Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 8, 2014 2:30pm-3:01pm PST

2:30 pm
increasing from the low point in 2008 and most of the enrollment changes from since 2008 canen explained by changes in birth numbers, the birth numbers have been an excellent predicter of subsequent enrollments and so specifically kindergarten enrollments have equaled to half of the number of births to san francisco, residents and, five years earlier. and falling birth numbers resulted in enrollment declines and beginning in the 2000s and to the middle of the decade and there was a slight decline and then starting in the elementary enrollment declined first followed by a decline in the middle and finally in high school enrollment but in 2005, the numbers of birth in san francisco rose causing an increase in elementary and recently a growth in middle school and high school enrollments are expected to
2:31 pm
begin rising. they measured the yields in the completed project and they are listed here on the slide and so treasure island, and mission bay and the hill and soma and large condo buildings. and it turns out that yields very widely, and depending on the type of housing, and what they did, and the next slide when which i will bring up now shows for one particular area what they did. and so for each of the housing in the area. and they looked at the type of units that were in it and the number of units that were in it and the numbers that were affordable and then they took an average of sfusd and students enrolled, over a period of 7 years. and they used that to create a yield for a type of housing and
2:32 pm
so the next slide, actually shows what that is. these are the come parable yields that were used in the forecast, and that, are in our most recent forecast and now, that throughout the document and hopefully you have received the full report as well. they cautioned constantly that if the market rate units generate more students than the forecasts are too low. and they suggested that it is really important to monitor new developments to see if the assumptions are correct and so as the housing becomes completed to continue to do that kind of analysis to see what the student yields might be. the next slide shows, new housing and enrollment forecast and so with the data that they had at the time from the planning department, and from the other departments that they worked with to get data, these were some of what they forecast. and that, with the more than 77,000 new housing units would yield more than 8,000 k, 12, public school students, and
2:33 pm
once completed and that the students would enter gradually to the 30 year period and they looked out as far as 2040 and they said that it was important to monitor the progress and so the forecast could be adjusted. and that the hope sf, the hunter's view and the data would be very important to analyze from that. because it will help us to calibrate our student yields and the future mixed inside housing. and the bottom line is, that the enrollment forecast, and they did anticipate and they suggested that while the numbers may vary and i will move to the next slide, the trend they imagined being the same and in other words, that the cohorts that housing and increased birth rates will result in over a period of time, an increase in enrollment for sfusd and again, just to kind of reiterate what was kind of forshadowed in the earlier discussion and presentation, that the forecasts are highly
2:34 pm
sensitive to the student yields and that is something that we need to monitor and the timing and when they develop these enrollment projections the timing about housing development was uncertain and so moving forward and working with the planning department and others, it will be very helpful to have the most current data to refresh the enrollment forecast and this visual on the next slide just kind of shows, where some of the major housing developments and are located and how that will have an impact on the over all picture. and it is directly connected to something that has been a long standing observation, for the san francisco unified school district, and that is that there is a mismatch between our, where our students live and where our schools are located in 2009, they did an extensive analysis that illustrated and just mismatched and then, each year, and the annual report, we update this particular map, that shows based on the number of
2:35 pm
applicants, in each attendance area, how that compared to the number of seats that are available in our existing elementary schools. and the patterns that you see here are very consistent with the patterns that were revealed in the analysis done in 2009. and that is to say that there is high concentrations of students living in the south east and part of our city. and that there is less elementary space in those schools than there are children who are living near it and so the red dot indicates that there is, and there are a greater number of residents living in that area, than there are kindergarten seats available. and the larger the red, the greater the mismatch between those two. and the yellow circles indicate that there are more seats in that attendance area, than there are children who applied to go to kindergarten, not necessarily to that school. they could have applied anywhere in the city and it is saying take the universe of
2:36 pm
children who applied to kindergarten and see where they live not the choices but where they live and compare it to the number of seats that we have in the district and so this finding is consistent each year that there is a mismatch between where our students live and where our schools are located. so, some of the key questions we are exploring and beginning to explore in more depth are do the enrollment forecasts indicate a need to build new schools? and if they do, when and where? what would the time frame be? when do we expect these increases to materialize in our schools. how might we address the mismatch between where our students live and where the schools are located? and indeed, where the additional growth is anticipated and how that is going to exaserbate the mismatch and what changes might need, and might be needed to support the relationship between the built environment and the teaching and learning for the 21st century and there is a lot of discussion around
