|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Thousands of new homes are coming to Mountain View over the next decade as a result of state housing requirements and the city has spent recent years making extensive plans for this growth. What remains an open question is how local school districts will find the money to accommodate the expected influx of students.
With Google’s massive, 7,000-unit project in North Bayshore on the horizon, tensions are rising. The city and school districts have had public disagreements over how many students will actually move into the new units, what the cost will be to educate them and who should foot the bill. District officials have warned that they may have to cover fields and blacktops with portable classroom buildings, impacting the community’s access to this open space.
While local school districts aren’t governed by the city — they have their own elected boards — they often have projects and priorities that overlap or conflict with the city of Mountain View’s interests. City and school officials have long negotiated agreements on everything from community use of school fields to subsidized teacher housing to traffic safety.
In recent years, the massive growth of the tech industry and the resulting spike in property values, combined with an expected population boom from planned housing developments, has substantially raised the stakes for long-running negotiations between the city and school districts.
Most recently, the Mountain View Whisman (MVWSD) and Mountain View Los Altos Union High (MVLA) school districts wrote letters arguing that the city was substantially downplaying the impact that Google’s North Bayshore Master Plan development would have on local schools.
The city stresses the importance of ensuring that more housing gets built, particularly as Mountain View faces a state requirement to plan for the creation of over 11,000 additional units in the next eight years. City officials also argue that they have limited options to compel developers to provide benefits to local schools, beyond those required by law.
Both school districts have emphasized that their concerns about funding don’t mean they oppose development in North Bayshore. Mountain View Whisman Superintendent Ayindé Rudolph told the Voice that he supports housing growth in Mountain View, particularly to make sure students from low-income families have places to live, but he wants to a plan for how to pay to educate them.
“We’ve got to do this intelligently,” Rudolph said. “And I do applaud the city for planning for how to welcome more people. I just think we need to welcome more kids also.”
The dispute is complicated by an unusual tax arrangement in the portion of Mountain View where Google is building. Dating back to the 1960s, the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund directs nearly all tax revenue from the Shoreline area to the city’s coffers, diverting millions of dollars annually that would otherwise fund local schools. A 10-year deal that rerouted some of that money back to MVWSD and MVLA expires this year and an agreement to extend it is still up in the air.
“There will probably be a number of solutions,” said Mayor Alison Hicks in an interview. “I don’t think there’s going to be one thing that will address this situation.”
Google’s construction plans for North Bayshore
Google wants to transform a roughly 150-acre portion of North Bayshore, which lies north of Highway 101, into 3.15 million square feet of office space, nearly 250,000 square feet of retail and 7,000 housing units, while also setting aside land for parks, open space and community facilities. To address the influx of new residents the project will bring, there have also been proposals for Google to give land to the city for a new Mountain View Whisman school.
Google’s plans for North Bayshore took a step forward in December when the city released its draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the project, which details the effects it would have on everything from air quality and noise to public services like schools.
But some aspects of the DEIR raised red flags for local school districts. MVWSD disagrees with the city’s determination that the district’s existing campuses could house all the new students generated by Google’s project. MVLA took issue with the idea that existing school impact fees paid by developers would be sufficient to offset the increased costs of additional high school students to the district.
The city of Mountain View released the final EIR on April 11, which includes formal responses to the districts’ letters and revisions to the expected impact of the project.
Disagreements over student growth
The disagreement between the city and school districts centers around predicting how many new students will move into the area as a result of the thousands of new housing units that Mountain View is required to plan for – and in particular, the 7,000 new housing units Google plans to construct. The city and schools also don’t agree on whether existing schools can accommodate them.
The DEIR included an estimate that 1,471 additional elementary and middle school students would be generated by Google’s project and concluded that they would all fit at the existing local schools — Monta Loma Elementary and Crittenden Middle. Google’s development falls within both schools’ attendance boundaries. The EIR says there’s currently room for 189 additional students at Monta Loma and 476 at Crittenden, but doesn’t explain where the other 800-plus new students would go.
School officials say they were caught off guard by the draft EIR.
“This is the first time that you’ve seen a report clearly state that those kids need to be housed on Monta Loma and Crittenden,” Rudolph said, adding that the document didn’t guarantee that the district would receive land for a new school site. “All of that together really created a sense of concern amongst trustees and school district staff that we may need to revisit everything.”
The final version of the EIR softened the language to say that “most” of these students could fit at Monta Loma and Crittenden and reduces the number of expected students to 1,321, a change that Mountain View city officials attribute to a reduction in the number of affordable units Google plans to build.
Either way, city staff believes the student projections are overstated.
“When you look at the kinds of units that are going to get built in North Bayshore, and you’re looking at the student generation rates in the types of developments that have recently been built … you are seeing lower rates,” said Mountain View Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava. “They’re targeted more towards young couples or young adults.”
Staff said the city will be hiring a demographer to take another look at potential student generation rates from North Bayshore.
According to Shrivastava, the district’s calculations didn’t consider the size of the homes being built, an assertion that Mountain View Whisman Superintendent Ayindé Rudolph disputed. The district continues to update its estimates as Google’s project evolves and believes there’s “clearly a need for a new school,” Rudolph said.
