Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Real Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RPAC recommends three sites are not needed for school purposes; community urges transparency and slow approach
Summary
The Real Property Advisory Committee recommended three district sites are not needed for school purposes and advised against long‑term sale or lease; community speakers criticized the process and asked for clearer definitions and independent analysis.
The district’s Real Property Advisory Committee (RPAC) presented its recommendations to the board on Jan. 23, concluding by consensus that three reviewed sites were not needed for school purposes at this time. The committee urged transparency and recommended that any future leases not exceed seven years.
Cindy Key, RPAC chair, said the committee reviewed demographic projections, site utilization and future housing/development data and reached consensus that the three sites in question are not needed for classroom capacity. “The committee agreed by consensus based on the data we reviewed that the three properties in question were not needed for educational purposes at this time,” Key said.
Multiple community members who addressed the board criticized RPAC’s process and the staff exhibits provided to the committee. Giana Wen, a parent and community member, told trustees she believed crucial definitions and exhibits were missing and called for independent review. “The decision‑making process is fundamentally flawed,” she said, urging the board to clarify definitions of surplus and educational purposes and to engage independent experts.
RPAC and staff said that their role was to determine whether sites were needed for school purposes and that the board, if it chooses to pursue sale or lease, would separately be required to make a surplus determination under Education Code procedures. RPAC members also recommended against selling or leasing these sites for longer than seven years; the committee stated that short‑term uses could support district or community needs while preserving long‑term options.
Trustees accepted the RPAC report and asked staff to publish exhibits on the RPAC website and to consider whether the committee should narrow and prioritize recommended uses (the board may agendize further RPAC work). Several trustees stressed the need to move cautiously given public mistrust following a prior 2020 proposal involving a third party, and urged robust community engagement before any transaction.
The board voted to accept the RPAC report; no immediate sale or lease actions were taken.
