 years as the larger cohort progresses through the grades. There is increased uncertainty about birth trends after the year 2000 because of the 1995 birch data. Previous Low and Medium forecasts assumed that births would dechne over the next 10 years, following county and state trends. The fact that births increased in Palo Alto while declining in the county makes it less certain that the long range trend in Palo Alto will match the county trend. The Medium forecast continues to assume that Palo Aim bixths will decline, but more slowly than in Santa Clara County as a whole. Residential Development in Palo Alto After many years of almost no residential development, building activity has resumed in Palo Alto. Table 2 shows the planned residential projects. Plans include several "restricted" residential developments for seniors and one for the developmentally disabled. These units will have no direct impact on enrollments. However, if seniors who currently live in Palo Alto move into these units, their former homes could be sold or rented to new families with children. Map 1 shows the geographic distribution of the non-restricted units by elementa.D’ attendance area: Stanford West is the largest proposed project. Six hundred thirty 4 unitsI.i:~’~ 21 units Stanford West Apts I " " " .......::i 6~0 un~I "...i..i.. " ". ...........". . -. :::.:... :..i.:::: .::: .. .BFio.nes i! Hyatt Site MFU ....il 72 units : Hyatt Site SFU 21 units ....Mira.nda Ave 4 units Los Tr’ancos SFU 8 units Housing Development in Palo Alto Number of Unrestricted Units by Elementary Attendance Area Lopkoff ~ Cobolet Demographic Research, /nc., apartment units have been proposed, a!ong with 70 assisted hying units, 388 senior condominiums, and 46 skd~ed nursing units. Table 2 New Housing Development in Palo Alto Development Number Type ef Location Address Name of Units Unit ~S~ecial Characteristics 245 Lytton Avenue T~mes Tribune site 21 SFU Under construction 2650 Park BIvd Sheraton Plaza 30 Apts Under construction 330 Emerson Street 4 Apts Under construction 4277 Miranda Avenue 4 SFU Approved 4290 El Camino Real Hyatt site 21 SFU Design review 4290 El Cam ino Real Hyatt site 72 MFU Design review Stanford West Stanford West 630 Apts EIR stage Los Trancos Rd (vacant site)8 SFU Proposed 315-335 Everett Ave 13 SFU Proposed Below Market Rate Restricted Housing 725-753 Alma Street The Alma SRO 107 Studios Under construction BMR; Single Res. Ccc. 657 Hamilton Ave The Hamilton 36 Condos Under construction Senior Housing Stanford West Stanford West 70 Apts EIR stage Assisted Uving Stanford West Stanford West 388 Condos EIR stage Senior Housing Stanford West Stanford West 46 Apts EIR stage Skilled Nursing Page Mill and Ash St 24 Apts Proposed Devel. Disabled Effect of Residential Development on the Forecast There are usually many more students per unit in single family units than in apartments or condominiums. Only 67 tota! single f~mily units have been approved or proposed in Palo Alto. These units are likely to contain between 15 and 30 elementary students when all units are completed. The number of students from multi-family units tends to vary geatly depending on the type of multi-family structure, whether it is subsidized, facilities provided in the Complex, and the property management company’s marketing strate~. Many large apartmen[ complexes contain no students. In other school districts, there are typically 10 to 30 students for every 100 apartment units. We expect Stanford West, with 630 units, to house between 50 and 200 PAUSD students. Yields could resemble those at nearby Oak Creek, or could be very different. This will depend on factors like those described above. When plans for the development are more complete possible student ields will be clearer. Stanford West is the only housing development that could have si~cant future enrollment impact for purposes of the forecast,z We have not included enrollments from Stanford West in our forecast because it is not clear when it will be built. It is currently in the EIR stage. When we have more conclusive information about when Stanford West will be completed, we will include it in our forecast. Updated District-Wide Forecasts Table 3 shows the assumptions used in each of the four forecasts. We have changed some of our assumptions and have used new enrollment and birth data. The biggest change involves the assumed birth to kindergarten ratio. Previously, we assumed that 98.5 percent of births would result in kindergarten enrollment. The new Medium forecast is based on the assumption that 101 percent of births will result in kindergarten enrollments. Table 4 and Chart 6 compare totals from the Low, Medium, High, and Ultra High forecasts. Deta~ed figures are provided in the Appendix tables. ~The other housing growth is relatively minor. Some multi-family units have been built in Pa!o Alto during the last five years and the enrollment impact from these units is imphcitly incorporated into the forecasts through the grade pro~ession ratios. The forecast model continues to assume the same level of residential activity in Palo Alto as in recent past. Table 3 Assumptions Used in the Forecasts Low Medium High Ultra High Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast 1. Trend in Births decline Births decline Births remain at PAUSD resident by 17% below by 10% din’Lug 1995 level births 1994 level next decade (IX)l:: forecast) 2. Kindergarten to Birth Ratio 3. Grade Progessions 4. Voluntary Transfer Program and Interdistrict students 5. Special education enrollments 93% of non-101% of non-109% ofnon- Starfford births Stanford births Stanford births result in result in result in enrollments,enrollments enrollments, transitioning to transitioning to 101%101% 100% cohort survival used for most grades 3-yr avg grade prog. ratios until 1999, then 10-yr avgs used Historical near- maximum grade prog. ratios Same as Medium forecast Current rules and current grade progressions Same as Medium forecast In-district spec. ed. students are a fixed percent of enrollment (average of last 2 years); out of district students are constant In-district sp~. ed. students are a fixed percent of enrollment (average of last 2 years); out of district students are constant In-district spec. ed. students are a fixed percent of enrollment (average of lhst 2 years); out of district students are constant Births increase by 10% during next decade 111% of non- Stanford births result in enrollments same as High forecast Same as Medium forecast In-district spec. ed. students are a fixed percent of enrollment (average of last 2 years); out of district students are constant Fall 1995 enrollments, with the larger-than-expected kindergarten class, and the unexpectedly large number of 1995 births, resulted in a Medium forecast of increased elementary enrollments. Total elementary enrollments peak in the year 2000 at about 4,500. Elemen.tary enrollments then begin to drop. By 2010, there are about 4,200 students. Middle school enrollments increase initially in all four scenarios. The Medium 9 "forecast shows a peak of 2,400 students in the year _00.