West Contra Costa Unified School District Board of Education - Regular Meeting

Do you mind doing the introduction one more time?

Sure. My name is James Sanders. I'm the chairman of the 711 Committee of the West Contra Costa Unified School District. And we are assembled in the Facilities Operations Center of the West Contra Costa Unified School District for our meeting on the 1st of June, 2026 at 6 p.m. It's now Almost one minute after six. Call the meeting to order. And if you are able, would you please stand? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. I'm going to take a roll. It doesn't show on the agenda, but I just want to take a roll and make sure that everyone's accounted for. So if you are here, please answer here or present. Mr. Gosling. Here. Myself is here. Arno Rantila. Here. Nicholas Crescenzi.

Morning. I'm here.

Are you with us remotely?

I am, but I'm outside. We'll be walking in in two seconds.

Oh, thank you. Ms. Toms? Here. John Kellogg? Present. Chi-Wu? Present. Chi-Wu? Present. Thank you. Eli Moore? Eli Moore. Kevin McCarrion?

Here.

Pedro Agredano?

Here.

I don't think you're going to go there yet. The ground. So the in front of this. Are you with us remotely this time it is. I do not see her. The same Suzanne Wilson. John Dugan. There are we are right. And I'm okay. Thank you very much.

Well, I'm sure we're going to be just going to be just ask what they just remind everybody speak clearly loudly and enunciate because we rely upon these videos quite a bit. Sometimes it's a little difficult.

Oh, I agree.

I appreciate your help.

All right. For purposes of recording on the owl, which is recording this minute. This meeting both visually and auditory. Auditory?

Auditory.

Auditory. By sound. Would everyone please speak up when speaking. Now I'm going to go to item A3 on the agenda, the land acknowledgement. And by board policy, this must be read. We recognize that we are presently on the lands of the Chertino, Muwekma, Karkine, Ohoni peoples and acknowledge them as the first inhabitants of the land we currently occupy. In the labor and body recognition, I acknowledge that the burden of environmental exploitation and systemic injustice falls upon the labor of black and brown bodies in the building of this country and its institutions. Remember that black and brown people were born and died working this land against their will for generations. I also acknowledge the continued contribution of the labor of survivors over the centuries to today. Of all I regret labor, including voluntary, involuntary, traffic, forced, and undocumented peoples in the building of what we refer to as the United States. The author of this is Dr. Rochelle Rogers-Hard. And now we're on page five. Would you all please peruse the agenda. It has four pages to it. It starts on page two and continues through page five. And I will entertain a motion in favor of adopting the agenda as printed. Or if there are any questions or changes, we'll go from there.

Mr. Kellogg. Thank you. The action items, if we leave on here, confirm recommendations, would it be still OK for the committee to decide that we're not yet ready to confirm these recommendations after we review them? OK. So there's no commitment to actually confirming them today. We're going to more review them and maybe confirm them.

No. I was discussing this issue with one of our senior members. And my point of mind at the moment is everyone has one vote. Everyone has the ability to make a motion. the second emotion, to discuss emotion, to vote in favor or in the negative with respect to emotion. So we shouldn't think that everything here is necessarily written in stone. It is not. And so if there are changes, recommendations, insight that we should be adopting because of new perspectives, then all four. The only thing I would like to avoid is having the committee function beyond the first of the next year. Good goal. Very good goal. Thank you very much. All right. Back to approval of the agenda or changes. I will move approval of the agenda. I will play this. Thomas has moved approval of the agenda. Is there a second? Mr. Renteala seconds the motion. We have one more member. We'll wait a moment. Mr. Moore is here. Mr. Moore, would you sign in please?

For the record, he arrived at 6.06.

I said don't want to treat.

Okay, so our motion is on the floor to approve the agenda as written. Hearing no objection. Without objection, the motion was adopted. Now we move on to item A6. In the packet that's stood for you, starting on page 6, are outstanding minutes of meetings from March 5 of 2024 through July 15 of 2024 and the minutes of the last meeting, which was May 14, 2026. I realize that not everyone has had the packet in their hands and been able to read the minutes as presented. Nevertheless, I would like to take them one at a time and see if we can just I'm going to go as far as you know. Work our way through that we get through. They're trying to find some style room that will be the command so turning the page. We'll see the meaning of the meeting that's prepared by Mister Dawson or March 5 2024. Earlier minutes prepared for March 5 of 2024 or not through. So these are the succeeding candidate minutes March 5. And you know I want to have a motion to improve the best as part of.

My last question. Sure let's go. What happened here?

I mean, I'm happy to vote and approve it, but I feel like there's a story that has not been articulated to the members of the committee, and I'm not certain if we're walking into something that's weird or just like... No, there was an objection raised by Mr. Gosselin.

Mr. Gosselin, would you like to enlighten the rest of the committee with respect to March 5th?

This is not just March 5th, because it was also some of the other meetings as well, the same kind of reasons. We had a parliamentarian that was brought in by the district that had her own idea about what was important and what was not important, and they were action minutes, period, and they were missing a lot of items as well. And we chose not to accept those minutes and some of the subsequent minutes. And even when we had a secretary, sometimes we had an attendance problem where the secretary wasn't in attendance to record them and came significantly later.

Go ahead. Okay. Motion to move the item.

