Irvine's 5th High School
- Thread starter akula1488
- Start date
adventurous
New member
I think they will build it by the jail, which is IUSD. As you understand, the jail view from your window is a terrible selling pitch.
adventurous
New member
I haven't seen any new plans yet. They have just built a new middle school at Trabuco and Jeffrey. Well, locals say it's already over-enrolled.ak said:
adventurous said:
My guess is that the 5th HS will be zoned for all of PS and GP. All other villages will continue with their current boundaries. GP will be granted the additional 5,000 homes and I'll bet the HS will be called GP High. They will also definitely need to find a site for a new middle school as Jeffrey Trail is already pretty darn full (and this is even before CV or SG has been fully built out).
adventurous
New member
ak said:
I've been to their meetings. The plan is to zone Woodbury and Stonegate to the new school in order to unload IHS and NHS.
Even if another 5K houses is approved, those might be located (at least partially) in SVUSD, so there is no need in 6th High School in the short term.
IrvineNewBuyer
New member
The school board is not listening to the parents' feedback. Most of them said NO to site A. I think they won't listen until the parents do something. What can we do?
- Protest?
- Legal process to stop them from building?
Anyone has knowledge or experience to deal with those?
We gave time the school board to do the right decision. It may be time for the resident to do something. Or we will suffer many years to come.
- Protest?
- Legal process to stop them from building?
Anyone has knowledge or experience to deal with those?
We gave time the school board to do the right decision. It may be time for the resident to do something. Or we will suffer many years to come.
villiagepeople
New member
Although it will be a very long time before my kids go to HS... I was thinking I like site A better because...
1) From what I can remember, on another thread, the tce plume is right underneath the proposed site B?
2) site B is closer to the 133 and the 5 (air pollutants).
3) (this wasn't discussed but based on the drawing) it looks like they could possibly zone the site B school to the SBVUSD? (correct me if there's no chance of this)
1) From what I can remember, on another thread, the tce plume is right underneath the proposed site B?
2) site B is closer to the 133 and the 5 (air pollutants).
3) (this wasn't discussed but based on the drawing) it looks like they could possibly zone the site B school to the SBVUSD? (correct me if there's no chance of this)
http://newsflash.iusd.org/2014/01/s...of-potential-high-school-sites-favors-site-a/
Dear IUSD community member:
Our district has a long history of thoughtful and strategic planning, resulting in schools of the highest quality. By law and by practice, our staff and our contractors strive to provide optimal learning environments that maximize the investments made by local taxpayers.
As you may have heard during one of our recent Board of Education meetings, there has been an extensive amount of work involved in studying two potential sites for our next comprehensive high school. This letter is being sent to bring you up to speed and to clarify some of the facts.
For those who aren?t familiar with our facilities planning efforts, our district, which has experienced rapid growth as a result of recent development, is working to open a new campus in September 2016 to avert overcrowding at Irvine, Northwood, University and Woodbridge high schools. Plans have been underway for several years now, and IUSD and its developer partners have agreements in place for a 40-acre site near the northeast border of the Great Park, often referred to as Site A. Meanwhile, a member of the Irvine City Council has advocated for an alternative location, and in September the Council voted to present it for the district?s consideration. The second site, on the west side of the Great Park, is known as Site B, and the motion approved by the City set a minimum purchase price of $60 million.
IUSD has directed significant resources to ensure thorough reviews of both sites, and though this process is ongoing, our preliminary analysis has not revealed any significant advantage to moving the campus to Site B. Our district is not alone in this assessment. The California Department of Education has deemed both locations suitable to accommodate an Irvine-quality comprehensive high school, and the Irvine Unified Council PTA recently completed a report endorsing Site A after engaging in its own thorough analysis, examining such factors as safety, traffic and timing. In fact, initial site reviews indicate potentially greater concerns, costs and possible mitigation needs for Site B. More on that in a moment.