The district is also concerned that the environmental review process considers Google’s project in isolation. Lots of other housing is on the horizon that will also impact schools, Rudolph said.
But with Google’s development expected to be built over multiple decades, and given that the students generated by the new housing will vary in age, city staff say the districts wouldn’t have to accommodate the full number at any single point.
“A 30-year period where some of these students would come would imply that not all of the students would be around at the same time,” Shrivastava said.
According to Rudolph, the 1,471 figure represents the number of additional K-8 students that Mountain View Whisman would see in any given year, once Google’s project is complete.
When it comes to the high school district, both versions of the EIR acknowledge that Mountain View High would not have capacity to fit the 600 to 700 new students that are projected. However, as far as state law goes, the EIRs state that developer fees constitute “full mitigation” of the impacts of new development.
“This is not accurate,” MVLA Superintendent Nellie Meyer wrote in a letter to the city. “In reality, developer fees are woefully inadequate, covering less than 10% of actual school construction and land costs in the city of Mountain View.”
City staff emphasized that they can’t legally force a developer to pay more fees than they’re required to under state statute. Any additional benefits offered by Google, beyond what’s required, must be completely voluntary.
Possible impacts to open space
As the disagreement heats up over how the school districts should accommodate a potential influx of new students, residents’ access to playgrounds and sports fields on school campuses is being thrown into question.
The city and MVWSD currently have agreements allowing the public to use open spaces on school campuses when classes aren’t in session – such as at Monta Loma and Castro elementaries – and in return, the city takes care of their maintenance. Negotiations have been ongoing in recent years to update those agreements, but district officials paused those talks in response to the EIR.
At a March 2 school board meeting, MVWSD staff said that if the city believes all the students are supposed to fit at Crittenden and Monta Loma, the district would need to put portable classrooms on the schools’ fields and blacktops.
“We need everyone to understand that if we do not collaboratively come up with a solution to house our kids, open space will be drastically different down the road,” Rudolph told the board.
Rudolph estimated that 45 portables would have to be added to Monta Loma if all of the projected students materialize. In a rendering that he showed the school board, the school’s open space would effectively be blanketed in portable buildings, with only the baseball field left.
According to city officials, roughly 50% of Mountain View’s neighborhood parks are provided via district-opened open spaces.
“I don’t think there’s any world where they’re going to have to put portables all over Monta Loma park. … There are many better solutions,” Mayor Hicks said. “There’s no reason they have to move in that direction.”
What the alternative direction might be, Hicks said, is still up in the air.
“Honestly I’ve talked to both residents and school board members about a plethora of solutions, and I think at this point, everything’s on the table,” she said. “… I think we’re going down a good path where we can work with the school board members to come up with a solution.”
Rudolph emphasized that the Mountain View Whisman district doesn’t intend to cut the public off from using its open space, but wants any agreement to account for the new students.
Building a new school
One idea in the works to make sure there’s room for every student is to build a new Mountain View Whisman school on a piece of Google-owned land within the North Bayshore Master Plan area. A 4-acre site has been identified, but the school district has expressed reservations over its small size and the lack of certainty that the proposal will come to fruition. The size and location of the proposed school site has changed a number of times since the idea was first tossed around, but is currently proposed for 1345 Shorebird Way, on the eastern edge of the Master Plan area.
“We just want to see it in writing,” Rudolph said.
Google plans to give the property to the city, which would then lease it to Mountain View Whisman when an additional campus becomes necessary. In the interim, the property could be used as park space, which makes district officials worried: They don’t want the community to get used to having a new park, only to have that taken away when it’s time to develop it into a school, Rudolph said.
The other issue is the size of the site. At 4 acres, the new school would be less than half the size of Mountain View Whisman’s typical elementary schools.
During the April 3 meeting, council members suggested that a new school could be built multiple stories high, as is often the case with urban schools. Rudolph confirmed the district is prepared to build an urban school design, despite its preference for a bigger campus.
Shoreline Community: A source of contention
The disagreements over how schools will accommodate the students generated by Google’s North Bayshore development plans are complicated by a special tax district that diverts money away from school districts and other public agencies.
The Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund is one of only two such tax districts in California, and includes the area Google plans to develop. Established in 1969, the vast majority of the tax revenue from the Shoreline area goes to the city of Mountain View.
It was intended to fund improvements to the region, which at the time was largely undeveloped, save for the landfill that became Shoreline Park. Fifty years later, the land has skyrocketed in value and is now home to some of the world’s most prominent technology companies, including Google.
Schools typically receive a large portion of city property tax revenue, but not in the Shoreline Community – something that’s been a point of tension over the years.
Local school districts’ concerns have only grown as land values, and the resulting tax revenue, have increased with the explosive growth of the tech industry.
In a compromise, 10 years ago the city and the school districts entered into a joint powers agreement (JPA) to ensure that the school districts get some of the tax revenue. The current JPA expires on June 30 and coming to a new agreement is proving challenging.