Okay, there is a motion to approve the dance for March 5 so second. Also it was for those who said it's the motion.

The discussion of what what does it mean that we're coming minutes that we are present or for me to remember what it would as I understand Robert's rules that we are under Robert tools.

We are what I mean. The district operates under Rosenberg you know so.

We went through that. We're going to win. In answer to your question. The minutes can be amended at any time. Or or any reason search someone question the address in the minutes or wish to And some particular room that added a bit of the point that was wrong. So what we're trying to do is to approve minutes that can then be attached to the report so that the board can finish that part of our and go on to hold public hearings with respect to the draft report. And yet you know the input and then from that stage we want to forwarding the report with the committee input to the Board of Trustees so that they can take the appropriate action with respect to those properties. So it's a procedural matter that we'll try to remedy.

So to be able to check off the box that this committee in its past formation did some required activity in the process.

Yes. We're trying to create a record of what transpired in the meetings. The meetings exist in recorded form on the home page in the facilities management project. And they can be listened to. You can also use AI tools to create transcriptions if you're curious about what went on. But it's a matter of getting out from under the burden of having these minutes of delaying us in terms of finishing our job. If you're, I can create, I already have transcriptions by AI tools of some means, and I can make copies for you if you would like to read them. They run approximately 60 pages per meeting.

Actually, I don't want to waste the committee's time, but I don't know what decisions were made at that meeting that are part of the required process. Were there any?

Yes. Sorry.

I'm just wondering to what extent it's a formality because moving forward, we need to look at the report and what are the recommendations or what came of the report. And if folks need to see the record, they can look at video, they can look at transcriptions, they can look at the minutes and decipher. But otherwise.

Before we go further on, can I just see a show of hands? How many people here have seen the minutes for the first time. One, two, just a show of hands. First time tonight?

I've seen them already.

All right. Three, four, and three.

You've seen the minutes before? I've seen most of the minutes before, but I've also seen a different copy as well, included with these. Okay. Of sure that they just like I got to the I got which is with really easy to identify Mister doesn't causes minutes and somebody else's men and then some of the other meetings right.

You're sending it is coming and you have what they are for them.

The super or yeah, I don't know if I want to make a substitute motion that 50% or more are not comfortable voting on these minutes that we can move these to the next. And I prefer people not be uncomfortable voting on something they're not familiar with yet right.

There's more current.

I mean I had another question of like if those who were on the board or on this group may previously we're not here to represent what was said, what wasn't said, to make corrections or whatnot. I'm just curious as to the next steps. And second, moving forward, it feels like every time a meeting happens, the meeting minutes should be approved after every meeting instead of letting this happen again. I agree. That's possible.

I agree with your statement. Ms. Thompson?

And I was going to say if there's not a motion on the table. We were all at the May 14 2026 meeting and the minutes are in the packet can we not close off. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the May 14 2026 meeting minutes. We already have a motion to have a motion to have a motion on the floor for your on your motion will withdraw my motion with that for March 6 I thought we would or March 5.

March that it is right.

My my motion is to understand approved May 14th 2026 minutes or a substitute.

No, but I would like to second. He was really.

Okay. Okay. So let's turn to the May 14th. We're just going to be 3 of them. We have a second.

I said yes.

What are you are trying to make the most. I mean the ocean. I had a tough time separating.

All right so for our attention. This year.

What page would you like?

It goes from page 44 to page 43.

The minutes at the end of every section, almost every section includes the phrase, there was no solicitation of public comment. I'm curious why that was included. Like it's actually after a statement, but it's also true. I didn't go to the back. So that's not an area.

But I don't recall. There's the item be one public comment. I'm with Mister Dawson's and beyond that. You're going to say the rest of the paragraph. Which I did not read because it's included in the beginning of every set of agendas. And that. So the First page of the agenda for a 14-year-old. Participating in community meetings in her career. And. And. I'm part of the opening of it. I'll have to listen to the original record. I thought I read that. Mr. Goss.

Unless it's specifically stated elsewhere in a board policy or such like that, after every agenda item, the public is supposed to be given an opportunity to comment. But when you do not put a statement like that then there's an assumption that either nobody spoke or that with the comments were not included in the minutes. So this just addresses that there were no comments solicited on there.

I believe we asked for public comment though no no.

But it'd be better to just say there were no public comments. And when you don't get into the weather they were solicited or not there's no public comments.

And.

But in the direction of not try to do because it is the requirement is that you ask for. Not that you said nobody bother to speak up.

is no public comment and no comment was solicited for and that does the agenda items basically should have always public comment you know granted because especially in the use of zoom and the particular version that the district uses where it doesn't allow people to force their way in It has to be a panelist version where you're only granted that access if it's not called for. And you can't see it. No one can raise their hand. No one can interject. Right. Whereas like at a board meeting, if you didn't like what was going on, you could actually object and say their public comment wasn't granted.

So I suppose we need a ruling from the chair. At the moment, my ruling is to leave the statement as it is. Sorry, to leave the statement? To leave the statement. There was no solicitation of public comment. To delete them, you say?

To leave. Unchanged. Ask again. Speak up there. It helps.