Suffice to say, absent clear and compelling advantages to changing the location of our fifth high school, it would be irresponsible for our district to switch sites, particularly as this action would result in a project delay of at least a year, triggering acute overcrowding at Irvine, Northwood, University and Woodbridge high schools and generating an estimated $20 million in additional costs. Our district will therefore continue to move forward with Site A, but our analysis of Site B will also continue, ensuring no stone is left unturned. Naturally, we will work closely with all required state agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substance Control, to ensure our schools meet or exceed the clear and rigorous guidelines established for school construction.
We recognize that all of our stakeholders want the absolute best location for Irvine?s next high school, and in recent meetings there has been some discussion of environmental issues and the Orange County Great Park?s proximity to the James A. Musick Facility. I want to assure you that these features have been thoughtfully researched with the help of a number of building and safety experts, and what we?ve learned so far bolsters the case for Site A.
For example, Site B has been identified under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as a Hazardous Material site due to the significant amount of historic military activity, including being home to two dozen underground storage tanks, at least 12 buildings, officer quarters, a mess hall and field storage, as well as an aircraft expeditionary refueling site and petroleum storage. There are also two groundwater plumes nearby. By contrast, Site A does not have this RCRA designation and was primarily used for agriculture. A capped landfill is located north of Site A, containing primarily construction debris and ash. Mitigation measures were taken by the U.S. Navy, and periodic testing ensures the integrity of the cap.
Some proponents of Site B have noted that Site A is closer to the James A. Musick Facility, noting that the minimum-security jail has been slated for expansion. Yet crime statistics and multiple studies do not support the position that jails increase crime or have any impact on neighboring school sites. In addition, the facility would be housing the same levels of low-threat inmates with significantly enhanced security compared to what exists today. In a letter dated Sept. 24, Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens wrote that remarks made during a September City Council meeting ?gave a distorted impression of the future plans for the facility.? Sheriff Hutchens added that the ?nature of the Musick population will not change due to new construction.? Robert Beaver, director of research and development for the Orange County Sheriff?s Department, confirmed a binding memorandum of understanding with the City of Lake Forest that effectively limits the size of the facility to 3,100 beds and prohibits the detention of maximum-security inmates. He also clarified at a recent school board meeting that Musick?s dormitory-style design would not be a feasible model for housing the county?s high-threat inmates, adding that the Sheriff?s Department has more than adequate maximum-security space in other facilities to house these kinds of inmates.
It is also important to note that this area of the city is in the initial stages of development and will soon become a thriving residential community, with thousands of new homes. This is one of the reasons a high school campus must be in place ? to meet the needs of this new community. The continued master-planned development of these neighborhoods and the City?s approval of these plans are further evidence of our shared confidence in the safety and viability of this location.
I would add that regardless of where our next high school is built, we will work closely with the Irvine Police Department and other agencies to ensure the new facility has state-of-the-art safety and security systems, including high-tech surveillance. As with our existing middle and high schools, it will also benefit from the presence of on-site district and police personnel.
Building a new high school is a project of monumental importance, and our district will settle for nothing short of an optimal environment for academics, athletics and co-curricular activities. If, after our exhaustive analysis, there is a valid justification for moving the location and delaying construction, our Board of Education will make that call. Conversely, if there is no clear evidence that Site B is a more advantageous location, it would not be prudent to arbitrarily pursue a course that would delay the project, cause significant overcrowding at our existing sites, adversely impact thousands of Irvine students and needlessly waste tens of millions of dollars.
I don?t have to tell you that Irvine is a special place, and it is so because community members like you take an active role as citizens and stakeholders. Above all, our No. 1 obligation as a school district is to do what is best for the students of Irvine, and I know that you share this objective. I appreciate that there are many dynamic facets to this discussion and would encourage you to review the related stories on the IUSD NewsFlash.
As always, thank you for all that you do to support education in Irvine.