~. High school enrollments also 9 increase in all four scenarios. The Medium forecast shows an increase in total enrollment to almost 3,500 students in 2007. Table 4 Enrollment Forecasts YEAR 1996 School Fall 1995 Low Medium High Ultra High Level Enrollment Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast K-5 4,279 4,257 4,371 4,459 4,475 6-8 1,936 1,959 1,987 2,045 2,045 9-12 2,538 2,592 2,665 2,780 2,780 Total 8,753 8,809 9,022 9,283 9,300 YEAR 2000 School Fall 1995 Low Medium High Ultra High Level Enrollment Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast K-5 4,279 4,164 4,534 4,826 5,044 6-8 1,936 2,069 2,231 2,433 2,433 9-12 2,538 2,709 3,056 3,569 3,569 Total 8,753 8,941 9,820 10,827 11,045 YEAR 2005 School Fall 1995 Low Medium High Ultra High Level Enrollment Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast K-5 4,279 4,102 4,387 4,630 5,183 6-8 1,936 2,005 2,327 2,782 2,936 9-12 2,538 2,804 3,402 4,400 4,426 Total 8,753 8,912 10,115 11,812 12,545 YEAR 2010 School Fall 1995 Low Medium High Ultra High Level Enrollment Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast K-5 4,279 3,776 4,200 4,630 5,386 6-8 1,936 2,000 2,258 2,644 2,985 9-12 2,538 2,710 3,346 4,465 4,848 Total 8,753 8,486 9,804 11,738 13,219 Note: These enrollment forecasts do not include enrollments for the proposed Stanford West development. Chart 6 Elementary Forecasts :--. .... 3,~ ~ .......................~ ........................................................................................i 6t~ g~de m~es to m~dle s~ools Ye~ Middle School Forecasts ......................................................................................................... ...................................................................................... ;..,,,..’: .................................... 6~ grade moves to middle schools Ye~t High School Forecasts Comparison of District-wide Forecasts with Previous Forecasts The 1995 Medium forecast for the year 2000 is substantially higher than our 1994 forecast." Elementary enrollments in the year 2000 are projected to total about 4,530 students, rather than 4,300. Forecasted middle school enrollments in the year 2000 are about 100 students higher than in the 1994 forecast. There are several reasons for the increases in our forecast. The table below shows the effects of changed assumptions on the 1994 elementary enrollment forecast: Why 1995 Elementary Forecast Differs from 1994 Forecast (Year 2000 Enrollments) Use of Fall 1995 enrollments Use of new 1995 birth data Use of higher K/B ratio Use of 3-year, rather than 10-yr grade progression ratios Change in non-resident enrollments 56 students 45 students 64 students 45 students 52 students Total Difference 262students 12 Appendix Tables Low Forecast Resident Enrollrt~..=nts (F~cluding Special Day Class Students) 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Yng 5 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 K 681 59~625 608 608 632 626 620 614 602 590 577 565 553 541 529 1 615 667 578 612 5.96 595 619 614 608 601 5~)578 566 554 542 530 2 660 615 667 578 612 596 595 619 614 608 601 590 578 566 554 5423599660615667578612596595619614608601590578566554 4 653 599 660 615 667 578 612 596 595 619 614 608 601 590 578 566 5 604 653 599 660 615 667 578 612 596 595 619 614 608 601 590 578 6 575 604 653 599 660 615 667 578 612 596 595 619 614 608 601 590 7 612 575 604 653 599 660 615 667 578 612 596 595 619 614 609 601 8 586 612 575 604 " 653 599 660 615 667 578 612 596 595 619 614 608966161564360463468~629 693 646 701 607 643 626 625 650 644 10 651 661 615 643 604 634 686 629 693 646 701 607 643 626 625 65011589605615587613576605654600661616668579613597596 12 495 560 575 584 557 582 547 574 621 570 628 585 635 550 582 567 E|em 3.853 3.825 3.786 3.782 3.718 3.722 3.669 3.698 3.587 3.680 3.662 3.608 3.548 3.483 3.411 3.340Middle1.773 1.791 1.632 1.856 1.912 1.874 1.942 1.881 1.858 1.787 1.804 1.811 1.828 1.840 1.823 1.799High2.396 2.441 2.448 2.417 2.468 2.477 2.486 2,550 2.559.2.577 2.551 2.503 2.482 2.414 2.455 2.457Total&022 8.058 8.065 8.055 8.038 8.074 8.077 8.108 8.104 8.043 8.017 7.922 7.859 7.737 7.688 7.596 Allen Bill Interdistrict Transfers 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41Middle18181818181818181818181818181818High43434343434343434343434343434343Total102102102102102102102102102102102102102102102102Voluntary Transfer Program Enrollments 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20(}3 2004 2008 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Elem303312311319322322322322322322322322322322322322Middle8497112114120119125127127127127127127127127127High23426486100118123128134134138140140140140140Total410451487519542559570577583583587589589589589589Special Education. In-District 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 . 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Elem53505150494949494949484847464544Middle514348475048504848464.6 47 47 47 47 46High60505652535454585857585555535454T~al 164 143 155 149 152 151 153 153 153 151 151 149 149 146 146 144Special Education-Out-of.District 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Elem29292929292929292929292929292929Middle10101010101010101010101010101010High16161616161616161616161616161616Total55555555555555555555555555555555 Total Enrollments 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 4,279 4,257 4.217 4,221 4.159 4.164 4,109 4.139 4.127 4,120 4,102 4.048 3,997 3,921 3,848 3.776Middle1,936 1.959 2.020 2.045 2,110 2.069 2.145 2,063 2,061 1,988 2,005 2,012 2.030 2,(343 2,024 2.000High2,538 2,592 2,626 2,614 2,620 2,709 2.702 2.793 2.809 2.826 2,804 2,757 2.736 2,686 2,708 2,710Total8,753 8,809 8.584 8,880 8.889 8,941 8,957 ’ 8,995 8,997 8,935 8,912 8,817 8,754 8.630 8,580 8,486 Total Resident Enrollments (Including Sl;,~dal Day Crass Students) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 3.906 3.875 3.836 3.932 3.767 3.772 3.717 3.747 3.735 3.728 3.710 3.656 3.595 3.529 3.456 3.384Middle1.824 1.834 1.880 1.903 1.962 1.922 1.992 1.908 1.906 1.833 1.859 1.857 1.875 1.888 1.889 1.845High2.458 2.491 2.503 2.4.69 2.4~1 2.532 2.520 2.606 2.616 2.633 2.607 2.558 2.507 2.467 2.509 2.511Total8.186 8.201 8.220 8.204 8.190 8.225 8.230 8.291 8.257 8.195 8.168 8.071 8.008 7.884 7.834 7.740 Total Non-Resident Enrollments (Interdistricts. Special Day Clas~. Volunta~ Transfer Program) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 373 382 381 389 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392Middle112125140142148147153155155156158155155155155155High82101123145159177182187193193197199199199199199Total567608644676699716727734740740744746746746746746 14 Medium Forecast Resident Enrollments (Excluding Spatial Day Class Students) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 200"2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008. 