Go ahead. Thank you. Mr. Keller? So I have no objection to leaving it. What I do think I would say is this feels oddly passive-aggressive. Like, I suspect Mr. Galzini knew that this was the rule during the meeting and should have said at the time to the chair, hey, chair, we need to call for public comment, and that that would be a lot more constructive than waiting until the next meeting to put in what reads as kind of a passive-aggressive, the chair didn't do his job, na-na-na, Like, I think we can be better than that. So that would be my observation.

After every actual item, Ellen did look for, see if there was anybody trying to make a comment or raise their hand for a comment. So there was somebody checking on public comment. Let me just establish that wasn't the case. So I don't know.

And this is her second meeting.

Ms. Hooper, would you like to enlighten us?

I I'm far from perfect so we might have forgotten on some of the items so I I have not reviewed the meeting. I I did recall that we didn't look for hands. But did we do it on absolutely every item like that for it.

Recognize that we can amend or these minutes at any time following through the minutes correct. Let's return to the simple question of the approval of the minutes there's a motion or.

Believe all you need to do is call for a vote. Although you could take up a comment.

Before the vote.

Okay so you might want to call the public comments.

Sorry.

It would be helpful to know, are we under Roberts or are we under the other one that is an R?

At the time we established, we went through this discussion with Mr. Gosling reading the discussion in favor of something other than Roberts' rules and the parliamentarian engaging him in a rigorous debate over it too. It's my understanding that we remained under Robert's rules. And Mr. Henderson is not here to correct that one way or the other, but he was here for that discussion.

So we do have somebody from his office. I'm his partner, Serena Abrahamian. Hi, how are you?

Would you like to weigh in on the discussion of the two sets of rules?

Well, I guess I'm a little concerned just about where we are procedurally, because there's a motion and there's a second to approve the minutes. And now we're talking about which rules apply. So can we get through the voting on that before we have the discussion around the Roberts rules issue? And also for my edification, what is the purpose of the question? Does it go back to the issue of... of whether or not those who want to abstain from voting around prior minutes can do so, just so I understand the background of the question.

It gets to the question of actually how you end debate, because it's my understanding under both Roberts and the other rules that, in fact, a motion to second is not sufficient to call the vote. You then enter debate. And if we exhaust debate, then we can go to a vote. But to affirmatively end debate is actually a two-thirds vote, because that's denying the minority their ability to speak on the motion. So just sort of making sure we're all following the structure of Parley Pro. That's how that historically works.

I mean, if you have a motion and a second, you have discussion, and then there's a vote. That is typically the procedure for how this would work.

Right.

Mr. Gosling?

One of the big differences between the two sets of rules for a committee of this size is what constitutes a quorum. with Robert's Rules of Order, it is 50% plus one of the people that are on the committee. But on Rosenberg's Rules, it's 50% plus one of the body, the total number that can be on the body, on there. There's been a question that's come up in the city of Richmond in numerous committees and everything, where their attorneys have pointed that out as being correct. which would have 21 people, but you've only got 11 people that are actually signed up on the committee. So one person doesn't show up and you don't have a quorum. And that's one of the big reasons that there is a difference between two of them.

Another issue you may recall is who owns the motion? So I am not in a position in terms of my recollection as to who controls the motion. But I believe under Rosenberg, the maker of the motion controls the motion rather than the chair of the committee. Is that not correct, sir? I'm not 100% sure on that.

That wasn't an issue that I ever heard of. So under Rosenberg, it's also wild because you can have three simultaneous motions. And so it's the idea of controlling a motion doesn't really apply in Rosenberg. And that actually, honestly, as chair, you are responsible for managing all three And then you're supposed to vote in the reverse order in which they were offered. So it's kind of a mess if you want my personal opinion on Rosenberg's. But my understanding is that those were our default rules.

All right. So it's super.

Shall we call for public comment on these meeting minutes?

Sure. Is there any public comment? I see no hands at this time. Okay. Okay. We're going to take a roll call vote if you will. So Mister Dawson. Yes. Well, I don't know if that's the story to you. Yes. Mister Krasinski yes. This time yes, Mister Kellogg I miss you yes, Mister Moore and Mister McCarran yes, Mister O'Connor yes. Motions passed.

Thank you all very much.

All right. Previous sets of minutes were just as contentious. That's the problem. Well, more so than one. Okay.

So now we're at Oh, excuse me. They have a motion to table the remaining minutes. For the succeeding minute meeting so that all members of the committee and review the list and put them in like the.

Even when it's so everybody has added not to do you read the book is there's a second to the motion.

I got to check the record on a second. The story to you in a motion to enable the discussion and approval of minutes from March 5 March 19 March 26. June 11 and June 25 of 2024 and all members of the committee in the back of any member of the many not here. No one's here. No one. Everyone is here so you should all have a packet to take home. We are now at item B1, public comment. Members of the public are invited to speak on any matter related to the 7-11 committee.

Ms. Fung? Should we ask for public comment and vote on that motion and second?

All right. Yes. Shall we do that? Is there, are there any hands raised with respect to the last motion approving the minutes of May 14, 2026? I see no hands at this time. Is there any discussion in the committee? Hearing none, We want to be one you want to do the book. Roll call or what. The minutes were approved on the table. One more time. So the motion is to table the minutes of those dates that I read March 5, March 19, March 26, June 11, June 25, 2024 and July 15. And July 15. Thank you very much. And so the 16. The next link meeting of the train.

I would call for public comment on this because you're speaking to you but it's the one was for we have any on the motion on the floor.