Terry L. Walker
Superintendent of Schools
Dear IUSD community member:
Our district has a long history of thoughtful and strategic planning, resulting in schools of the highest quality. By law and by practice, our staff and our contractors strive to provide optimal learning environments that maximize the investments made by local taxpayers.
As you may have heard during one of our recent Board of Education meetings, there has been an extensive amount of work involved in studying two potential sites for our next comprehensive high school. This letter is being sent to bring you up to speed and to clarify some of the facts.
For those who aren?t familiar with our facilities planning efforts, our district, which has experienced rapid growth as a result of recent development, is working to open a new campus in September 2016 to avert overcrowding at Irvine, Northwood, University and Woodbridge high schools. Plans have been underway for several years now, and IUSD and its developer partners have agreements in place for a 40-acre site near the northeast border of the Great Park, often referred to as Site A. Meanwhile, a member of the Irvine City Council has advocated for an alternative location, and in September the Council voted to present it for the district?s consideration. The second site, on the west side of the Great Park, is known as Site B, and the motion approved by the City set a minimum purchase price of $60 million.
IUSD has directed significant resources to ensure thorough reviews of both sites, and though this process is ongoing, our preliminary analysis has not revealed any significant advantage to moving the campus to Site B. Our district is not alone in this assessment. The California Department of Education has deemed both locations suitable to accommodate an Irvine-quality comprehensive high school, and the Irvine Unified Council PTA recently completed a report endorsing Site A after engaging in its own thorough analysis, examining such factors as safety, traffic and timing. In fact, initial site reviews indicate potentially greater concerns, costs and possible mitigation needs for Site B. More on that in a moment.
Suffice to say, absent clear and compelling advantages to changing the location of our fifth high school, it would be irresponsible for our district to switch sites, particularly as this action would result in a project delay of at least a year, triggering acute overcrowding at Irvine, Northwood, University and Woodbridge high schools and generating an estimated $20 million in additional costs. Our district will therefore continue to move forward with Site A, but our analysis of Site B will also continue, ensuring no stone is left unturned. Naturally, we will work closely with all required state agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substance Control, to ensure our schools meet or exceed the clear and rigorous guidelines established for school construction.
We recognize that all of our stakeholders want the absolute best location for Irvine?s next high school, and in recent meetings there has been some discussion of environmental issues and the Orange County Great Park?s proximity to the James A. Musick Facility. I want to assure you that these features have been thoughtfully researched with the help of a number of building and safety experts, and what we?ve learned so far bolsters the case for Site A.
For example, Site B has been identified under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as a Hazardous Material site due to the significant amount of historic military activity, including being home to two dozen underground storage tanks, at least 12 buildings, officer quarters, a mess hall and field storage, as well as an aircraft expeditionary refueling site and petroleum storage. There are also two groundwater plumes nearby. By contrast, Site A does not have this RCRA designation and was primarily used for agriculture. A capped landfill is located north of Site A, containing primarily construction debris and ash. Mitigation measures were taken by the U.S. Navy, and periodic testing ensures the integrity of the cap.
Some proponents of Site B have noted that Site A is closer to the James A. Musick Facility, noting that the minimum-security jail has been slated for expansion. Yet crime statistics and multiple studies do not support the position that jails increase crime or have any impact on neighboring school sites. In addition, the facility would be housing the same levels of low-threat inmates with significantly enhanced security compared to what exists today. In a letter dated Sept. 24, Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens wrote that remarks made during a September City Council meeting ?gave a distorted impression of the future plans for the facility.? Sheriff Hutchens added that the ?nature of the Musick population will not change due to new construction.? Robert Beaver, director of research and development for the Orange County Sheriff?s Department, confirmed a binding memorandum of understanding with the City of Lake Forest that effectively limits the size of the facility to 3,100 beds and prohibits the detention of maximum-security inmates. He also clarified at a recent school board meeting that Musick?s dormitory-style design would not be a feasible model for housing the county?s high-threat inmates, adding that the Sheriff?s Department has more than adequate maximum-security space in other facilities to house these kinds of inmates.