City and district staff have been negotiating since 2019, but according to an April 3 city staff report, “it has become clear that more time is needed to craft a long-term agreement.”
In November, the JPA board (composed of Mountain View’s city manager and the two districts’ superintendents) sought to develop a short-term agreement to ensure that the school districts receive at least as much money as last fiscal year –$5.3 million for MVWSD and $3.4 million for MVLA.
The school districts believe they should be getting a larger piece of the pie. Last year’s payments are less than half of what the districts would receive if the tax district didn’t exist at all, MVLA Superintendent Meyer wrote in her letter.
Negotiating a new JPA
Responding to the mounting tensions, the Mountain View City Council held an April 3 study session and agreed unanimously to move forward with negotiating a short-term agreement on sharing the special tax district revenue.
The city staff recommendation for that short-term plan is to largely maintain the status quo: the districts get the same cut that they received last year, adjusted to account for property taxes growth, plus an extra one-time payment amounting to 10% of the property tax increase. The full payment would also get into the districts’ hands sooner: Upon execution of the agreement, rather than at the end of the year, as is typical.
As for an eventual long-term deal, the city’s vision is to increase payments to the school districts over time, but also continue to fund the remaining development needs of the Shoreline Community – things like maintaining Shoreline Park, adding transportation and utility infrastructure, and mitigating sea level rise.
School officials argue that the districts should be receiving payments equivalent to what they’d get if the special tax district didn’t exist – and that those payments should start now.
Rudolph argues that children currently in the school system should benefit from the tax revenue that is going to come in as a result of Google’s ongoing development in the area. With more money coming from Google’s developments, it will also be easier for the city to both fund its needs in the area and give schools their full tax increment, he said.
The current JPA was amended in 2019 to give the districts their full tax allocation on all new residential development, a stipulation that city staff said the short-term agreement would also include.
While Rudolph stressed that it’s good the district is getting its full tax allotment for new residential development, he wants to see the same deal on new commercial construction. According to Rudolph, Mountain View Whisman’s property tax funding currently is roughly equally split between commercial and residential buildings.
What comes next
If the districts received their full tax increment from the Shoreline Community, Mountain View Whisman Chief Business Officer Rebecca Westover said the school district “could reduce class size at the elementary and middle school, provide an additional adult in every classroom to the primary grades and have dedicated counselors at every site.”
Ramberg said that, from the city’s perspective, the districts’ desire to receive their full tax rate allocation “is tantamount to defunding the Shoreline Community and its essential purposes, and would have a disastrous impact on the city’s general fund.”
Rudolph disputed that idea.
“We’re not arguing for the dissolving of the Shoreline tax district,” Rudolph said. “No one’s arguing that there aren’t other needs that exist out there.”
Ramberg said that right before the April 3 council meeting, the city received an edited draft of the short-term agreement from MWVSD and that staff is currently reviewing the suggested changes. In the draft, school districts ask for their full tax rate allocation from the Shoreline Community – which means the two parties have more negotiating to do. Ramberg said city staff aims to respond to the districts by late April. The final EIR will come back to the Mountain View City Council for review on June 13.
Rudolph said that while the district appreciates that the final EIR acknowledges the impact the city believes Google’s development will have on schools, the updated document “fails to assuage the concerns staff have.”
“Our response remains the same; the Shoreline funding is being used to develop North Bayshore instead of addressing the needs of our kids after the pandemic,” Rudolph said. “What is clear is that the Board of Trustees and the City Council need to start meeting jointly to address these concerns and create solutions that are amenable to all.”
Assistant City Manager Ramberg said the city recognizes that local schools are “integral to the quality of life” in Mountain View, “and we want to be good collaborative partners.”
“But we have limits, just like the school district does,” she continued. “We need to balance what our resources are used for.”
Probably Malea’s best and most balanced article to date.
There’s a gaping hole in the MVWSD argument and in this story analyzing the situation. The story allows the district to use a scare tactic illustration of Monta Loma “blanketed in portables.” But that’s flawed for several reasons. One is that Monta Loma is currently underenrolled and does have unused capacity in existing buildings, where the capacity is about 450 students in about 18 classrooms. The layout of portables shown includes over 40 added portables which would then increase capacity to a mythical school of 1300+ students–which is unreasonable to propose. But the second flaw that goes unobserved in the article is that MVWSD owns 2 large pieces of land which it currently DOES NOT USE but leases out to private schools or to Google. There are two private elementary schools located on the Whisman School property, which has much more land than does Monta Loma and is far closer to North Bayshore. Why not envision 40 new portables on that larger piece of land???? Why not build a new school there and remove the private schools?
Then not that far away is Slater School where the majority of the land there is leased to Google for a DAYCARE for its employees. Here again, you could reasonably expect to house 450 more students of MVWSD next to Vargas. Why leave Vargas out with the Daycare using so much space next to it, and instead focus on the park at Monta Loma. They picture essentially creating 3 total schools on the Monta Loma site which is just plain silly. Put two of the new schools on Easy Street at the Whisman school site. This would actually work just as well as having 2 private schools on the land, leaving both the park at Monta Loma and the one at Whisman as they are!