2009 2010 Yng 5 41 41 41 41 41 41 4t 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 K 681 647 678 654 647 866 654 648 642 635 629 623 617 611 605 605 1 615 672 638 669 645 641 660 647 641~.635 629 623 617 611 605 599 2 660 627 685 650 682 645 640 659 647 641 635 629 623 617 611 605 3 5~9 669 635 694 659 690 653 648 667 655 649 643 637 631 624 618 4 653 622 695 860 721 672 704 666 861 680 668 662 655 649 643 637 5 604 660 628 702 666 732 683 715 676 671 691 678 672 666 659 6536575603659628701684751700733694688709696689683676 7 612 589 618 675 643 6~9 681 749 698 731 691 686 706 693 687 6808586626603632691649706688756705738698693713700694966165970467871176271677975983577881477176578777310651667665711684723775728792772848791828783777800 11 589 6~636 634 678 665 703 753 708 770 751 825 769 805 762 756 12 495 566 596 611 609 668 655 692 742 698 759 740 813 758 793 750 Elem 3,853 3,938 4,001 4,071 4,062 4,088 4,03z,4.024 3.976 3,960 3,943 3,899 3,862 3.826 3,789 3,758 Middle 1,773 1,818 1,879 1.934 2,034 2,031 2,138 2,137 2,187 2,129 2,117 2,093 2,095 2.096 2,070 2,050High2.396 2,512 2,601 2,633 2,681 2,817 2,849 2,953 3,002 3,074 3,136 3,170 3,180 3,111 3,119 3,080Total8,022 8.268 8,481 8.638 8,778 8,937 9,021 9,114 9,164 9,163 9,195 9,162 9,138 9,032 8,978 8,888 Allen Bill Interdistrict Transfers 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 4!Middle 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18High43434343434343434343434343434343Total102102102102102102102102102102102102102102102102Volur~ary Transfer Program Enrollments 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2008 ~~002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Elem303312311319322322322322322322322322322322322322Middle8497112114120119125127127127127127127127127127High23426486100118123128134134138140140140140140Total410451487519542559570577583583587589589589589589Special Education - In.Olstdct 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ~2003 ~2005 2006 L~)07 2008 2009 2010Elem53516354545453535352525251515050Middle51445049635255555655545454545353High60515957596263656668697070686968Total164148162160166168171173175175176175175173172170Spe¢|al Educat|o n-Out-otoD|sld ct 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20(::13 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Elem29292929292929292929292929292929Middle10101010101010101010101010101010High16161616161616161616161616161616Total55555555555555555555555555555555 Total Enrollments 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 4,279 4,371 4,436 4,B13 ~.,508 4,534 4,480 4,469 4,420 4,404 4,387 4,343 4,306 4,268 4,231 4,200Middle1,936 1,987 2,069 2,126 2,235 2,231 2,346 2,347 2,398 2,389 2,327 2,302 2,304 2,305 2278 2258High2,538 2,665 2,763 2,835 2,899 3,056 3,094 3~05 3,261 3,335 3,402 3,439 3,449 3,378 3,387 3,346Total8,753 9,022 9,287 9,474 9,642 9,820 9,920 10,021 10,079 10,077 10,115 10,083 10,058 9,951 9,896 9,804 Total Resident Enrollments (Including Special Day Clas~ Students) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ~ ~ ~ 2004 ~ 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elam 3.906 3.989 4.055 4.124 4.116 4.142 4.058 4.077 4.028 4,012 3.995 3,951 3.914 3.876 3.839 3.808Middle1.824 1,862 .1.929 1.984 2.087 2.084 2.193 2.192 2243 2.164 2.172 2.147 2.149 2.150 2.123 2.103High2.456 2.~.2.650 2,690 2.740 2,879 2.912 3,018 3.068 3,142 3.265 3.240 3.250 3.179 3.188 3.147Total8.186 8.414 8.643 8.798 8.943 9.104 9.193 9.287 9.339 9.337 9,371 9.337 9.312 9.205 9.150 9.058 .Total Non-RestdentEnro|lments(l~erd|~d~s, Spec|a|Day Class, Vo|untaryTransferProgram) 1995 1998 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 ~ 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 373 382 381 389 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392Middle112125140142148147153155155155155155155155155155High821011231451591"77 162 187 193 193 197 199 199 199 199 199Total567608644676699716727734740740744746746746746746 High Forecast Resident Enrollments (Excluding Special Day Class Students) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 Yng 5 41 41 41 41 41 41 ¯41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 K 681 699 720 683 664 653 653 653 653 653 653 653 653 653 653 653 1 615 695 713 735 696 677,,,=,. 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 2 660 627 709 727 74£710 690 680 680 680 680 680 68,0 680 680 680 3 599 673 640 723 742 764 724 704 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 693 4 653 617 693 659 744 764 787 746 725 714 714 714 714 714 714 714 5 604 673 635 714 679 767 787 811 769 747 735 735 735 735 735 735 6 575 634 706 667 753 713 805 826 851 807 784 772 772 772 772 772 7 612 604 666 742 701 787 748 845 867 8.94 847 824 811 811 811 811 8 586 636 628 693 771 729 819 778 879 902 930 881 857 843 843 843 9 661 691 751 741 817 910 860 96~918 1.037 1,064 1,097 1,040 1,011 995 995 10 651 681 712 774 763 842 937 886 995 946 1,068 1,096 1,130 1,071 1,041 1,025 11 589 664 694 726 789 778 859 956 903 1,015 965 1,090 1,118 1,153 1,092 1;062 12 495 589 664 694 726 789 778 859 956 903 1,015 965 1,090 1,118 1,153 1,092 Elem 3,853 4.024 4,151 4.281 4,315 4,376 4,349 4,301 4.227 4,194 4,183 4,183 4,183 4,183 4,183 4,183 Middle 1,773 1,874 2,000 2,101 2,222 2.229 2,372 2,450 2,598 2.603 2,561 2,477 2,440 2,426 2,426 2,426 High 2.396 2.625 2.822 2,935 3,096 3.319 3,434 3,666 3,773 3,902 4,113 4,248 4,378 4,353 4.281 4,174 Total 8,022 8,524 8,973 9,318 9,632 9.924 10,156 10,417 10,598 10,699 10,857 10,908 11,O00 10,961 10,8£0 10,783 Allen Bill Interdistric~ "l’ransfem 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 ’ 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 ,41 41 Middle 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 High 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Total 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 Voluntary Transfer Program Enrollments 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 303 312 311 319 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322Middle8497112114120119125127127127127127127127127127High23426486100118123128134134138140140140140140Total410451487519542559570577583583587589589589589589 Spesial Education - Ir;-District 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2t~2 200~2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Elem53525556575858575655555555555555Middle51455353575761636767666463626262High60546463697376808386909396969492Total164151172173183187194200206208211212214213212209 Special Ed ucation-Out-of-Distdot 1996 