Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Portfolio topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board directs staff to study joint‑use and land‑lease options for surplus sites amid new state rules
Summary
After a legal briefing on the Surplus Lands Act and recent bills, the Ocean View School District board directed staff to research joint‑occupancy agreements and land leases (not sales) for five sites, prioritizing green space, Little League protections and possible workforce or senior housing.
The Ocean View School District Board of Trustees on Oct. 28 instructed staff to study joint‑occupancy agreements, land leases and other options for several underused district properties rather than selling sites outright.
Board members acted after a legal briefing from Terry Tao (Terry Tao & Associates) that highlighted recent changes to state law — most notably AB 1130 — that bring school surplus parcels under the Surplus Lands Act and increased review by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Tao told trustees that AB 1130 could require a portion of disposed property be used for low‑income housing, complicating straightforward sale or lease plans.
Chief Business Official Keith Farrow presented staff analysis of five priority sites — Pleasant View, SunView, Parkview, Spring View and the district office — and recommended options including property exchange, joint occupancy (long‑term ground leases), and limited workforce or district employee housing. Trustees repeatedly emphasized keeping district ownership where possible and preserving open space and recreational uses.
Trustees asked staff to return with more detailed proposals for joint occupancy and land leases that would protect active recreational uses — including Ocean View Little League at Parkview — and explore incentives and constraints for workforce or senior housing. Several trustees noted that recent state legislation (and the district’s own past agreements) limit simple sale strategies and that any plan must ensure the Little League and other community uses have a secure home.
Tao and Farrow highlighted potential revenue streams the district has already captured by renegotiating leases and noted technical options such as property exchange or phased development. Trustees asked staff to research legal constraints tied to Spring View’s gymnasium, which has prior settlement terms affecting use, and to model revenue and community impacts for each option.
The board’s direction was narrowly procedural: staff will do targeted feasibility research on joint‑use agreements and land leases for the listed sites and return with options for further public review and action. No sales were approved.
The board’s next step is for staff to prepare detailed proposals for return to the trustees for consideration and public input.