2:37 pm
that happening and particularly with regard to the high schools and our vision, 2025 and the graduate student profile and those questions are explored by various teams in the district. in terms of next steps, we are really excited about the collaboration with the city and while we have used the data in the past to develop the enrollment projections and we appreciated that and we look forward to a deeper engagement between the sfusd and city agencies as we work to reresearch our enrollment forecast. we are also hoping to reengage our demographer to base them on the latest housing and enrollment data, and a couple of things that the committee might be interested in knowing, is that we are partnering with uc berkeley, and they have a plus fellowship, program that stands for planning and learning united for systems change and there are three different areas that we are going to be exploring with us this year, through the plus
2:38 pm
fellowship, one is the impact of transand local housing development and change and specifically the plus will look at, and we will look to see how other districts and cities, across the nation are addressing this issue and approaching some of the key questions that we are exploring and there is also, some fellow that is going to be working on the student transportation planning for equity, health and sustainability and this is all modes of transportation and there are a couple of fellows that will be working with the hope sf, community and redevelopment and education and they are going to be working with the city and also with sfusd on that. and so this is just hopefully and it provides the information and the committee was interested in reviewing and i am happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you. miss okeef, this is actually super interesting. and when i looked through some of the data a couple of weeks ago, that you sent to our office, i was fascinated by the fact that there is a very
2:39 pm
predictable correlation between the number of births and then sfusd attendance and it is almost hard to believe that it has been 50 percent of all births on any given year, than later attend kindergarten, and it is great to see that that has grown to 53 percent and clearly the remaining 50 percent that remains some of them have moved out of the city and some of them have chose to go to private school and there is a steady prediction and i had a couple of questions and maybe they are not so much questions, but, questions to be answered today, but questions to be answered through these meetings between sfusd and planning and by the way i am very happy that both commissioner mendoza-mcdonnell and fewer are pushing this forward because this is the type of plan thating we want to happen today so that there is not a day that we have hit the
2:40 pm
capacity on kindergarten enrollment and we are looking around on where to place all of these kindergarteners that do want to go to public school here in san francisco. a couple of things that i have noticed, one is that, you know, largely where the growth is occurring today, is where we have very few schools. and in fact i was stunned that out of 120 schools and sfusd in district six, i only have three schools in my district and one is a charter high school, on treasure island. and i imagine that this will continue to be something for us to look at. is that where the growth is occurring is of course, where we don't have a lot of existing schools and so there is not necessarily an opportunity to expand those sites, but i am curious at some point maybe, if we can also look at where our surplus property is, both the city and the school district to see if there potential sites, to see if they are going to expand, or build the new schools and of course, our office continues to be very interested in the construction
2:41 pm
of mission bay, elementary school and something that we talked about since i was on the board of education. and i can't tell you the number of strollers that i see, in mission bay, every day, and it is actually astonishing. and i was also, really interested in the yields that they looked at and it is interesting, that there is a yield on the different types of housing and it makes sense and there is an assumption, that you are more likely to go to public school, if you live in public housing and or even in a stand alone, affordable housing building, and verses market rate. and i just want to understood this correctly, the yield is one student is yielded per 100 market rate units this is on page seven. >> yes, that is based on the history, and the average of 7 years.
2:42 pm
so up to 2012. and so what they did was they looked at all of the housing the number of units and the... and they had all of our enrollment data and so they were able to see how many were actually living in those and at those addresses, and to use that as an average and they also say that throughout the report and that it is important to keep monitoring that because, that is up to 2012, and on average, what it was, and so they kind of used that to, for the enrollment forecast, but as that changes, so would the yield formula. >> okay. i am really glad that we are of course, not just looking at the historic trends that will hopefully be doing some survey work among the families wiel they are here before they make decisions on whether to move out or to go private or public and this is a good category, of family to survey to understand their decision-making process.