You have to consider that there is an intent to deceive on the part of the district with this type of obfuscation.
What a joke. I know of several sites in Mountain View where we already had schools, only to have them closed and sold to developers as no longer needed. The lack of foresight is just sad.
For example, there was a a nice school at California and Ortega. Then in the late 1980s or early 90’s they tore it down and now all that remains is townhomes and a tiny park. Another was on the site where Firestation #1 sits now. Slater went to Google, so they had to rip up a lovely green grass playing field behind it to build another school, and then replace said existing field with a smaller fake grass field that sits behind locked gates(!?). Just sad. And stupid.
MVWSD still owns the Slater school 4 acres that are leased to Google. The buildings there are old but the district could obviously use its land there to crate a new 4 acre 450 student Elementary School. The lease to Google is subject to revocation if the district has needs for a new school.
Similarly the leases to two private schools now using the district’s site on Easy Street are also subject to cancellation if the district needs the land there.
QUOTE: “The lease to Google is subject to revocation if the district has needs for a new school.”
Not true. Google would have to agree to break the lease and they refused. That is why the city had to build Vargas on Slater’s playing field, since that area of the school grounds was not included in the lease. Google would have been out of Slater 5-6 years ago otherwise, and Vargas would not exist.
No, the lease is subject to state law regarding leasing of surplus school property. The lease can be cancelled but of course then the district wouldn’t get the millions of dollars of lease revenue. However, MVWSD doesn’t need the land yet, and won’t for quite a few years. No need to break the lease at this point, but it’s a lie for the district to call itself lacking of school land. It has surplus school land by definition because it’s leasing it out. The district CHOSE to build Vargas like it did, and it is a perfectly reasonable school site even at only 4.3 acres. The district was using part of the Vargas site for other programs before it was converted to be a new school. You can look at it as saving the demolition cost for the outdated Slater buildings while still building a brand new school.
Just an Observation,
When you have seen so many businesses go down, like Clarks Burgers, when the lockdown hit, then you know that the city is too dependent on a minority of companies in the area.
The reality is that so many business lost so much, and they are not going to recover back to the state they were prior to the pandemic. The pandemic did accelerate the process however, due to the developing functionality of remote work.
Face the facts everyone, things are never going to be normal again here. I find it incredible that so many are saying once the new housing is built, they will be sold or rented. Given the current situation, there is going to be a lot of vacancies, and the current market is still showing a dramatic drop in demand here.
It’s even questionable that these prospective homes will indeed come to Mountain View over the next 8 years. Recessions generally have an effect that lasts that long. What’s in the pipeline now is kind of unstoppable but most of these units described here are not even in the pipeline yet.
The biggest waste of Whisman School District property is Cooper Park. Daycare has to go sorry. They need to build a new school to service that area. It’s ridiculous how small that day care center is versus how much land is available to build a nice big school. But nooooo “Save Cooper Park” prevailed because of the NIMBY babies. Fine build it on the Cuesta Annex….of course NIMBY babies cried there too. Sorry but it’s a need that you cannot ignore. But lets continue to stuff 10 lbs of poop in 5 lb sack. On “this side of the tracks”.
So much for our current mayor’s vision of a 15 minute City…
The growth just isn’t going to happen soon, that’s for sure. Also it won’t involve as many school kids as MVWSD is pretending. The area where there is the most forecast growth is up around East Whisman and North Bayshore. Cooper Park is far removed from there and it’s a well-used park, just as much as is Cuesta Park (given that it’s considerably smaller than Cuesta Park) and it draws users from a wide area not just the Cooper Park neighborhood. In the unlikely even that MVWSD sees a spurt in school kids assigned to Bubb and Huff/Imai they have land there in reserve too. The schools on the other side of El Camino Real usually only use 4.5-5 acres of land max. Castro and Mistral are 2 schools sharing 1 8 acre site where it also has 1.5 acres carved out for an always open neighborhood Park. So, you could add a second school to the site of Bubb quite easily using that size standard. You could also put that 4 acre school where the daycare at Cooper is now, but the location is way at the edge of the service area for the 2 existing schools where both stretch clear down to El Camino Real.
Just an Observation,
Intel just announced layoffs. More lost jobs, and very likely here since the design and build of chips are not done here.
More people leaving the area.
Just an Observation,
I just discovered that the City of Mountain View may have a major problem with apartments in the city.
There are MANY multifamily units built in R3 land zones. Multifamily units are under the City laws as R4.
BUT here is the major problem:
SEC. 36.10.85. – Rooming and boarding—R3 zoning district.
The rooming and boarding of two (2) persons maximum in addition to permanent residents of a dwelling is permitted in the R3 zoning district only in single-family dwellings and duplexes. ROOMING AND BOARDING IS NOT ALLOWED IN MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS.
Which means this apartment is illegal until it is in a zone designated as R4 by the city.
Give the above situation it was NOT legal for any rent to be collected where a landlord had material knowledge of the fact it was not conforming, and the City laws says you cannot collect rent on it
The Google Lease on Slater school buildings was (I recollect) 20 years. It may soon be up for a new lease – OR reclamation by MVWSD for a school (TK-3 would be best for Google’s $10M in improvements).