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Elem29292929292929292929292929292929Middle10101010101010101010101010101010High16161616161616161616161616161616Total555555555555555555555555.55 55 55 55 Total Enrollments 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 4.279 4,459 4,588 4.726 4.764 4,826 4,799 4,750 4.675 4,642 4,630 4,630 4,630 4,630 4.630 4.630 Middle 1,936 2,045 2,193 2,297 2,427 2,433 2,586 2,668 2,820 2,825 2,782 2,696 2,657 2,644 2.644 2.644High2,538 2.780 3,009 3,144 3,323 3,569 3,692 3,934 4,049 4.180 4.400 4.540 4.673 4,647 4,574 4,485Total8,753 9,283 9,789 10,167 10,515 10,827 11,077 11,352 11,544 11.647 11,812 11.866 11,960 11.921 11,8~11.738 Total Resident Enrollments (Including Special Day Class Students) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 3.906 4.077 4.207 4.337 4.372 4.434 4.407 4.358 4.283 4.’250 4.238 4.238 4.238 4.238 4.238 4.238 Middle 1.824 1.920 2.053 2.155 2.279 2.286 2.433 2.513 2.665 2.670 2.627 2.541 2.502 2.489 2.489 2.489 High 2.456 2.679 2.886 2.999 3.164 3.392 3.510 3.747 3.854; 3.987 4.203 4.341 4.474 4.448 4.375 4.266 Total 8.186 8.675 9.145 9.491 9.916 10.111 10.350 10.618 10,804 10.907 11.058 11.120 11.214 11.175 11.102 10.992 Total Non-Resident Enrollments (Interdistriots, Special Day Class, Voluntary Transfer Program) 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 373 382 381 389 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 Middle 112 125 140 142 148 147 153 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 High 82 101 123 145 159 177 182 187 193 193 197 199 199 199 199 199 Total 567 608 644 676 699 716 727 734 740 740 744 746 744~746 74~746 Ultra High Forecast Resident Enrollments (Excluding Special Day Class Students) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Yng 5 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 K 681 715 750 723 715 723 730 736 743 750 756 763 769 776 782 782 1 615 695 730 765 738 730 738 745 751 758 765 771 778 764 791 798 2 660 ~709 744 780 752 744 753 759 766 773 780 787 793 800 807 3 599 673 640 723 759 796 767 759 768 775 782 788 795 802 809 816 4 653 617 693 659 744 782 820 791 782 791 798 805 812 819 826 834 5 604 673 635 714 679 767 805 844 814 805 814 822 829 837 644 851 6 575 634 706 667 750 713 805 846 886 855 846 855 863 871 878 886 7 612 604 666 742 701 787 748 645 888 931 898 888 898 906 914 9~ 8 586 636 828 693 771 729 819 778 879 924 ~934 924 934 942 951 9 661 691 751 7’41 817 910 860 966 918 1,037 1,090 1,142 1,102 1,090 1,102 1,112 10 651 681 712 774 763 842 937 886 995 946 1,068 1,123 1,177 1,135 1,123 1,135 11 589 664 694 726 789 778 859 956 903 1,015 965 1,090 1,145 1,200 1,157 1,145 12 495 589 664 694 726 789 778 859 956 903 1J315 965 1,090 1,145 1,200 1,157 Elem 3,853 4,041 4,198 4,369 4,457 4,591 4,646 4,669 4,659 4,686 4,729 4,770 4,811 4,853 4,894 4,929 Middle 1,773 1,874 2,000 2,101 2222 2229 2,372 2,469 2,654 2,709 2,711 2,677 2,684 2,711 2,735 2,759 High 2,396 2,625 2,822 2,935 3,096 3,319 3,434 3,666 3,773 3,902 4,138 4,319 4,513 4,570 4,582 4,549 Total 8,022 8,541 9,020 9,406 9,774 10,139 10,452 10,805 11,085 11,297 11,578 11,766 12,009 12,133 12,211 12,237 Allen Bill Interdlstdct Transfers 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 Middle 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 High 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Total 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 Voluntary T~nsfer Program Enrollments 1995 1998 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 303 312 311 319 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 Middle 64 97 112 114 120 119 125 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 High 23 42 64 86 100 118 123 128 134 134 138 140 140 140 140 140 Tolal 410 451 487 519 542 569 ~70 577 583 583 567 569 589 589 589 589 Spectal Educallon - In-Distrlct 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 53 52 56 57 59 61 61 62 62 62 62 63 64 64 65 65 Middle 51 45 53 53 57 57 61 63 68 70 70 69 69 70 70 71 High 60 54 64 63 69 73 76 80 63 86 91 95 99 100 101 100 Total 164 152 173 174 185 190 198 206 213 217 223 227 232 234 236 236 Special Edu ~tlo n-Out.,o f-Dlst dct 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 Middle 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 High 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Total 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 Total Enrollments 1995 1998 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 4,279 4.475 4.635 4,816 4.908 5.044 5.099 5.122 5.112 5.140 5.183 5225 5,267 5,309 5.351 5.’386 Middle 1.936 2.045 2.193 2,297 2.427 2.433 2.586 2,688 2.877 2.934 2.936 2.~01 2.908 2.935 2.960 2.955 High 2,538 2.780 3.009 3.144 3.323 3.5~9 3.692 3.934 4.049 4.180 4.425 4.613 4.811 4.869 4.882 4.648 Total 8.753 9.300 9.836 10,256 10.6~11.045 11,377 11.744 12.038 12,254 12.545 12.739 12.986 13.113 13.192 13.219 Total Resident Enrollments (Including Special Day Class Students) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 3.~6 4.093 4.254 4,427 4.516 4.652 4.707 4.730 4.720 4,748 4,791 4.833 4.875 4.917 4.959 4.994 Middle 1.824 1.920 2.053 2.155 2.279 2,288 2.433 2.533 2.722 2.779 2.781 2.746 2.753 2.780 2.805 2.830 High 2.456 2.679 2.886 2.999 3.164 3.392 3.510 3.747 3.856 3.987 4.229 4.-’14 4.612 4.670 4.683 4.649 Total 8,186 8,692 9,192 9,580 9,959 10,329 10,650 11,010 11298 11,514 11,801 11,993 12,240 12,367 12,446 12,473 Total Non-ResldentEnrollments(Interdlstdcts, Speclal Day Class, Voluntary T~nsferProgram) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elem 373 382 381 389 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 392 Middle 112 125 140 142 148 147 153 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 High 82 101 123 145 159 177 182 187 193 193 197 199 199 199 199 199 Total 567 608 644 676 699 716 727 734 740 740 744 746 746 746 746 746 LAPKOFF &GOBALET DEMOGRAPHIC 22361 Rolling Hills Road, Saratoga, CA 95070 7650D Canyon Meadows Circle, Pleasanton, CA 94588 (408) 725-8164 (510) 463-0863 RESEARCH, INC ¯FAX (408) 725-1479 ¯FAX (510) 463-0864 Elementary Five Year Forecasts by Attendance Area January 22, 1996 This report describes five year forecasts of the number of elementary students living in each attendance area, regardless of where students attend school. These forecasts are based on student address records for the 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96 school years. PAUSD resident elementary enrollments have increased by about 400 students since 1992. An additional 300 student increase is projected during the next five years. We expect growth in nearly all school attendance areas. The only exception is the Fairmeadows attendance area, which should have an enrollment drop when the large fourth and frith grade classes graduate to the middle schools. Attached are tables and charts that show enrollments by attendance area and enrollment forecastsfor the next five