District to install setback fencing at Jefferson after CDE safety mandate

Lenox School District staff presented a plan June 10 to install setback fencing at Jefferson School after the California Department of Education required school properties keep people out of specified safety buffers near utility lines.

The district said the CDE requires a fence placed 102 feet from a high‑pressure gas line and 150 feet from a high‑voltage electrical line. The district reported the Division of State Architect will not approve major construction projects on site until the fencing and accompanying safety measures are in place.

District staff described the immediate implications: buildings and classrooms inside the required buffer on Jefferson’s southwest corner must be vacated for regular occupancy, some storage rooms and non‑occupied spaces may be retained for very limited use, and the district must post warning signage and prepare emergency procedures in case of a gas or electrical incident. Staff showed a map of the proposed fence line and said the plan would push fencing across part of the school field and would be paired with an extension of the parking area along Condon Avenue.

As proposed within the consent agenda, the district’s contractor would use “clear view” fencing (the same style used at the WAMO lot), a 6–8 foot high metal security fence that district staff said is harder to breach than chain link and was less expensive in the district’s estimate. Staff said some buildings in the buffer could remain for storage or short‑term adult administrative use but that occupancy rules tied to the CDE mitigation limit building use and require keeping on‑site presence to a minimum (staff cited a 2‑hour limit for nonessential occupancy in the buffer during emergency response procedures).

Board members and staff discussed programmatic tradeoffs: staff suggested repurposing some of the newly fenced area as parking or a drop‑off/pick‑up zone to avoid paving all green space; trustees raised the idea of low‑impact community uses (for example, container or raised‑bed gardens) and asked staff to investigate feasibility and maintenance responsibilities. Staff cautioned that digging or deep planting might not be allowed within the protected area and said they would seek options that respect the CDE buffer and maintenance constraints.

The presentation did not include a formal board vote on fencing during the meeting; the fencing plan was placed on the consent agenda for later consideration of contract and budget items. Staff said the first step is to meet the compliance requirement and that once the district has an approved setback plan, it will develop longer‑term plans for reuse of the affected green space.

District staff said they would return with cost estimates and a more detailed implementation plan, and asked the board to direct staff — through the consent agenda and contracting process — to complete the fencing and signage work to meet CDE and Division of State Architect requirements.