The Whisman Elementary/German School site (with adjacent MVWSD owned playing fields [Not 3/4 of tennis courts or street-side picnic areas] is also on a non-infinite lease!
The UNUSED school site that MVWSD has a legal claim on is at Sylvan Park. Yes, the MVWSD has an unused multi-acre easement for a school the size of Vargas about centered on the parking lot on Sylvan Ave !!! You may check the Santa Clara County property tax record plots, and/or request a copy of the City/District legal document from MVWSD (Public Records Act process). The terms … an easement may Only be used for a school and not any other school district use like administration, housing, or a service yard.
The Sky is NOT Falling, the SKY is not falling !!!!!!
(SN is a retired MVWSD Trustee who studied and voted on most of these issues)
Under highly restrictive terms of the JPA – the administration and the Trustees of the MVWSD ARE PROHIBITED from advocating to the legislature or anyone that the 1969 Shoreline Community district be amended or dissolved-
But, as a private citizen, I ain’t a party to That agreement!
SUNSET on SHORELINE! let the bad special law slowly fade away (Berman?)
@steven nelson
Checked the JPA agreement and indeed Section 4.4 handcuffs the 2 Districts in tying the payments to a prohibition of legal, legistative or administrative action against the special tax district.
Section 4.5 also seems to indicate that payments might be suspended even if a 3rd party initiates legal or legislative action against the special tax scheme !
We have to talk to City Council about That!
Prior constraint on free speech? An anti SLAPP legal suit?
— BTW
“is a civil claim filed against an individual or an organization, arising out of that party’s speech or communication to government about an issue of public concern.”
There might be an issue “of standing” for my filing a suit (against the City) / but Any parent of MVWSD kids, or parent of a future student would have “clear standing” IMO. City threatens to harm their public school kids, if they (the parents) organize to overturn Shoreline Community through the state legislative process [ this would take a very good and special public interest lawyer to frame :]. Sect 4.5 and Sect 4.4 should (IMO) be nonstarters for the MVWSD and the MVLA trustees / even for an interim extension.
link
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1019/slapp-suits
Given that there has been a lot of housing construction in the form of large new apartment complexes with included BMR unit and otherwise, why have we not already seen a large growith in MVWSD populations? Why has it instead declined in total size
by 12% since 2016 fairly continuously? And while the population stayed the same this year compared to last, the population is overweighted in the upper grade levels which means that natural progressions (graduations to high school) will cause the population to fall again over the next couple of years.
So why has all this new building and additions of housing units not SO FAR resulted in growth in student counts? The last round of bond funded improvements brought the district to a capacity of over 6000, but these last two years there are only 4522 students….
It is important to consider that while there has been housing construction, including new apartment complexes with BMR units, several factors contribute to the declining school enrollment despite these efforts. The high and rising cost of housing, coupled with the global pandemic, can significantly impact families’ ability to afford raising children in a particular area.
It’s worth noting that the impact of housing construction on school enrollment is not immediate. The construction of new housing units takes time, and families need to move in and settle down before enrolling their children in local schools. Therefore, it’s possible that the recent construction has not yet resulted in a significant growth in student counts.
While new housing units, including BMR units, provide additional options, the overall affordability of housing remains a concern. High housing costs in the area may still be prohibitive for many families, even with increased construction levels. Families may choose to live in more affordable areas or delay having children until they can better afford the costs associated with raising a family in the region.
The global pandemic has had a profound effect on various aspects of society, including education. School closures, remote learning, and economic hardships experienced by families during the pandemic could have influenced decisions regarding school enrollment. Some families may have chosen alternative education options or delayed enrollment due to uncertainty and the challenges posed by the pandemic.
While housing construction and BMR units are important steps towards addressing housing needs, other factors such as housing affordability and the pandemic’s impact on families and education play significant roles in declining school enrollment. The effects of new construction may take time to manifest fully, and it’s important to consider a holistic perspective when analyzing population shifts in school enrollment.
On a basis of reasonable interpretation the decline in school age population is not stemming from the pandemic, nor from high housing costs on a local level. Housing costs have risen all across the country, so that might figure in as a cause of the national population decline. But locally, the decline in student age populations is not sudden. There has been a continuous decline in the birth rate of the entire country, and this alone could account for the student age population decline in Santa Clara County. It certainly did not originate with the global health emergency.
There comes a time when imaginary excuses don’t hold much water. The school district is trying to say it desperately needs urgent action to ensure that there will be enough school space in 15-20 years’ time. They are using growth experiences from 20 yeara ago as if they are certain to repeat themselves. But there is no reason to believe that. Given that they start out at this point with 25% “vacant” school capacity, the growth has to be extraordinary to reach their conclusions. It’s not like they are without any land resources. The new development in North Bayshore is proposing to provide them with a school site which could house 500 new students. That’s arguable enough in the way of precautionary allowance for unexpected growth.
