Ventura Unified weighs solar options at Ventura High as trustees demand student input

Ventura Unified School District staff and a solar vendor returned to the board with revised siting alternatives for a previously approved solar project at Ventura High School, prompting a detailed board debate about student use of campus spaces and the tradeoffs between revenue and site impacts.

Presenters described three primary design options: multiple canopies (including one over the Senior Lawn), a ground‑mounted array behind Career and Technical Education (CTE) buildings with canopy elements in the parking lot, and a third variant not developed during the briefing. The vendor reported preliminary staff-survey results (77 responses), with 95% preferring the ground‑mount option near the CTE buildings. The firm estimated additional costs at about $900,000 for the canopy-centric option and about $1,100,000 for the ground-mounted option.

Board members raised two recurring themes. First, several trustees argued the meeting materials had not sufficiently included students as stakeholders and asked staff to design a robust, developmentally appropriate student engagement plan. "If we're going to engage the students, we should do it to the highest degree possible," a trustee said, and several trustees asked that any survey or focus-group instrument be returned to the board for review before distribution.

Second, trustees weighed the Senior Lawn's cultural and event uses against the systemwide revenue the district expects from the solar project. Staff cautioned that materially reducing the project’s footprint could trigger a different interconnection tariff (NEM 3), which would substantially lower projected savings. The vendor also warned that long equipment lead times and permitting could delay construction; staff estimated a nine‑month design-to-construction window under ideal conditions and noted a March 2026 interconnection target for the applications described.

After extended discussion about survey methodology, grade-level sampling, and the question wording needed to make student feedback useful, the board asked staff to return with the following: (1) a recommended "student engagement" plan (surveys, focus groups or alternative methods) and a proposed threshold for response rates; (2) refined design options that reflect the board’s "least-worst" preference (board members repeatedly described the design as choosing the least harmful of imperfect options); and (3) updated 20‑year revenue projections showing the impact of smaller footprints or tariff changes.

Direct quotes and numbers were provided during the presentation: the vendor cited the two cost figures of approximately $900,000 and $1,100,000 for the two primary options, and staff noted that maintaining the originally applied-for kilowatt amount within 20% is necessary to preserve the more favorable interconnection tariff. Board members asked for site renderings and photographs to help students and residents visualize any change to the Senior Lawn.

Next procedural steps: staff will return with refined designs, a draft student engagement plan for board review, and updated revenue projections; no final siting decision was made at the meeting.