Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Property Advisory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews District Property Advisory Committee process, agrees to two site‑specific committees and expanded outreach
Summary
Trustees reviewed staff vetting of 43 DPACC applicants (25 qualified after follow‑up), debated representation and language access, and directed staff to form two separate 7–11 member committees for the two proposed surplus sites with targeted outreach to the areas affected.
At the May 9 board meeting Orange Unified staff and trustees discussed the formation of a District Property Advisory Committee (DPACC) to study potential underused or surplus land at two sites (Taft and LaVita). The DPACC is statutorily composed of seven to 11 members and must consider demographic and site‑specific data as part of its legal checklist.
Staff reported 43 initial applications and that, after vetting and follow‑up, 25 applicants appear to meet the stated qualification and availability criteria. Miss Vasquez described steps taken to verify applicants’ residency within district boundaries and follow up on conflicts of interest. Trustees raised concerns about balanced representation by ethnicity, age, socioeconomic background and geographic proximity to the sites under review.
Trustees urged staff to improve outreach to Spanish‑speaking families and to consider recruiting business‑community representatives who operate within Orange Unified boundaries. Trustees also asked that teacher representation be prioritized from affected campuses where feasible so committee members can speak from direct campus experience.
After discussion the board indicated support for forming two separate DPACC panels—one per proposed property—to ensure local stakeholders can focus on the unique neighborhood impacts of each site. Staff committed to return with a narrowed slate of recommended appointees, a description of outreach (including language access and methods used), and a timeline for committee meetings and legally required public hearings at affected school sites.
No formal appointment votes were taken that evening; trustees asked staff to complete additional outreach and verification before bringing appointment recommendations back to a future meeting.