I see no no hands of the stuff.

Very good. No, no, no, no. That's what it's no. I vote yes. Mister into it. Yes. Mister Christmas. Yes. This time. Yes. Mister Kellogg I miss you. Yes. The odds of the record or what you know that you get this or more.

Yes.

Mister McCarran yes. Mister I don't know yes. Motion pass. We are now if you want again. Thank you members of the public are invited to speak on any matter related to the 7.11 committee at this time. Members of the public may speak on individual items of interest in the agenda as the items are discussed. That's the issue that we're just working around. There are there any hands raise. We do have a public argument from this about.

Mr. Carson.

Thank you. Before we get into the actual business of this meeting, I just wanted to bring up two items for consideration, some of which we've already kind of touched on here. The first being the review of specific sections of the draft report. I want to remind everyone that what we have in front of us is not the actual draft report. It is selected sections. This means that at a subsequent meeting, once these sections have been approved and inserted into the report, we will need to vote to approve or amend. While Chair Sanders, Vice Chair Ruchila and myself attended the meetings when this data was reviewed, many of you may not be as intimately familiar with what you're seeing, and more importantly, how these recommendations came about. I'm encouraging you to ask questions until you have the information you desire and need. If you feel that you are unprepared to vote, might I suggest that you speak up and suggest something other than taking a vote where you might not be as prepared as you need? The second item has to do with voting on any minutes when you did not attend the meetings or have reviewed the videos. This is going to come up for future meetings, too. I'm only posing questions here. I've brought up the vagueness of the six-page set of Rosenberg's rules and how to count votes when there is an abstention. I've participated... in enough public meetings where this has come up and heard numerous legal opinions by people that actually attended law school and passed the bar. I'm suggesting that this committee might want to avail themselves of the legal counsel with us tonight that can go on record explaining how this should proceed. Presentation of our meeting minutes to the public and then the board is a legal requirement, so we don't want the approval of these minutes to be contested. This falls under the crossing the T's and dotting the I's mandate. As a person likely to have drafted 20 plus sets of minutes by the time we're done, I would really like to know that everyone has read them. Maybe we can bind them and they'll appear on the New York Times bestseller list. Who knows? But in the world I live, I'm not going to bet the farm that anyone will really read them. Nonetheless, I'm a stickler for doing things the right way, which means presenting approved minutes where a person can peruse them and have a reasonable expectation of understanding what went on at our meetings without having to review 45 plus hours of videos by the time we're done.

Thank you. Mr. Moore.

I know that there's been state laws, multiple state laws passed in the last couple of years related to surplus lands related to school district lands. And that some of that happened since this committee was last convened. I think it would be really helpful if we got some kind of presentation on what those changes to the state law are. So I know that they, they have created some opportunities for us that didn't exist before. Um, so I think that would be really important for us to know before we go into some of these recommendations or yeah. Okay.

Can I ask a clarification question is, are you referring to assembly bill one 30?

I don't know this.

Are you referring to the changes to the surplus land act that were approved last July.

Hold on one second.

Not didn't mean to put you on the spot, I just want to make sure we understand what you're asking to be brought.

I mean, I'm asking about any, so for instance, in the draft plan from last time.

Any updates to that?

It says the 711 Committee did not evaluate in detail the provisions of SB 35 and AB 2295. Oh, yeah. That was already in there. And then I know there have been multiple initiatives since then. I don't know exactly what the state laws are. That's what I'd like a lawyer to answer.

Mr. Chair, one moment. Ms. Abraham, is that now on your agenda for Mr. Henderson for the next meeting?

Correct, yeah. That's why I was trying to get some clarification as to what the ask is.

Okay, thank you very much. I can email later. There's, you know, specifics that I'd like included.

Okay, that works as well.

Mr. Rossi.

A few weeks ago, Ms. Mejia Hooper and I attended a symposium put on by the California School Board of Associations and the legal chapter of it touched on this, pointing out even recent legislation suggested that in our situation that a 7-11 committee may not even be required. And I was going to be requesting that we get a report on that from our attorney at some point. But it kind of touches on that.

I think it's in the statute that workforce housing doesn't require a 7-Eleven committee, you know, so the property is not being sold. It's when the property has the prospect of being sold that a 7-Eleven committee has to be the advisory body.

Yes, I wish that lawyer had been more clear. Come on, thanks. And given us actually documents. Ms. McHale-Hooper. Ms. Hooper. She was there.

Well, I would just like to encourage the committee to move on to the next agenda item because it is the discussion of the recommendations. We're still in public comment. So we've wandered well away from public comment. Okay.

So I was making a comment because it wasn't related to the specific item. Right. So I think that is public comment.

But you're not supposed to respond to public comment. and we've now been having a discussion on it yeah because of the brown act it's not actually agendized and so public comments kind of a one-way street for this particular portion of the meeting because this particular portion of meeting is referring to public comment of items not on the agenda right okay so but there's plenty of room to discuss all this in a minute Don't want to hamper the ability to discuss. It's just.

All right. So I'm going to just close public comment and move on to item D, discussion items. D2, the draft report, the process required by statute, site recommendations, discussion, and Mr. Henderson's representative.