The interesting thing with the birth rate decline is that the trend started 10 years ago and at that point it was a big shift in the slope of the graph. But since then it has in fact continued. It shows no signs of abating. If it does abate it will be a gradual shift, i.e. smaller rates of decline, NOT SURPRISE GROWTH.
What would be the case, and could be the case, if high housing costs locally are affecting this, is that there would be a large vacancy rate in the recently completed new housing complexes along with the smaller than expected fraction of units having school children in them. MVWSD and LASD can tell if there are missing kids from what was expected in the apartment complexes, but do they release that data?
While it is true that declining birth rates have been a contributing factor to the decline in school-age population on a national level, it’s important to consider the local dynamics and potential impacts of high housing costs. While I understand your perspective that high housing costs may not be the sole reason for the decline in school enrollment in Santa Clara County, it is still worth examining the local context.
While housing costs have risen across the country, the specific affordability challenges in Santa Clara County, known for its high cost of living, may exacerbate the situation. Even if the decline in student-age populations is not sudden, the high cost of housing can still play a role in families choosing alternative areas or delaying having children until they can afford to raise a family comfortably.
Regarding the school district’s concerns about future capacity, it is common for educational institutions to plan ahead and anticipate potential growth scenarios. While it’s true that growth experiences from 20 years ago may not necessarily repeat themselves, it is essential for school districts to consider different possibilities and ensure they can accommodate future student populations.
Regarding the release of data on missing children from new housing complexes, school districts often collaborate with local housing authorities and conduct studies or surveys to assess the impact of new housing developments on school enrollment. This information can help inform future planning and resource allocation.
While declining birth rates contribute to the national decline in school-age populations, it is important to consider the local factors such as high housing costs and the specific dynamics of Santa Clara County. While the decline may not be solely due to housing costs, understanding the potential impact and assessing data on missing children from new housing complexes can provide valuable insights for educational planning.
Well, the premise of this article is that schools will feel an impact from added housing. It’s not necessary to dispute that much housing will be added. Absent any added housing, school populations will decline. The birthrate alone sees to that. All adding housing might do is to keep the school enrollments from dropping still further. The birthrate decline has been marked. It’s not disputable. School boards and superintendents have their heads in the sand if they say otherwise. One reason they miss this is that it takes 5 years after a birth for a child to enter their purview. This means that to assess each new year’s crop of kindergarten by numbers, you have to look at the births 5 years ago.
So when MVWSD raised this huge bond measure that they used to build out and expand all their schools over the past 7 years, the birthrate (for future kindergarten) had already declined 15% since what was seen in 2008. By 2018, the birthrate for this entering kindergarten next fall will have declined a total of 24% since 2008, So that would cause a 24% reduction in K enrollment in 2023 vs 2013.
Since the kids who will enter kindergarten in 2028 will have been born this year, we can look at that. The numbers look to result in 2028 having a K age population 25% lower than was the case in 2013. The decline in K age population has not only sustained itself but it has gotten bigger each year, not having leveled off at all.
With 35% fewer in the age range, you can increase the population 50% and still only be steady. Everywhere there are more schools than are needed. Drawing kids to a particular area can up the enrollment, but it’s not reasonable to expect that it will succeed in forestalling any decline.
There’s a typo in the last post. The K age population compared in 2028 to 2013 will be 35% lower. This reflects the births through this year.
Considering the declining birthrate and the subsequent reduction in kindergarten-age population, it becomes essential for cities like Mountain View to prioritize making homes more affordable and appealing to young families. While adding housing alone may not completely reverse the declining enrollments, it can help mitigate further decreases and potentially stabilize school populations.
By making homes more affordable, families are more likely to choose to live in Mountain View, which could help offset the declining school-age population to some extent. Creating a welcoming and affordable environment for young families can encourage them to settle in the area, thereby contributing to the vitality and sustainability of the local community.
Additionally, it’s worth noting that while the decline in school-age population is a long-term trend, it’s not necessarily set in stone. Policies and initiatives aimed at supporting families, such as affordable housing programs, accessible childcare, and quality education, can help foster an environment where families feel supported and encouraged to raise children.
In summary, acknowledging the impact of declining birthrates on school enrollments is crucial, but it also emphasizes the importance of proactive measures to make Mountain View an appealing place for young families. Prioritizing affordability and implementing supportive policies can help attract and retain families, which, in turn, may have a positive influence on school populations and the overall community.
There are only so many kids to go around. Any new kids from families moving to Mountain View result from families leaving other cities. The market rate housing is never going to be less expensive here than it is in San Jose. More than that, the funding for BMR units more often goes to San Jose than Mountain View. San Jose’s overall population may be slightly shrinking but they still get money for more new BMR units per current resident than any other city in the county. The funding mechanisms favor building BMR units in San Jose The BMR units rent for the same amount for any given family with equal income in Mountain View as they do in San Jose.
No, I don’t think the declining school population would be countered by building added housing in the affordability range. The issue is overall housing and you can only build as much market rate housing as their might be willing renters who can afford the high rents up here as opposed even to Sunnyvale, where rents are lower. We are sure to see some new housing, but not enough to fully offset the projected decline in school age population. Growth for the schools is not an issue, not for at least 10 more years.