It is also important to note that this area of the city is in the initial stages of development and will soon become a thriving residential community, with thousands of new homes. This is one of the reasons a high school campus must be in place ? to meet the needs of this new community. The continued master-planned development of these neighborhoods and the City?s approval of these plans are further evidence of our shared confidence in the safety and viability of this location.
I would add that regardless of where our next high school is built, we will work closely with the Irvine Police Department and other agencies to ensure the new facility has state-of-the-art safety and security systems, including high-tech surveillance. As with our existing middle and high schools, it will also benefit from the presence of on-site district and police personnel.
Building a new high school is a project of monumental importance, and our district will settle for nothing short of an optimal environment for academics, athletics and co-curricular activities. If, after our exhaustive analysis, there is a valid justification for moving the location and delaying construction, our Board of Education will make that call. Conversely, if there is no clear evidence that Site B is a more advantageous location, it would not be prudent to arbitrarily pursue a course that would delay the project, cause significant overcrowding at our existing sites, adversely impact thousands of Irvine students and needlessly waste tens of millions of dollars.
I don?t have to tell you that Irvine is a special place, and it is so because community members like you take an active role as citizens and stakeholders. Above all, our No. 1 obligation as a school district is to do what is best for the students of Irvine, and I know that you share this objective. I appreciate that there are many dynamic facets to this discussion and would encourage you to review the related stories on the IUSD NewsFlash.
As always, thank you for all that you do to support education in Irvine.
Terry L. Walker
Superintendent of Schools
zubs
Well-known member
TLDR: We picked Site A to build the 5th highschool. Site B has too much contamination. Although Site A is near the jail, we have people that know how to design schools near jails. If we don't pull the trigger now we will lose 20 million dollars and endure massive overcrowding.
High school boundaries changed!!!
http://newsflash.iusd.org/category/fifth-high-school/
http://newsflash.iusd.org/category/fifth-high-school/
J
jmoney74
Guest
They had a different location listed out when I bought my PP home for the HS. They are really trying to move it away from the jail.. and the BR kids. lol j/k
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Not changed yet... those are the proposed changes and still need to be passed.lcms2002 said:
I know a contingent of Chinese parents are very concerned about the high school rezoning and are currently petitioning to keep their children in University High School and Northwood High School. Expect a huge gathering at all of the open meetings and tons of publicity from all the local and regional Chinese news agencies/PR firms. They are in the process of contacting all realtors who target FCBs and are engaging other minority groups (Persians, Koreans, etc.) to join them in their crusade. Should make for an interesting set of meetings!
Irvinecommuter
New member
I don't understand the proposed changes as to Northwood.
The change takes away students from SG, PS, PP, and LR and replaces them with parts of OH. Are they expecting that many students from OH?
Conversely, the new high school is supposed to take on SG, PS, PP, LR, Woodbury, and LA...all areas whether young families are. Are they going to have like 4000 kids there?
Northwood has about 1,900 kids now so technically it has room for 500 more (district's rule of no more than 2,400). I know they're expanding as well so I don't understand the change.
The University changes don't make much sense either considering the neighborhood it covers are already mature and thus not expected to see a dramatic increase in enrollment.
I presume there will be tons of requests for transfers
The change takes away students from SG, PS, PP, and LR and replaces them with parts of OH. Are they expecting that many students from OH?
Conversely, the new high school is supposed to take on SG, PS, PP, LR, Woodbury, and LA...all areas whether young families are. Are they going to have like 4000 kids there?
Northwood has about 1,900 kids now so technically it has room for 500 more (district's rule of no more than 2,400). I know they're expanding as well so I don't understand the change.
The University changes don't make much sense either considering the neighborhood it covers are already mature and thus not expected to see a dramatic increase in enrollment.
I presume there will be tons of requests for transfers
J
jmoney74
Guest
I hope that they make a school specifically for only PP kids and Homie's kids.