years. Although most of the schools show increases, Briones has the largest numerical increase and second highest growth rate. Addison has the highest growth rate. Fairmeadows is the only school forecasted to have enro!lment decline. Methodology Student addresses for each school year were geocoded and a computer map was produced..The number of students in each school attendance area was aggregated by grade. Historical trends could then be analyzed. Forecasts are based on the historical analysis. Assumptions used in these forecasts concerned grade progressions and the birth to kindergarten ratio. Grade Progressions Grade progression differences~ were measured for each set of grades and each attendance area. These grade progression differences are shown in the accompanying tables. Four of the schools (Hays, Palo Verde, Briones, E1 Carmelo) showed increases from 1992 to 1993 and from 1994 to 1995, yet decreases from 1993 to 1994. In other words, more students entered than left these schools in 1993 and 1995, but the reverse occurred in 1994. Three of the schools (Duveneck, Fairmeadow, and Nixon) showed positive grade progressions in all three pairs of years. Escondido experienced losses in each pair of years. The forecasts use the three-year historical average grade progession (1992-95) in each attendance area to survive cohorts forward each year into the future. Number of Elementary Students Gained or Lost Grades K to 4 Compared with Grades 1 to 5 !992>9:3 1993>94 1994>95 ~ Duveneck 15 9 10 11 Fairmeadow 6 11 8 8 Nixon 5 11 21 12 Addison 7 3 -3 2 Hays 15 -1 8 7 Palo Verde 28 -1 13 13 Briones 26 -7 34 18 El Carmelo 17 -12 9 5 Escondido -24 -6 -19 -16 ~ Grade progression differences compare the size of a cohort in one grade and the next. A grade progression difference of !0 between "kindergarten and first ~ade would mean that the number of students in a cohort increased by a net of 10 students between kindergarten and first grade. 2 Kindergarten Enrollment To estimate future kindergarten enrollments in each attendance area, we used births five years earlier.~ Birtl~data for the f=st 11 months of 1995 were adjusted and used to forecast year 2000 kindergarten enrollments. The ratios of kindergarten enrollment to births five years earlier fluctuated quite a bit. This is to be expected, because of the relatively small population of each attendance area. The forecast uses the average historical relationship between births and kindergarten enrollments during the last four years.3 The varied historical relationship between births and kindergarten enrollments requires that the kindergarten forecast for each attendance area be viewed with caution. Kindergarten Enrollment Divided by Births Addison 65%690/o 79%100%78% Bdones 97%110%88%121%104% Duveneck 99%120%133%131%121% El Carmelo 90%110%92%100%98% Escondido 126%152%160%164% Fairmeadow 123%121%131%142"/o 129% Hays 72%110%92%126%10t:P/o Nixon 215%177%170%180% Palo Verde 10ff’/o 140%116%102% 116% Database Issue and Comparison of District-Wide and School-Specific Forecasts We have used enrollment data from two sources in our reports. The first source, which we have used in past years, is aggegated data for the fall of each school year. The second enrollment data set, new for this analysis, is individual student address records for the 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96 school years. The sum of the student :For years before 1994, we have birth data only by Census tract. Since Census tracts do not exactly correspond to school at[endance areas, we estimated the percentage of tract births to allocate-to each attendance area. ~ A large percentage of ldndergarten students in Escondido and Nixon attendance areas live on the Stanford Universib’ campus, which has a Very different birth to kindergarten relationship. As a result, we kept Escondido and Nixon kindergarten enrollments constant for the forecast. 3 address records did not match the district-wide aggregate enrollments for1992 and 1993, but were very close for 1994 and 1995. The differences between the two data sets could result from collection at different times during the year. The difference is not large. There were 3,502 students in 1992 from the aggregate enrollment database compared to 3,460 students in the address database, a difference of only 42 students. Having fewer students in 1992 and 1993 makes it appear that the elementary school growth rate was greater during the last four years than suggested by the district-wide enrollment figures. The district-wide Medium forecast for the year 2000 shows 4,120 resident students compared to 4,197 students, the sum of school-specific forecasts. This is a difference of 77 students.’ (These enrollments are PAUSD residents only.) Forecasts of Elementary Residents: District-Wide and Sum of Schools Forecasts 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 1992 ..._S~_.rn of Schools Forecasts 1~3 1~4 1~5 1~6 1~7 1~8 1~9 2000 Year "Essentially the same assumptions were made for the two forecasts. The enrollment forecasts differ slightly primarily because our enrollment databases are different. We calculated the three-year historical grade pro~ession trends. Because we started with fewer children in the address database but ended with the same number of children in 1995, the ~ade pro~essions from the address database were greater than from the district-wide agg~gate database. This made the school forecasts higher than the district-wide forecasts. Resident Enrollments for Addison Attendance Area 310 250 ~I I i [l 19~2 1993 19~,1995 19~6 1997 19~1999 Year Resident Enrollments for Briones Attendance Area "~o ........................................................................... :;z ................................................... ~o ........................................................... --;; .................................................................. ,,~oo ....... --:2-., ÷-’- .................. 19~1993 1994 19~5 19~6 1997 19~1999 Year Resident Enrollments for Duveneck Attendance Area ,,o]................................................................................ ........................... 3~0 1~i ...................~-;";’~;"~" " ........................... 31 0 250 1982 1993 1994 1995 19~6 1997 19~ Yea~ Resident Enrollments for El Carmelo Attendance Area 400 380 ~60 Resident Enrollments for Escondido Attendance Area 1994 19~5 1996 1997 19~1999 500 Yea~ 550 530 510 41~ 19~2 Resident Enrollments tor Fairmeadow Attendance Area ........................................................ .’....’...~....*....’. .......... ~~’"I I !