All right. Good evening, everyone. We did pull a few items that were previously presented to the committee to help this process along. There we go. So we would like to start tonight. I know we reviewed it last time, but just as a quick reminder of the role of the 7-11 committee and its duties.

This is page 49.

49 in your packet.

And Serena, if you would like to introduce these slides. Yeah, 49 and 50.

There are two slides.

So just speaking generally to the statute education code section 17390, outlines the specific duties of the 7-11 committee. And it's written in a way that sometimes makes people scratch their head a little bit as to exactly what the procedure is. But generally, in layman's terms, what it does require and what a lot of what this committee has followed over the last number of years is, of course, the committee receives information, most importantly, school enrollment information, and then, of course, information about the properties and information to be able to make a determination of whether the property is surplus to the district's needs establishing a priority list of use of surplus space and real property that will be acceptable to the community what that speaks to is tonight you're going to be reviewing some of the recommendations that had been developed relating to each of the sites So relating to those specific recommendations, when it says a priority list of use, in the old days, a lot of that used to refer to the minimal parameters of sale, lease, exchange. As you'll see in the recommendations that are going to be reviewed tonight, I think that the committee's past work provided more information information along the lines of what those recommendations can entail relating to each site and based on the specific aspects of those sites. And then once those recommendations are developed to the point where there is a meeting of the minds on the committee to bring them forward for public comment, what you see there as item C speaks to the public hearing component of the process, which is a very, very important aspect of the process. When the committee reaches the point where they have recommendations to bring forth for a public hearing process, then those recommendations, the public hearing is noticed pursuant to the typical advertising requirements that the district follows. Of course, the committee can ask for additional steps to be taken around advertising relating to the public hearing, but enough so that of course it's apparent to the community and they have an opportunity to come and provide their input on those recommendations. After those recommendations are received, the committee can make a determination of whether it wants to adjust the report to meet some of the community's recommendations, questions, input, and comments. And then the report would go to a final vote, including those recommendations by the committee. And then, of course, what you see there as item E is that the written report, which contains all of the background information, the findings and the recommendations would be submitted to the Board of Education for their consideration. Are there any questions around that process? I know we've talked a little bit about where the committee is right now. So where the committee is right now is of course tonight you all are continuing to review the recommendations that were previously developed and we'll have the opportunity to provide your input as committee members into those recommendations so that you can get to the point where you're ready to then bring those forward for community input. And I did want to note importantly, because we do get this question a lot, is because these are Brown Act meetings, of course, the public has the opportunity at every single meeting to attend and provide their input, which is why the public comment component is so important. So the idea is that there can be a community input aspect to this all along, but the purpose of the public hearing is really to collect input

specifically on the recommendations that have been approved by the committee to receive public input on and and for those to be considered during a public hearing okay mr killa i have two questions regarding the public comment process there so question one is it it sounds like after the comment we have the ability to go back and revise our recommendation is there a level of revision that requires us to do a second round of public comment

Sorry. So because this is supposed to be as collaborative a process as possible with the community, and that's how the process is built, you as a committee have the option of adding public hearings and an opportunity for more input if you would like, yes, after those adjustments are made. And some committees will do that.

And then secondly, sorry, if I can just repeat. No, no, go ahead. During that, I'm curious only because we just talked about how public comment during this meeting is a one-way street. When we do those public sessions, will we be able to engage with the public and ask them for clarifying questions about whatever they bring up? Or is it just we sit there and listen and then we're done?

you listen and then you will have an opportunity. Typically how the agendas are built when the public hearing is on the agenda is after the public hearing component. Before the public hearing, it's helpful to have a presentation on where you are with the recommendations and what the report contains so that the community has the opportunity to hear that and make fruitful and helpful public comments during the public hearing component. But then after you receive their input, then there would be an opportunity to have a discussion around what you've received and the information you've received and also deliberate about are there adjustments that you'd like to make to the report. So even though you're not directly responding, the agenda will be built in a way that you can have that ability to provide your feedback to what you're hearing from the community members.

I have a question regarding what's the requirement for public notification of the public hearings?

So typically districts will follow the procedure that they utilize for noticing their public hearings for board meetings. If the committee so chooses, it can add some additional layers to that. What we've seen is we really want you to post it at, for example, the administrative office of each school site so that the parents who are coming at the schools know that there's an opportunity for them to come and provide public input. We want you to run an advertisement in the paper. So those are things that can be discussed. of course that's also subject to the resources that are available to the school district to be able to accommodate some of those requests but the goal is so that there's enough notice and that it's it's been spread far and wide enough so that there isn't an argument down the road that the community didn't know or didn't have an opportunity to attend and provide their input yes before this committee can present to the public uh do we have to finalize and vote on all the minutes So I did want to touch on that. The reason why it's important to have a record of the approved minutes, and just if I can go back to the prior discussion, I didn't quite jump in the way that I expected at that point. But the goal is you're not necessarily, when you approve those prior minutes, approving the accuracy of necessarily confirming that that is in fact what occurred. what you're confirming is that the record is accurate. So based on the information that's available to the committee members who are presently here and who can vote, based on the record, based on the recordings, based on the information you are able to review, that you're confirming by voting to approve those minutes that the record is accurate. And it's important to have an accurate written record and a vote reflecting that so that when it goes to the board for consideration, the report as a whole, that it's clear what actions were taken and what votes were taken along the way to get to that point. So to your question about whether that should be done before the recommendations are brought forth for consideration by the community, that would be a best practice. Yes.