While it is possible that families moving to Mountain View may come from other cities, it’s important to recognize that population growth is not solely reliant on migration. The overall population of an area can increase due to various factors, including natural population growth and in-migration from outside the region. Therefore, even if some families are moving from other cities, it doesn’t mean that the number of children in Mountain View will remain stagnant.
While market rate housing prices may vary between cities, it’s crucial to consider the long-term affordability initiatives and policies that can be implemented to make housing more accessible in Mountain View. While it’s true that funding for BMR units may currently be more prevalent in San Jose, that doesn’t mean Mountain View cannot prioritize affordable housing options. It requires a commitment from local government and community stakeholders to ensure that affordable housing opportunities are created and maintained in the area.
While overall housing availability is indeed a critical factor, it’s important to recognize that a balanced housing approach includes both market rate and affordable housing options. By providing a range of housing choices, including affordable housing options, it becomes more feasible for families with different income levels to reside in the community. This can help attract a diverse range of families, including those with school-age children.
Long-term planning is essential to ensure that there are adequate educational resources and facilities available as the population evolves. By implementing strategic planning measures, educational institutions can proactively address future needs and provide quality education for the community.
It is crucial to adopt a comprehensive approach that encompasses affordability initiatives, housing options, and long-term planning to create a sustainable and thriving community.
The thing is that housing may not grow as much as wished for. Then even at the levels of growth targeted by RHNA requirements for zoning friendliness, which is all that those numbers are, nothing says that increase in living units will result in a proportional increase in students at local schools. It’s all based on those 2 assumptions turning out to be true, which is not guaranteed. Not likely.
Given that school age populations are 35% less than once they were, in California and in USA as a whole, it takes a lot of new housing units just to get back to where we were in 2013. Even back then, only a portion of housing units had kids living in them. Many apartments didn’t. Many houses didn’t. Certainly group living units didn’t. Now we see fewer kids present as a part of the overall population by 35%. A big change. Apartments are less friendly to kids no play spaces etc.
I think the assumption in the headline is wrong. Just because new apartments are built doesn’t mean it will bring kids to the schools. Consider how many Google workers actually have kids now? How many will still be working at Google/Alphabet in 5 years. where will they locate those that they hire? What is Google going to do with see level rise changing the environment around where they are now building new buildings? Do they have flood contingencies built into the complexes?
While it is true that an increase in housing units does not guarantee a proportional increase in students at local schools, it is generally observed that an increase in population leads to some growth in school enrollments. While the growth rate may not be one-to-one, it is still reasonable to expect some impact on school populations when housing availability increases.
The claim that school-age populations in California and the entire USA have declined by 35% is not accurate. While it is true that birth rates have declined in recent years, resulting in a slowdown in population growth, it does not equate to a 35% decline in school-age populations. The impact of declining birth rates on school enrollments can vary across different regions and time periods.
The statement that new apartments are generally less friendly to kids due to limited play spaces is a generalization that may not apply universally. The design and amenities of apartments can vary greatly, and many new apartment complexes do include child-friendly amenities such as playgrounds or designated play areas. Additionally, the availability and accessibility of nearby parks and recreational facilities can also contribute to the overall child-friendliness of an area.
While it is true that not all housing units will have children living in them, it is reasonable to expect that a portion of new apartments, houses, and other living units will house families with school-age children. The presence of children in a community depends on various factors, including affordability, school quality, and overall desirability of the area for families. While not all new apartments may bring kids to schools, it is still a contributing factor to consider in assessing future school enrollments.
While it is important to address environmental concerns, it is not necessarily a direct factor in the discussion of school enrollments.
The tricky thing for school boards to appreciate is that a declining birthrate has a delayed, staged, impact on local school populations. While the birthrate TODAY is 35% lower than it was in 2008, the effect of that is not immediate. From 1999 to 2008 the birthrate was relatively stable. There was a large local population increase from 2000 to 2008 and the birthrate drop off of 2008 did not begin to manifest itself in school populations until 2013, and even then only in the Kindergarten population. It takes 13 years for a given birth cohort to pass through K-12 schools. From 2013 until now the decline in student age population has continued to increase/
The school districts are anticipating housing growth that has not even begun in the areas for which they show concern (near Vargas, and in North Bayshore). Since every year the K age population reduces still further and then that bubbles up through the grages as they graduate, the number of students contnues to decline from that factor. From 2008 until 2023, the reduction in births has been 35% but we have not yet seene that full amount impact the school sizes. What you can see is that while MVWSD has dropped in enrollment by 12% since 2013, the birth data alread in says that it will face another 15% in reduction, from that factor, beginning at K age in 2028. Things will ramp up to that level between now and then. It will take another 13 years for this to hit every grade. The numbers are so large that they will likely offset any added students from new housing, and then some.
While it is true that a decline in the birth rate takes time to manifest in school populations, the claim that the full impact of the declining birth rate has not been felt since 2008 is an assumption. The specific timeline for the impact can vary based on multiple factors, including migration patterns, population growth, and educational policies. It is important to analyze local demographic data and consider other variables that can influence school enrollments.