2:43 pm
we want to of course, increase the yields in our market rate, units and if anything, and we want more of them to choose to stay in san francisco and to go to sfusd but it is interesting looking at the historical trend, but we don't want to set up a situation, where we assume that market rate families are leaving or going to private school or therefore, not preparing slots for them, because then we are creating the chicken or the egg scenario where we make the assumption and the family choose not to go public because there are not slots and because there is not one in their neighborhood. the one other thing that i just wanted to point out, is that some of the buildings that you listed on page 6, including park terrace and mission creek senior and you said that there are no affordable units assume that you mean no affordable units with kids, because they are senior, and they are 100 percent affordable senior housing, i didn't want to make it seem like we were not
2:44 pm
building any house ng those buildings and just to clarify. >> commissioner mendoza. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i want to thank both gill and (inaudible) for the presentation and these are obviously, pieces that we have seen, now, twice. and i think that each time, it reminds us that we really need to bring all of this together. and so, i wanted to just thank you both for that and i also want to acknowledge, lenard tom who is in the audience who is our director over bonds and has managed our fiscal districts. and growth, and improvements in moderization through the bond initiative and thank him for being here, because i think that part of the knowledge that we are going to be gaining from these conversations will include even perhaps the bond
2:45 pm
initiative being thought through differently. and so, when we started this conversation it was about a variety of different things, and i really want to also acknowledge my colleague president fewer for you know, having this conversation with us and so for me it was about the growth of our city. and how we are starting to be a partner or a larger part of the fabric of the city, the school district at least, in terms of the impact that it has on our families who attend our schools and really getting a better understanding because more and more, people are showing up at our board meeting saying, you know, you need to deal with this and you need to deal with that. clearly some of the issues that are outside of our area, of expertise, and jurisdiction, but would help us to do our planning, if we knew more about what was happening around the growth of our city. and the other thing that i think this conversation will
2:46 pm
highlight, will be how we look at student assignment going forward. and i think that as we are making some decisions around tweaking it, and where we are in the growth of our, and of the different areas of the city and we are families will be coming from, and it will help us be more pro-active around any tweaks that we do to the student assign sxment this is also going to have us think differently about how we expand our schools, and i think that both president fewer and i have had conversations around did we make willie brown, tall enough? did we give 1950, should we have waited on that and built marshal there and did the affordable housing at the marshal site and so all of these things that we don't feel like we have enough information to speak intelligently about it, or, feel like we can give an opinion about it because we just, we are not aware of all of the different units that
2:47 pm
were being built around these various sites. and you know, marshal in particular, is really a hot topic item on our agenda right now, because we are going to be presented with some options of how to support the school, with the 351 units being built right next door to it. and this is kind of forced us to think about what can or what are the benefits that marshal should glean from this growth? and some what of an inconvenience during the time that it is being built, but at the same time, is marshal the only school that should benefit from this particular site being built? and so those are really difficult questions that we are going to have to graple with as we learn more and more about what the development is going to look like. and then, supervisor, kim, to your point, you know the use of
2:48 pm
surplus properties and i think that we have kind of put a hold on doing anything else until we know more about the out come of this working group and then mission bay was one of the schools that i, you know, side by side with you on trying to get this built, and i think that now that we have more of the information from our topographers and the information from the departments we will get a better sense of what is possible, we have met the threshold on permitting on the number of units so that ucsf could transfer the property to san francisco unified and the question becomes how do we pay for a school and what will that school look like? and so i think that having all of this information coming at us is that we can do some better planning around whether or not the mission bay should be a high school, or should it be a prek-5? and you know, this, dream of having it have a science lab,
2:49 pm
upstairs, where all of our teachers can centrally come, and get trained. is still, you know, it is just that is a dream that i think that we would all like to explore depending on the growth of our city. and you know, mission bay, i think, leaps and bounds and some of the plans that they have to improve the landscape and you know with the warriors coming and with just a variety of different things that will be impacting the community. how we accommodate all of our family and our students will be a really big conversation to have. so i just want to and i am just grateful that everyone has come to the table that we are really going to hammer through this and then hopefully, three of these quarterly meetings have some action plans, and some tasks. and that will help us to have these deeper conversations for planning. >> commissioner fewer? >> thank you. supervisor kim. yes, i think that these two
2:50 pm
presentations even with the projection of numbers being different, so our projection of numbers, from sfusd from 2040 is 77,000, and mr. kelley just gave us a presentation of projected housing units at about 97,000 or 92,000 and so we are seeing even a 20,000 different in our projections, and so i think that this is really, shows sort of like we need to get on the same page and so there are some other things that i think that we need to be aware of that we are speaking about the increased residency of san francisco. one is that the infrastructure for systems to support the current assignment system and how will the new, residents of san francisco or the patterns actually where you see, we have an increase of population, in areas where we really don't have a lot of schools. and what does our student
2:51 pm
