Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Disposition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press SUSD board over potential sale of Santa Clarita Elementary; board says no action tonight
Summary
At a Dec. 10, 2025 meeting, residents urged the SUSD board not to sell Santa Clarita Elementary and requested clearer public processes; board representatives said they had received letters of interest, that a private party had submitted a price, and that no action would be taken in open session.
At its Dec. 10, 2025 meeting, the SUSD board heard more than a dozen public comments urging the district not to sell the Santa Clarita Elementary property and calling for clearer, lay-friendly explanations of the board’s process for considering offers.
Residents, parents and city officials asked the board to preserve the campus for public or community uses rather than allow private housing. Glenda, a resident, asked the board to “sell the property to the city,” expand the adjacent park and “stop the apartments,” citing concerns about children near a proposed apartment complex. Maci Segovian, intergovernmental relations officer for the City of Santa Clarita, told the board the city had sent a third letter that afternoon requesting a meeting to discuss potential acquisition and provided hard copies of the correspondence to trustees.
Why it matters: speakers said the district’s legally required agenda wording — which allows closed-session discussion of real property negotiations — can be misread as imminent action. Several residents asked the board to publish an explicit, public process for soliciting and evaluating offers so community members would not assume a sale was already underway.
Board and staff responses focused on legal procedure and timing. The chair repeatedly told the public that “there is no action being taken tonight” and that the district must follow Brown Act rules when agendizing closed-session real property negotiations. A board representative said the district had received multiple letters of interest and that one private interest (identified in public comments as an approach from Mark Holmes) included a specific dollar amount while the city’s letters had not specified a price. The board said it had not given staff direction and would discuss offers in closed session.
Residents also pressed technical and fiscal questions. A longtime resident asked why the district had spent $17,000,000 on a two-story annex at Foster Elementary if other nearby school closures were attributed to low attendance; another asked how retrofit cost estimates for Santa Clarita Elementary had reached a cited $8 million to $20 million range. Susie Quinn, a neighbor, urged the district to consider less-invasive liquefaction mitigation options, saying “there are multiple ways of doing liquefaction mitigation.”
What happened next: after public comment the board adjourned to closed session to consider real property negotiations. Trustees reiterated that no formal disposition or vote would occur in open session at this meeting. The board signaled it would circulate a process and next steps following internal discussion and legal review.
No formal motion, vote or final decision on the property was recorded in the public portion of the meeting.