Anticipating future housing growth is a common practice for school districts to plan for potential changes in student populations. While the immediate impact of new housing developments may not be fully realized, it is essential to consider long-term projections and plan accordingly. By taking proactive measures, school districts can address future needs and ensure adequate educational resources.
The assumption that the reduction in births will offset any added students from new housing is a simplistic perspective. It is crucial to consider the interplay of multiple factors, such as migration patterns, population growth, and housing availability. While declining birth rates may contribute to a decrease in school-age populations, the impact of new housing developments should not be disregarded. A comprehensive analysis of local demographics, housing trends, and educational planning is necessary to make accurate projections.
Factors such as migration, population growth, housing availability, and educational planning all play a role in shaping school enrollments. It is essential to consider a comprehensive range of data and variables to draw accurate conclusions about future student populations in a given area.
So, the birthrate started to decline in 2008 and has continued ever since. The slope of the curve started to level off between 2012 and 2015 but then it resume the high rate of decline.So 15.4 births per 1000 residents in 2008, down from 18.8 in 1993.
Then we’re down to 10.7 in 2021 looking to reach 10.0 for this year.
The reason the impact has not been fully felt in schools is that the age cohort born in 2008 won’t graduate from high school until 2026. It takes 5 years for a birth cohort to reach school age and then 12 more years before they age out of K-12 school. So it’s not speculation to say the number of kids at a given age level i gradually felt as they rise in age.
But moreover, each year since 2008, the brithrate has dropped still further. So there are effects coming predictable every year now for the next 12 years from thse lower birth rate of the ages now in schools. When you look at all those years with low birthrates, you can say that it would take an unimaginable amount of new residents to move into the area to fully offset the decline. But MVWSD is saying that they will be needing added school facilities due to any possible housing growth. The truth is that this is offset by population demographics.
Indeed, the impact of declining birth rates on school populations is not immediate, and it takes time for the birth cohort to progress through the education system. However, it is crucial to recognize that the declining birth rate is just one factor among many that influence school populations. Factors such as migration, housing availability, and economic conditions can also affect student enrollments. It is important to consider a comprehensive range of factors when projecting future student populations.
While it is true that the birth rate has continued to decline, it is overly simplistic to assume that new residents alone can fully offset the decline in student populations. The relationship between birth rates, migration, and population growth is complex. It is essential to consider a wide range of demographic factors, such as net migration, age distribution, and housing patterns, to understand the potential impact on school enrollments accurately.
Anticipating the need for additional school facilities due to possible housing growth is a prudent approach by MVWSD to ensure they can meet future demands. While population demographics play a role in shaping school enrollments, it is not a sole determinant. Population dynamics can change over time, influenced by various factors such as economic conditions, housing policies, and community development efforts. It is important to consider multiple scenarios and plan accordingly to ensure adequate educational resources are available.
While declining birth rates have an impact on school populations over time, it is crucial to consider a range of demographic factors, migration patterns, and housing trends when projecting future student populations. The interplay of these variables is complex, and simplistic assumptions may not provide an accurate assessment of the situation. It is essential to conduct comprehensive analyses and long-term planning to address the needs of evolving communities effectively.
@Clarence and @Long, thanks for the discussion on Birth Rates and housing-family composition. I think both former MVWSD Trustee Greg Coladonato and I found much of the ‘single source’ demographic information and projections of education consultants – sub par. We both publicly complained about that when we were on the MVWSD Board!
Both of us came from ‘quant’ backgrounds, and neither of us found these projections, or their quantitative basis, very compelling. It seemed ‘too easy’ to shop around for a consultant that ‘gave the result’ a district (staff/ administration/ board?) wanted.
see Voice reporting from 3/2009, 2/2015, 3/2015, 5/2015, 11/2016, 3/2017, 1/2019
BTW – not good public procedure that a Superintendent’s Task Force override a Board
May 15, 2015
“By choosing to recommend against a new school, the task force reversed course from the school board’s 3-2 straw poll in March that supported opening a school in the Whisman and Slater neighborhood area. {that is, Vargus 2 B}
Board member Greg Coladonato said the boundary adjustments to Huff recommended by the task force would help alleviate some of the overcrowding at the school, but it may not be “sufficient” to meet the long-term goals for the district. The task force recommendations would continue to leave the northeast quadrant of the city without a neighborhood school in the area.”
The drop in Birth Rate has been more pronounced over the last 10 years than any demographer allowed for in projections (which had ranges of possible outcomes) back 10 years ago.
Even today LASD is saying their 20% drop in enrollment will start to reverse itself with new housing creation. But they forget to allow for the CONTINUED and ONGOING decline in birth rates. These would create another 15% drop by themselves all else held even, and relatively quickly. New housing growth is slow and has to be slow. So it’s just not going to come close to offsetting that additional 15% decline, let alone start to address the previous drops till now!
And then there is the issue of Google cutting back on the expected number of workers hired by them everywhere, and especially in the local area.