assignment process, or just the process needs to look like in order to i guess, add to the increased mobility of sff san franciscans and also about the residents who live here and so that is one consideration that we are always looking at is a student assignment and how it effects the larger population of san francisco. and also, the families that are here, and another thing is about our school facilities bonds and if we see that we will need to build new schools, we will need to plan for that far in advance. and we kind of cue up, in order to put a bond on, and we have great needs because we have many, many old buildings, but, in order for us to build a school, it is very expensive, and the new willie brown middle school cost about 54 million and it takes five years to actually put a bond on, and plan for it and design it and have it built and ready for open and by the way, the new school is opening in august of 2015. and another thing to consider
2:52 pm
is 135 van ness, we are looking at educational arts complex there and we do have extra space. so the conversation has been, what do we do with that extra space? the mid market area where there is a lot of growth and as you can, and supervisor kim knows, that we don't have a middle school there at all. we have one small elementary school, and we have betsy carmichael and which their little school was designed to be a very small little school and actually all of our elementary schools are small elementary schools and have the capacity of about 400 or 500 and so i think that it causes us to pause and rethink a little bit about where, or what we need to do with our existing properties and also, if our school population changes, and we see a increase, we may need to look at new administrative
2:53 pm
offices that can also support and accommodate this new growth in our student enrollment. that will mean that we will need to look at probably a new administrative office, or build on our existing one consider thating our administrative offices are all over the city and not in one location, and so i think this is very timely to have this conversation and what commissioner mendoza-mcdonnell mentioned about what is happening in the mission, and we can't look at one development, and i think that it would not be prudent or wise to look at one development without looking in isolation and that we would need to look at, all of the developments surrounding for example, marshal elementary school. and that has the maximum capacity of 240 students since we did sell the property right across the street from it, to the mayor's office of housing hoping to build 115 of affordable family units which we thought may go to marshal
2:54 pm
elementary school. so that i think we are challenged in a couple of ways here. and i think that the information that we have, needs to coincide with the information that and be aligned with the information that the city is giving us and we need to look at transportation systems and uls the infrastructure to support our families here and what kind of support services, are we planning for the next 20 years to support the families coming in? do we have enough recreation and open space and i think that all of these things the families look at and schools do need to look at this and not in isolation but rather, as part of the bigger picture. of what makes san francisco a great place to live and people want it live here. and educate the children in the public school system and actually lay down roots here. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. seeing, no further comment. at this time, i will open up
2:55 pm
for public comment. >> seeing no public comment at this time, public comment is now closed. i do want to thank both the planning department and sfusd, for the presentation today. and also, beginning the conversation a month ago, and in advance for preparing for this hearing and i am really excited about supporting the development of policies, here both in the city level and at the school district level. and that will further integrate, both the city's planning, and the projections and also own plan and forecasting and this is not just an issue that impacts planning but the future economic development of the city but i do hear from the employers how important our public school district and the success of this district is to growing our workforce population. i am really glad that we have this at this school district
2:56 pm
and maybe this is an appropriate item for the city and the school district to continue a robust discussion around. and having served on both bodies, it really is just interesting to see, kind of the shift in conversation, when we are looking at our surplus properties like 700, and 1950 mission, the idea was always, how can we sell it or use it for other purposes to benefit the community, affordable housing, revenue for the school districts, grocery stores, garden and all of those sorts of things and now we are looking back at the sites and saying that actually are they more appropriate to help us grow our student bod barack obamaedy in areas that we are growing our residents population i i look forward to a information on the mission bay, elementary school and i know that the office will continue. >> and i am sorry. >> i keep calling it the elementary school and pushing on the site and the construction of that site, because that is a site that is
2:57 pm
deeded to the school district to build on and we know that we will not meet the need if we don't do the planning today there is a lot of long term planning that is involved in this. and what is exciting is that we can incorporate this in the area plans and particularly in our district, we are engaged in long term plans, with central soma, and maybe other area plans, and you know, our focus from our office has always been about affordable housing and open space, and the street infrastructure and public transit, but now we should be looking at child care, and kthrough 12, and maybe asking, and seeing whether that should be a part of our area planning, whether we should be looking at parcels or setting aside parcels for the growth of usd and if we should be looking at a study and developer impact fees for this as well and that is exciting and i look forward to the next stage of conversation. and i assume that we will want to keep this item at committee. so, i will make a motion to
2:58 pm
continue to the call of the chair. and i think that it would be great, also to have sfmta involved in a future conversation because transportation is a key piece to this as well. not just housing and our schools. and i think that you know, it is really interesting as we see increased congestion in our city because of our growth in worker and resident population there will be i think more questions on how we do the student assign sxment enrollment. and so seeing, no further comments, i will take a motion to continue this item. >> and i will do that without opposition. >> madam, clerk are there any other items? >> there are no other agenda items. >> seeing none, meeting is adjourned.
2:59 pm
♪ ? an incredible program because we take regular kids teach them the love of the game. we have no emphasis on winning we only have an emphasis on learning and trying as hard as they can that's it and the chips fall where they may. when students leave our program whether or not adults or kids they'll have a mechanical understanding of what they have. you don't have to be 7 feet tall or be super faster but you do
3:00 pm
need skwil. once you teach kids how to have control over the tennis courts they'll master. please invest >> director brinkman director heinecke is exterminated director lee director nolan director ramos directors please be advised many borne and director ec