Perfect question.

Slide two. It says that There should be a review of the projected school enrollment. Has that happened? I didn't see that in the draft report.

I may respond to that. In your package, it's rather large. There was a report to the board, which is contained in your packet. And it starts around page 62. 2025 2026 demographics of the role of protection. The February of 2026. The super.

Previously the enrollment data was brought forward but since that was a question at our last meeting we included the more up to date one since it was a few years ago. We did not include every school sites data information that all of the schools that these properties are within boundaries we put in there just to save the few trees that we could because it would have been even thicker if we put the full report in. So if you were wondering why the page numbers are not consecutive, that's why. But those are the schools that are within the boundaries or the attendance boundaries of the properties.

And that goes, what we have in our hands is approximately 12. It's from page 62 through page 132, says. 70 pages, hopefully. Mr. Krasinski?

Just for clarification, that everybody is on the same page. When was the last meeting of the previous 7-11 committee? How stale is this report?

Also, this report, are you talking about the draft report or are you talking about the demographic report?

The draft report, because there's been a year of no movement, two years of no movement. You are now inserting demographic data that doesn't correspond with what was made with the decisions, right? Decisions were made based on different demographic data. Do you see where I'm going with this?

I do, but I don't. As I recall, I mean, look at the trends. The trends are similar. They all move in the same direction. The numbers will be different, but the trend is the same. And the answer to your question is the draft report was completed in July of 2024.

I mean, I just, I look at, you know, the district today is different than it was two years ago. Reality is, is, is that you have You have the declining enrollment that is very, that trend has continued, right? But you also have just a different dynamic in what is important and what the direction the district is going in. So I just, I'm bringing up an observation of that, you know, the demographic data that you're using today from the latest report, the trend may be the same, but the numbers may be different. The trend could be declining enrollment, and I'm just pulling numbers. I'm using this as an observation, not as in 2024, the declining enrollment was projected at 10%. Today, the declining enrollment could be projected at 15%. It makes a very different thing, or maybe it's only at 6%, right? And based on that, your surplus property or direction you want to go in is different, but also the potential of ideas of things that could be done with surplus property, for example, Workforce housing has developed quite a bit in the last two years, but there are other questions that could be asked. I'm sorry that Mr. Carter isn't here today because there was a question I wanted to ask him. He's very knowledgeable on a large scale of what's going on in the state of California. And so those questions should be asked by, you know, I mean, you basically you have almost a whole new committee. And the report, you know, we'll look at it. But where we are today is very different than you probably were when you started this.

Let me just offer one item in response. We are here to determine whether or not the needs of the district required that we retain any of these properties. Three of the four properties are unacceptable for public schools according to the Office of the State Archipelago. So with respect to those three properties, the only thing big issue to be discussed is the proper use of those properties or the appropriate use of those properties that is acceptable to the surrounding community and to the district. With respect to the fourth property, which we previously declared surplus, but to be retained because of the prospect of development simply across the street from the property that. We can discuss that. With respect to the district and enrollment, depending upon where you're standing in the district, enrollment is declining or the schools are impacted and over-enroll. So district-wide, the enrollment is declining. With respect to the impacted schools, enrollment is not declining. The sites are all landlocked. Unless the district or some other entity can exercise eminent domain, we're in a hard place with respect to those schools. We're in a hard place with respect to the other schools. Do we close any of them, given what's going on? So more to your point, the district is now in a contract that's proven to be expensive. And so some things have to be eliminated or consolidated. And that's not our decision. Have I covered the points in that?

Yeah, I mean, I understand all that. I am just putting out there in the universe some of the other observations that I see. And I just want to make sure that some of it is clear and some of it is on the record of where we were, where we are. Not just because this report was generated with almost nobody who's, you know, there are three of you who were here, right? The rest of us have a lot of catching up to do, but also there's a lot of change that has happened.

Thomas and then Mr. Goss. No.

I just wanted to respond to the question. The report was prepared in 2024. However, in our packet, we have demographics that were prepared just a few months ago, February 2026. So I think part of our task is going to be to review these projections, make sure that it is indeed a similar trend and make a determination that these properties would indeed be surplus. But we have updated data that has been provided to us.

Yeah, I really appreciate that, too. I just wanted to say that the direct report recommendations aren't really recommendations. I mean, each one is kind of like, you can do this, or you can do that, or you can do this. So to your point, I think there's still a ton of flexibility for us to refine, revise the recommendations. They didn't really get very precise in what they were proposing in the last round. So it's still very pretty open-ended.

Okay, Mr. McCartney.

To add to that, I mean, you also, after this point, will present it to the public and they will also comment on it, which will then refine it, correct? So I think we're getting kind of held up here, kind of gatekeeping it all and, you know, preventing, you know, we should try to jump in if you want.

Okay. What would I propose to do? Well, let's see if we're dealing, finish with the slides. So... Before we get to the site, I think I pick it up when we get to the sites. So Ms. Hooper, if you would do me the honor of reviewing the last slide, council.

Yeah. So moving on to the committee's report should include, do you want to finish this slide up?