~’,’, 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 19~3 2000 Resident Enrollments for Hays Attendance Area 19~19~G 1994 1995 1996 1997 19~8 1999 2000 Resident Enrollments for Nixon Attendance Area Resident Enrollments for Pa|o Verde Attendance Area ;"’i ’!,I i .........i ’I 1993 19~19~19~6 1997 19~1999 20(0 :0 LAPKOFF & GOBALET DEMOGRAPHIC 22361 Rolling Hills Road, Saratoga, CA 95070 ¯(408) 725-8164 7650D Canyon Meadows Circle, Pleasanton, CA 94588 ¯(510) 463.0863 RESEARCH, INC ,,FAX (408) 725-1479 F,~X (510) 463-0864 One-Year Forecast of PAUSD School Enrollments January 22, 1996 This report provides forecasts of actual enrollments in each PAUSD school. We have forecasted where students will attend school, regardless of where they reside. The elementary enrollment forecast has many components and is discussed first. Discussions of midd.le and high schools forecasts follow. Elementary Enrollments We adjusted our forecast of students by attendance area (see separate report, Elementary Five Year Forecasrs by Artendance Area) to forecast the number of elementary students who will attend each school. We adjusted our forecast to account for: students attending Hoover and 0hlone magnet schools, Voluntary Transfer Progam (VTP) students, Interdistrict transfer students, Intradistrict transfer students (PAUSD students not attending their neighborhood school or a magnet school). Detailed forecasts for each school, by grade, are shown in the accompanying tables (1996 Forecast of Enrollments by School Attending). The table below summarizes the enrollment forecasts for each school. Two figures are shown: enrollments without intradistrict ~ransfers and enrollments with historica! levels of intradistrict transfers. 1996 Forecast of Enrollments by School Attending Enrollments Without Enrollments With Intradistrict Transfers Intradi~;trict Transfers Addison 384 366 Bdones 572 446 Duveneck 392 429 El Carmelo 413 401 Escondido 306 349 Fairmeadow 384 428 Hays 403 377 Nixon 341 429 Palo Verde 434 404 Hoover 358 358 Ohlone 388 388 Total 4376 4376 Students Attending Hoover and Ohlone Attached tables (Home Attendance Areas of Students in Magnet-Schools) show the number of students at-tending Hoover and Ob_lor~e between 1992-1995 from each attendance area, by g-fade. The table on page three summarizes this information. Briones attendance area is home to the largest number of Hoover students, while Palo Verde attendance area has the most students going to Ohlone. The stability of student enrollment in magnet schools is remarkable. It appears that nearly a!1 magnet students in vades two and above remain in their schools. Our forecast for Ohlone assumes that al! students now in a magnet school will continue and that 1996 magnet kindergarten ertrollment equals 1995 figures. For Hoover, the assumptions are the same, except that VTP students attending the special language kindergarten pro~am do not continue at Hoover. "Home Attendance Areas of Students Attending Hoover Briones 146 144 146 144 142 Fairmeadow 33 38 42 43 45 PaSo Verde 44 48 45 44 44 Ravenswood (V-IP)17 21 23 29 32 Nixon 31 30 32 32 31 E! Carmelo 25 33 30 29 29 Hays 13 14 13 10 12 Escondido 10 8 7 8 9 Duveneck 7 7 5 6 8 Addison 6 4 6 5 6 Out-of-District 2 1 1 1 0 Total 334 348 350 351 358 Home Attendance Areas of Students Attending Ohlone Palo Verde 80 97 100 104 116 Fairrneadow 77 74 80 80 71 Br~ones 43 45 47 41 46 El Carrnelo 38 42 40 37 33 Ravenswood (VTP)26 26 18 24 28 Hays 33 34 35 28 25 Escondido 13 15 13 15 22 Duveneck 28 26 27 27 21 Out-of-District 10 12 12 12 13 Addison 10 8 11 11 9 Nixon 12 10 8 6 5 Total 370 389 391 385 389 Voluntary Transfer Program (VTP) Students Attached tables (Voluntary Transfer Program Students) show the numbers of students from Ravenswood School District who have attended PAUSD for the last four years. These students are spread relatively evenly across PAUSD schools. Escondido and Hays have slightly more VTP students than other schools. We assumed that 92 percent of VTP students would continue the following year and thai all students would remain in the schools they currently attend. Kindergarten enrollment in 1996 was set equal to 60 students and is divided evenly between the schools. If students leave between kindergarten and first grades or between first and second grades, they are replaced. Voluntary Transfer Program Students School Attending Escondido 43 40 39 40 37 Hays 25 31 35 34 36 Duveneck 24 26 34 31 32 Hoover 17 21 23 29 32 Nixon 27 26 29 27 29 El Carmelo 19 24 24 28 28 Ohlone 26 26 18 24 27 Addison 21 21 20 22 26 Briones 11 14 20 22 25 Palo Verde 18 21 23 24 24 Fairmeadow 19 16 13 17 21 Total 250 266 278 298 317 Interdistrict Transfer Students Approximately 100 students hving outside the District (and outside Ravenswood School District) attend PAUSD elementary schools (see attached table, Out of Disrricr Students). Many of these are special day class students. Our database did not identify special day class students, so we could not analyze them separately. Almost all of the interdistrict students attend Briones, Fairmeadow, Nixon, or Ohlone. The forecast assumes that al! students will continue in their PAUSD school and 1996 kindergarten enrollment will equal the 1995 kindergarten figures. 4 Out-of-District Enrollments (Excluding VTP) School Attending Fairmeadow 33 32 21,22 29 Briones 32 28 24 18 20 Nixon 24 22 18 17 16 Ohlone 10 12 12 12 13 Escondido 15 10 8 7 7 El Carmelo 8 7 2 3 4 Palo Verde 2 "0 1 2 3 Duveneck 6 5 3 3 3 Addison 10 7 6 4 3 Hays 2 5 1 1 ¯1 Hoover 2 1 1 1 0 Total 144 129 97 90 99 Intradistrict Transfer Students Intradistrict transfer students are students who live in PAUSD but do not attend their neighborhood school or a magnet school Attached tables (Net Inrradisrricr Transfers) show that a large number of Briones students attend an outside school. Some students in Palo Verde, Hays, and Addison also attend an outside school. "Receiving" schools are Nixon, Escondido, Duveneck,. and Fairmeadow. The number of intradistrict transfer students has varied substantially, probably because overflows vary from year to year. It is difficult for us to predict the number of intradistrict transfers, which is affected by administrative decisions. Our forecasts show both the current level of intradistrict transfers and enrollments vdth no intradistrict transfers. The forecast assumes that al! intradistrict students wil! continue in the school they currently attend and that 1996 kindergarten enrollment will equal 1995 enrollment. Net lntradistrict Transfers Nixon 60 57 86 75 88 Fairmeadow -6 -15 -~r6 ,2 44 Escondido 40 57 39 44 43 Duveneck 14 11 6 25 37 El Carmelo 24 25 16 19 -12 Addison 10 0 -12 -10 -18 Hays -20 -8 15 -12 -26 Palo Verde -35 -23 -29 -23 -30 B~ones -87 -104 -105 -116 -126 Total 0 0 0 0 0 Middle and High School Forecasts Enrollments are divided almost evenly between the. two middle schools and between the two high schools. The attached table shows the percentage of enrollment in each school by type of enrollment (non-Stanford PAUSD residents, Stanford residents, VTP students, and other interdistrict transfer