City council presses LAUSD for formal school‑siting collaboration after capacity briefing

Valerie Miller, chief operating officer for the Los Angeles Unified School District, told the Los Angeles City Council that the district is facing rapid enrollment growth and a looming shortage of high‑school seats, and she urged a new approach that would use smaller "primary centers," conversions of existing campuses and intensified use of district‑owned land.

Miller said, "We have in the school district today 710,000 students. We're the second largest district in the United States after New York," and described recent enrollment increases of more than 14,000 students in a single year and 75,000 over five years. She said those trends had pushed the district to run 214 schools on year‑round, multitrack schedules and to bus roughly 15,000 students as long as 90 minutes each way at a cost of about $25,000,000 a year.

The district outlined an alternative to the traditional large‑site high school model that it said is costly and slow to deliver. Under the plan, LAUSD would prioritize building kindergarten‑through‑third‑grade "primary centers" on 1½–2 acre sites, convert many elementary schools to grades 4–8, and modernize junior high or middle sites into high schools. Miller said the timeline and cost differences are substantial: primary centers could be completed in about 1½ to 2½ years, while large‑site senior high schools can take six to nine years and cost in excess of $40,000 per seat; by contrast the district estimated primary‑center seats at roughly $20,000 each.

Miller used Southgate as an example of the pressure on capacity, saying Southgate High School serves about 4,200 students in a facility originally intended for roughly 1,200 and that Southgate Middle has roughly 4,500 students in a building sized for about 1,300–1,400.

Councilmembers across the chamber welcomed the presentation but said improved, systematic communication is needed before siting decisions are finalized. Councilmember Mike Feuer proposed formalizing "what has been a catch as catch‑can situation" by creating a standing interagency process or committee with representatives from LAUSD and relevant city departments.

Councilmember Mark Ridley‑Thomas moved that the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) and the City Administrative Officer (CAO) prepare a report that incorporates the ideas raised at the hearing and evaluates fiscal and planning impacts; he said that report should include the various suggestions and recommended structures for ongoing coordination and that staff return with a timetable (he suggested roughly 30 days).

Councilmember Mike Hernandez sharply questioned the district's communication and past siting decisions in his district, including the controversy over Belmont. "My problem at Belmont is this," Hernandez said, and described neighborhood impacts, traffic and parking problems he said the city had to address after district decisions. Valerie Miller replied that the district would take the specific questions back to the LAUSD board and provide written responses.

Other councilmembers pressed topics the district had raised: reuse of city‑owned and surplus properties, environmental constraints (Miller said some DWP and other sites are limited by overlays such as proximity to landfills), the need to preserve housing where possible, and how converted facilities would handle after‑school programs, athletics and parking. Several members urged that joint planning account for redevelopment and neighborhood plans so community expectations are raised before any siting proposals move forward.

The council did not adopt a final ordinance or binding approval of a specific LAUSD project during the hearing. Instead the chamber agreed to request a formal CLA/CAO report that compiles the fiscal and planning impacts and outlines a structure for continuing city–district collaboration, with the intent that the report incorporate motions and suggestions from councilmembers and LAUSD staff.