Correct. And so I think you all reviewed the draft report and saw that some of these components were, in fact, included. So it is typically recommended, as we talked in the previous slide about, of course, enrollment data and information relating to the properties themselves, including current zoning and just to get a better understanding of how the properties are situated and their valuation. A determination regarding the highest and best use is often incorporated if the districts have assistance in that regard to provide that information, which of course is contained in the draft report that you all have in front of you. So typically what that refers to is what is the highest and best use is the most valuable use of the property that is legally allowed, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximizes value. So you're not looking at the current use of the property to determine the highest and best use. You're looking at what could it be developed for that could meet all of the criteria that we just identified. Additionally, there's information that districts can obtain relating to appraised value. Not all districts do that up front just because it is a cost to do that. So in some cases, they wait till closer to the point of disposition to obtain the appraised values, which is why you see it as an optional item. But I think in this case, the district, and Ms. Hooper, please correct me if I'm wrong, the district did have a real estate consultant who did some legwork around valuation and did do the assessment of highest and best use. So you do have some of that information. Is it dated? Yes. And would need to be updated. And that would be an additional cost for the district. So just wanted to put that out there as a consideration for you all. And then lastly, you see there as the third bullet information based on the district obtained title report to evaluate the effect of any restrictions, covenants or reversionary clauses. Similarly to the appraisal, it is a cost to the districts to obtain preliminary title reports. I think here the district had at one point obtained those reports relating to the sites. what um what uh for this meeting uh the committee will see is attached to the agenda packet is some information that our firm was able to pull off of a title database first american that we um have access to their database and information so what you see there is uh information relating to the condition of title as it currently stands based on public information that's available. So it doesn't go as far as a preliminary title report, but I think it is helpful to maybe confirm some of the title information that was previously presented to the committee. And then finally, just talking through the procedure of surplusing, we reviewed Ed Code 17390, which is of course the role and responsibility of the committee. Once the committee makes a recommendation, if it does make a recommendation and submits a recommendation report to the board, then the board would still have to consider and take action to deem property surplus. So submitting the report from the committee to the board does not in and of itself make any property or give any property surplus designation. The board would still have to act to accomplish that. And speaking to some of the other recommendations that were in some of what's going to be presented here shortly, there are alternatives to surplus that the board can also consider. So those are the things that the board can consider along with the surplus designation. And we can give you a little more information about that when the legal parameters are brought back at the next meeting.

Okay.

Mr. Chair. It would be appropriate to comment on what she commented now or wait until the whole thing is done.

No, it would be appropriate to comment on what she did.

Yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions.

The appraisals that we had were four years ago. July, four years ago. We all got to believe that the numbers have changed. I think that having... a more accurate set of evaluations of the property would be appropriate before we even went to the public on that. I know there's a cost factor involved. We don't have to research the titles of that. That's primarily been done. will find tuning of that make sure that everything is still the same but at least that a a more proper valuation of the properties would make a big difference to me if you need to get $10 million or 4 years ago but now it's $20 million. That makes a big a big difference in my mind so it's just all those numbers out there that I think that was something that the district are considered even though there is a cost factor to it.

I'm looking at the packet from The previous meeting from May 14. And those of you that still have the packet, if you look toward the back where the parcels are discussed, there is an item for the opinion of value. A discussion of numbers and a projection of what it might be worth. And those were 2022 numbers. I know that Terra Realty was contacted, I want to say, in late 2024. And the feedback I got was the numbers haven't changed much. They weren't saying, oh, yeah, it's great. We'll revalue it. I take your suggestion to heart, you know, that that would be a reasonable thing to do considering the size of the committee and the number of people that have been here and what's happened with respect to the value of the dollar and real estate market in general.

So... If I can add, the original projections were four years old, but what you just referred to was two years old. Things change. We all know that.

Yeah. Okay.

That's my own comment on that. I'm not going to pay it.

The... The exhibits in the packet from May 14, starting on page 14 of the packet, and it goes through page 21.

We don't have that packet in front of us.

All right. Any other public comment with respect to the draft report? And the statute requirements. I see no public comment at this time. And I want to move on to item one. Where it says confirm recommendations for oversight. We've had plenty of discussion here. This is a menu, not a decision. So I just want to bring some pages of the existing of today's packet to your attention. There are overall maps where the district or on pages 56 and 57, 57 shows the attendance areas, I believe, of mostly elementary schools, the feeder schools to the secondary schools. That correct? Correct.

Okay.

On. Page one in the packet. recommendation for Adam certain as a repetition of what's in the agenda out of science page on page 51. So these are simply repeated on page 51. On page 57 is an aerial view and summary of the area. And With respect to parcels, Adams parcels are found on page 134 and 135. So the Adams site was assembled by a number of parcels. And in the illustration on page 134, what you do not see or all the utilities that run through the site. There are a number of utility lines of one description or another, power, sewer, gas, water. And so it's not as simple. The site was assembled from a number of parcels. I'm looking at five, I believe.

You see the utility is running around there on the ground.

You might recall we want to parcel map black and white. And those lines are it's worth of course. I'm thinking that's those are not topographical what are they and we were identified at that time as gas lines and don't use one sort of letter. So it's not a matter of just scraping off the building and starting to build.

I have a question. Go ahead. What is this agenda? What does it mean, confirm the recommendations?

Well, there are three choices there. So we could choose, at this point, one of the three as our recommendation. Or, once again, as we did with the minutes, we tabled Ms. Hooper.