students) for Fall 1995. Some of the component enrollments vary by school, but the students at each grade level are evenly divided between schools. We suggest a simple forecast for the middle and high schools, since enrollments are divided so evenly between the schools. The percentage of enrollment in each school in !995 is multiplied by the district-wide forecast for 1996. The result is an estimate of each school’s 1996 enrollment. ]996 School Enrollment = 1995 Percent in Each School x 1996 District-wide forecast. Simple Enrollment Forecast for the Middle and High Schools Percentage of Enrollment District-wide .Enrollment Forecast School in Fall 1,995 Forecast for 1996 for 1996 Jordan Middle 48%970 Stanford Middle 52%1,030 Total 100%2,000 2,000 Gunn High Palo Alto High Total 51% 49% 10O%2,668 1,349 1,319 2,668 Addison K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 1996 Forecast of Enrollments by School Attending 1996 Hoover Ohlone Net Intra Out-of-Net Excluding Residents V’i’__.p.P Students Students "l’r~nsfers ~Resul~l_ntradistricts 6O 5 75 6 65 ""3 61 5 48 2 61 5 370 26 1 1 3 0 1 0 6 1 ..4 0 59 63 1 -4 0 75 79 0 -12 0 53 65 3 -8 0 55 63 2 3 2 52 49 2 7 1 72 65 9 -18 3 366 384 Briones K 124 5 27 1 132 5 27 2 119 6 22 3 112 3 19 4 125 3 26 5 103 3 21 Total 715 25 142 10 -27 5 70 97 10 -27 5 78 105 7 -27 3 72 99 8 -18 0 70 88 6 -15 2 83 98 5 -12 5 73 85 46 -126 20 446 572 Duveneck K I 2 3 4 5 Total 59 5 2 3 12 1 72 60 66 6 2 3 12 1 80 68 67 6 1 4 11 1 80 69 61 6 0 4 -1 0 62 63 60 3 1 3 2 0 61 59 72 6 2 4 1 0 73 72 386 32 8 21 37 3 429 392 El Carmelo K 66 5 5 3 -14 1 50 64 1 77 3 5 3 -14 1 59 73 2 72 7 4 9 16 0 82 66 3 82 6 4 6 -12 0 66 78 4 70 4 6 7 -1 1 61 62 5 76 3 5 5 13 1 83 70 Total 443 28 29 33 -12 4 401 413 Escondido K 62 5 2 7 8 2 68 60 1 52 8 2 7 8 2 61 53 2 40 6 0 2 7 0 51 44 3 41 6 1 0 10 0 56 46 4 46 4 3 2 2 2 49 47 5 51 8 1 4 8 !63 55 Total 293 37 9 22 43 7 349 306 Fairmeadow K 1 2 3 4 5 62 73 67 80 81 86 5 9 4 1 1 1 8 8 8 9 7 5 £30 9 89 59 £30 9 104 74 11 0 1 53 53 13 0 1 60 60 10 -6 4 63 69 19 -10 5 58 68 Total 1996 Forecast of Enrollments by School Attending 1996 Hoover Ohione Net intra Out-of-Net Residents VT.._...p.P Students Students Transfers ~~ 450 21 45 71 44 29 428 Excluding Intradistricts 384 Hays K 77 5 3 4 -20 0 55 75 1 75 7 3 4 -20 0 55 75 2 57 4 1 6 7 0 61 54 3 72 5 0 4 11 1 85 74 4 56 9 1 4 1 0 61 60 5 66 6 4 3 -5 0 60 65 Total 403 36 12 25 -26 1 377 403 Nixon K 53 5 -4 0 17 2 73 56 1 57 4 4 0 17 2 76 59 2 46 4 6 1 18 3 64 46 3 60 6 6 1 20 4 83 63 4 51 6 4 2 11 4 66 55 5 66 4 7 1 5 1 68 63 Total 332 29 31 5 88 16 429 341 Palo Verde K 86 5 7 24 -2 1 59 61 1 81 3 7 24 -2 1 52 54 2 102 4 8 20 -20 0 58 78 3 116 3.10 16 -2 1 92 94 4 94 5 3 17 3 0 82 79 5 88 4 9 15 -7 0 61 68 Total 567 24 44 116 -30 3 404 434 Hoover K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Ohlone K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Net PAUSD VTP OOD Result 59 10 0 69 59 5 0 64 53 4 0 57 49 7 0 56 52 4 0 56 54 2 0 56 326 32 0 358 Net PAUSD VTP OOD Result 61 5 2 68 61 6 2 69 60 6 2 68 55 4 1 60 53 2 3 58 58 4 3 65 348 27 13 388 1996 Forecast of Enrollments by School Attending 1996 Hoover Ohlone Net Intra Out-of- Net Excluding Residents VT_._..p.P Students Students Transfers ~ ~ |ntradistdcts District Total K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 649 60 0 23 732 687 62 0 23 772 636 54 0 10 700 687 52 0 8 747 632 43 0 18 693 669 46 0 17 732 3960 317 0 99 4376 Home Attendance Areas of Students in Magnet Programs Hoover Ohlone Addison K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Briones K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Duveneck K 1 2 3 4 5 Total El Carmelo K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Escondido K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Fairmeadow K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1 1 0 1 0 3 6 0 4 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 4 6 5 6 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 28 25 20 25 29 23 21 28 21 20 23 29 28 2O 23 146 144 146 27 27 27 20 22 27 26 19 22 26 19 21 26 29 21 144 142 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 2 0 1 2 2 3 2 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 7 7 5 6 8 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 3 5 6 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 6 6 6 4 4 4 6 5 6 4 7 4 5 5 6 1 7 4 5 52533302929 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 3 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 10 8 7 8 9 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 6 9 7 8 8 3 6 9 8 8 6 5 7 9 8 7 6 5 7 9 4 7 6 5 7 7 5 8 6 5 33 38 42 43 45 Addison 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 2 3 0 1 1 1 2 2 4 0 1 2 3 0 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 2 3 4 0 0 4 2 2 5 3 0 0 3 2 Total 10 8 11 11 9 Bdones K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Duveneck K 1 2 3 4 5 Total El Carmelo K 1 .2 3 4 5 Total Escondido K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Fairmeadow K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 6 8 10 10 10 7 7 7 7 10 4 6 6 8 7 12 5 6 6 8 6 13 5 5 6 8 6 13 5 5 43 45 47 41 46 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 9 3 4 4 4 5 9 3 3 4 2 4 8 4 3 4 2 4 9 4 28 26 27 27 21 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 6 5 8 3 3 4 6 6 9 3 8 5 6 6 9 4 8 5 7 6 10 7 8 5 7 6 11 7 7 5 38 42 40 37 33 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 4 2 2 7 7 3 3 1 2 7 1 4 3 0 2 3 0 4 2 0 1 4 0 4 2 1 2 3 0 4 13 15 13 15 22 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 11 12 9 9 9 15 12 13 11 9 17 15 11 13 11 10 16 18 10 13 7 12 18 19 10 17 7 11 18 19 77 74 80 80 71 Home Attendance Areas of Students in Magnet Programs Hoover Ohlone Hays 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996~!Hays K 0 2 2 3 ~i~:’;~-.-3 ~i~K 3 5 1 4 1 0 1 3 ~’::"<:~ii 1 7 32o 1 4 1 0 l iii 2 6 7 3 5 1 4 1 0 3 8 7 4 1 5 1 4 1 4 3 8 5 2 .1 5 1 4 5 6 4Total1314131012Total3334 Nixon 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 NixonKZ5344K 1153661224546622394746314584744356585753Total3130323231Total12 PaloVerde 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 PaloVerdeK5101077K1851087128731082358931034135893455135795Total4448454444Total 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 7 4 4 4 6 4 5 4 6 4 4 4 7 3 4 8 7 3 35 28 25 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 10 8 6 5 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 21 16 21 24 24 12 19 15 20 24 10 12 19 16 20 13 11 14 17 16 17 20 12 15 17 7 19 19 12 15 80 97100 104 116 District Residents 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 1 2 3 4 5 50 58 60 59 59 49 50 50 53 59 55 55 52 49 53 54 54 54 52 -49i 52 55 54 54 55 54 56 54 54 315 326 326 321 326 District Residents 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 58 1 56 2 60 3 56 59 4 49 70 5 55 54 334 351 56 62 61 61 58 55 60 61 54 59 55 60 55 53 55 63 58 53 67 62 58 361 349 348 Ravenswood K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Ravenswood 4 10 8 11 10 K 4 5 7 4 5 1124742 3 1 2 4 7 3411244 1 2 1 1 2 5 17 21 23 29 32 Total ’1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 4 5 6 6 6 9 4 3 6 6 2 6 2 4 6 3 2 3 2 4 7 2 2 4 2 1 7 2 2 4 26 26 18 24 28 Out-of-District K ! 2 3 4 5 Total 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Out-of-District 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 1 0 o 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 3 2 2 2 2 5 5 2 2 2 1 4 4 1 2 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 3 3 0 1 1 1 3 10 12 12 12 13 Home Attendance Areas of Students in Magnet Programs Hoover Ohlone Grand Total K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Grand Total 55 68 68 70 69 K 65 63 70 53 55 57 57 64 1 70 67 60 57 57 56 56 57 2 63 64 65 57 56 56 56 56 3 59 61 61 56 56 56 56 56 4 57 72 65 56 56 57 56 56i 5 56 62 70 334 348 350 351 358 Total 370 389 391 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 69 69 68 69 60 68 58 6O 65 58 65 65 385 389 Voluntary Transfer Program Students Addison 1992 1993 1994 1995 K 0 3 2 5 1 7 0 5 3 2 2 6 0 5 3 5 2 6 2 4 4 5 2 5 5 3 5 5 2 Total 21 21 20 22 1996 5 6 3 5 2 5 26 Bdones 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 2 1 4 4 5 1 3 2 4 6 5 2 3 6 3 3 6 3 1 3 5 3 3 4 1 1 3 3 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 T~al 11 14 20 22 25 Duveneck 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 5 5 7 5 5 1 7 4 7 7 6 2 4 7 4 6 6 3 7 4 7 3 6 4 0 6 4 7 3 5 1 0 5 3 6 Total 24 26 34 31 32 El Carrnelo 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 3 5 5 2 5 1 4 5 4 8 3 2 4 2 5 6 7 3 4 4 2 4 6 4 3 5 5 3 4 5 1 3 3 5 3 Total 19 24 24 28 28 Escondido.1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 4 7 7 7 5 1 10 5 8 6 8 2 11 9 4 7 6 3 3 8 9 4 6 4 9 3 6 9 4 5 6 8 5 7 8 Total 43 ,40 39 40 37 Fairmeadow 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 3 2 4 8 5 1 4 3 1 4 9 2 2 2 2 1 4 3 4 2 2 1 1 4 2 4 2 1 1 5 4 3 2 2 Total 19 16 13 17 21 Voluntary Transfer Program Students H ays 1992 1993 1994 1995 K 6 4 4 6 1 4 8 5 4 2 3 7 9 5 3 7 4 7 10 4 2 ""6 5 6 5 3 2 5 3 Total 25 31 35 34 1996 5 7 4 5 9 6 36 Nixon 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 7 5 4 3 5 1 5 7 6 4 4 2 3 4 7 6 4 3 5 3 4 7 6 4 4 4 3 4 6 5 3 3 5 3 4 T~al 27 26 29 27 29 Palo Verde 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 4 2 5 2 5 1 5 6 3 4 3 2 6 5 5 3 4 3 1 6 4 5 3 4 1 1 6 4 5 5 1 1 0 6 4 Total 18 21 23 24 24 Hoover 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 4 10 8 11 10 1 4 5 7 4 5 2 1 2 4 7 4 3 3 1 2 4 7 4 4 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 1 1 2 Total 17 21 23 29 32 Ohlone 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 4 5 6 6 5 1 9 4 3 6 6 2 2 6 2 4 6 3 3 2 3 2 4 4 7 2 2 4 2 5 1 7 2 2 4 Total 26 26 18 24 27 District Total 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 42 49 56 59 6O 1 62 49 53 56 62 2 41 56 45 53 54 3 43 39 51 45 52 4 37 38 39 48 43 5 25 35 34 37 46 Total 250 266 278 298 317 Net intradistrict Transfers Briones 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K -21 -25 -30 -27 -27 1 -12 -10 -15 -27 -27 2 -15 -20 -14 -18 -27 3 -8 -14 -14 -15 -18 4 -16 -15 -19 -12 -15 5 -15 -20 -13 -17 -12 Total -87 -104 -105 -116 -126 Duveneck 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 3 -3 8 12 12 1 0 4 -7 11 12 2 1 0 2 -1 11 3 5 1 0 2 -1 4 1 3 0 1 2 5 4 6 3 0 1 Total 14 11 6 25 37 El Carmelo 1992 1993 1994 1995 !996 K 18 -1 5 -14 -14 1 6 -6 -12 16 -14 2 9 13 -4 -12 16 3 -2 10 11 -1 -12 4 7 3 14 13 -1 5 -14 6.2 17 13 Total 24 25 16 19 -12 Escondido 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 7 16 4 8 8 1 10 6 7 7 8 2 7 10 3 10 7 3 14 10 8 2 10 4 3 9 7 8 2 5 -1 6 10 9 8 Total 40 57 39 44 43 Addison 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 2 -14 -8 -4 -4 1 1 3 -8 -12 -4 2 5 3 4 -8 -12 3 o6 4 0 3 ,.8 4 10 -4 3 7 3 5 -2 8 -3 4 7 Total 10 0 -12 -10 - 18 Net Intradistrict Transfers Fairmeadow 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K -7 -4 6 30 30 1 -5 -8 4 0 30 2 -6 -7 -8 0 0 3 2 -5 -8 -6 0 4 5 0 -10 -10 -6 5 5 9 0 -16 -10 Total -6 -15 -16 -2 44 Hays 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K -5 15 3 -20 -20 1 -4 -6 13 7 -20 2 -11 -2 0 11 7 3 6 -9 -3 1 11 4 -10 7 -4 -5 1 5 4 -13 6 -6 -5 Total -20 -8 15 -12 -26 Nixon 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 15 13 28 17 17 1 15 13 21 18 17 2 7 15 11 20 18 3 0 4 15 11 20 4 7 3 9 5 11 5 16 9 2 4 5 Total 60 57 86 75 88 Palo Verde 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K -12 3 -16 -2 o2 1 -11 4 -3 -20 -2 2 3 -12 6 -2 -20 3 -1"~-1 -9 3 -2 4 -7 -6 0 -7 3 5 3 -11 -7 5 o7 Total -35 -23 -29 -23 -30 District Total 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 Out-of-District Enrollments Addison 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 0 3 2 3 2 2 0 4 0 1 1 1 2 5 2 0 1 1 1 Total 10 7 6 4 3 Bdones 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 11 12 10 5 5 1 5 3 1 3 5 2 4 2 2 0 3 3 2 5 3 2 0 4 3 2 5 5 2 5 7 4 3 3 5 Total 32 28 24 18 20 Duveneck 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 0 0 5 1 1 0 1 0 Total 6 5 3 3 3 El Carmelo 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 0 1 0 1 1 1 4 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 4 2 0 0 1 1 5 0 2 0 0 1 Total 8 7 2 3 4 Escondido 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 5 2 1 2 2 1 5 3 1 0 2 2 3 1 2 0 0 3 0 3 1 2 4 1 0 3 1 2 5 1 1 0 2 1 Total 15 10 8 7 7 Fairmeadow 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 8 4 5 9 9 1 4 7 1 1 9 2 1 5 4 1 1 3 8 2 4 4 1 4 5 8 3 5 4 5 7 6 4 2 5 Total 33 32 21 22 29 Out=of-District Enrollments Hays 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 Total 2 5 1 1 .1 " Nixon 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 3 4 2 2 2 1 4 4 4 3 2 2 6 3 4 4 3 3 2 6 3 4 ,4 4 2 2 3 1 4 5 7 3 2 3 1 Total 24 22 18 17 16 Palo Verde 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 Total 2 0 1 2 3 Hoover 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 Total 2 1 1 1 0 Ohlone 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 3 2 2 2 2 1 5 5 2 2 2 2 1 4 4 1 2 3 0 0 3 3 1 4 1 0 0 3 3 5 0 1 1 1 3 Total 10 12 12 12 13 District Total 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 K 35 26 21 23 23 1 30 27 11 10 23 2 22 19 20 8 10 3 15 25 17 18 8 4 15 14 17 17 18 5 27 18 11 14 17 Total 144 129 97 90 99 Nixon 31 Ravens-wood 39 Hays12 oo o o Hoover Students, Fall 1995 by Attendance Area of Residence + Ravenswood o o LopkoH &" Gobelet Demogropnic Reseorch, Inc., 1~96 ~, ~Addison~ 9 Ravenswood 28 :i o oo o, DuVenec~ %: " o..... ,~ " :,Hays o ~Falrmeadow ~ " .)o Ohlone Students, Fall 1995 by Attendance Area of Residence + Ravenswood LQpkoff & Gobolet Demographic ReseQrch, Inc., 1/96