So the idea behind the next four action items was because we don't know this committee, right? And this committee has not met together to discuss what was originally recommended in the draft report. There might be, like, all of you might go, absolutely, that's exactly what we should use Adams for. And then we know what where the committee kind of stands on all four of the original recommendations of use, because at this point in time, we don't know if the committee is in agreement already with what was previously done in the reports, or if there's something different that the committee thinks they want to add or adjust, or if you just want to run into the public comment portion of this and then come back as a committee to discuss it. So we're trying to get a feel from the committee Is the existing recommendations already what you guys were thinking too? And if so, then great, that site's settled. And that's why you see them as four separate items because some of these, everybody might be in total agreement. Like, yeah, that makes perfect sense for that site. And some of them you might be like, you know, I really think that it should be such and such, right? I think it should be a park. I think it should be a, I don't know. whatever. Um, so that was the purpose behind why these are, are put forward as action items is like, what, where does this group stand? And if you guys have a, um, if you're already kind of in agreement with what previous committee thought, or if you have totally different ideas.

Thanks. That's okay. I'm sort of getting mixed messages from this whole exercise because, uh, Last week, the attorney said, hey, we could wrap it up in one meeting. And now you're saying, well, you know.

Well, and that's what we're trying to figure out. We went through, hypothetically, right? We went through all four of these recommendations. And the committee was like, yep, we think we should move forward with public hearing with that recommendation. Yep, I think we should move. And you say that tonight? We could set our public hearings for two weeks from now or three weeks from now? And then if the community is like, gosh, you guys nailed it. You come back and you say, you know what? The community is with us. We all agree. Voila. You could be done. But if there's a lot of disagreement or if there's additional refinements that want to be done, then it's going to be a longer process.

But it would just take a majority vote.

Yes, it would. Mr. McCormick.

Is it possible for me to comment on this property right now?

Kind of just like... Well, that's what we're... That was what this was supposed to be. Yes.

The subject property. Yes, go ahead.

So I've done some thinking about this. I'll correct. So a couple things. I made a comment last time that the earthquake fault was closer cutting through the site. That's actually incorrect. I did go back and look at the Alquist-Priolo zones. which is an earthquake fault zone. It's actually up the street on Arlington, to be correct, and you're required to do a 50-foot setback for any structures. For those who know architecture and development, that's a big chunk of the setback, but it's a fairly large site. So from what I gathered, it feels like a really appropriate site for So we have other projects like this. BART currently has the RFP for request for proposal for the Fremont BART station, which also has fault lines going through it. They're recognizing if it can put setback and so on. So it's not uncommon to build near housing, near these sites. Speaking to structural engineers, it usually requires 10 to 20% more seismic resistance. but it's otherwise adequate for housing, not for schools, but for housing. And so what I found about this site is that it's also really centrally located to the whole district, which makes it really accessible to almost all the schools. So I felt like this was actually the best candidate, in my opinion, for workforce housing for those reasons. The geographic centeredness of it and the fact that also it may not command like the highest market value for townhomes or whatnot. I think if for some reason in an RFP process, the school district did not get the responses that they wanted from affordable housing developers or developers who can develop workforce housing, then sure, you could designate it as surplus and go out to the market for it. But it felt like the most suitable site, in my opinion, for workforce housing, which I've experienced going on. So the only downside to it is just one more bit of information is that it's in a moderate resource area in terms of income levels, which for tax credit funding for affordable housing, it makes it somewhat competitive, not as competitive as a high resource area like the Portola site, which is in El Cerrito. So it may be harder for an affordable housing developer to get the financing for it. But we shouldn't let that get in the way of like, I think, you know, testing the water and then seeing what, if you didn't deem it a surplus and you decided to go through an RFP process to see what response you get.

Mr. Crescenzi?

Just as a question of where the committee went with the in-depth of what they looked at as possibilities, right? And This goes way into the weeds, but there, these are things that should have been considered at the time. And so I don't know whether they were asked, but for example, this is a building, it's a property. Most of it is not, it doesn't have structures on it. You could, you could, the district could, there are two things getting off track. One, the schools, was it looked at which schools are having most of the younger teachers, the teachers who are going to need workforce housing, the entry level? Where is that population? Did the committee look at that aspect of this? Because one thing that I look at is this is a very large building. From what I understand, it's still in good condition. The district office itself is actually in a very prime location for workforce housing of its location. It's better suited for development. It's near a park, that sort of stuff. Was that ever considered when the committee considered making its recommendations of movement like that, moving the district office into this building and surplusing the other part.

In answer to your last question, 11 White Thistle was not discussed there. The building itself, in my retired teachers group, we have a member of the first class that attended Adams. And the building itself was built on rollers to try and mitigate the potential damage from a shaker. However, Ms. Hooper's predecessor on this committee advised me that the structural elements on the multiple floors were inadequate and that the building was forecast to pancake should we have a sufficient Earthquake. With respect to what Mr. McCurry was talking about, the visible trace of the Hayward Fault, you can walk to 1494 Olive, I believe. You can find, you can actually go online and follow the visible trace. And so you can see the ground shifting. The fault really runs where the buildings of residences stop. That's where the fault line is. It's a matter of 500 feet, as I understand the Alcris-Friolo map, the zone. So unfortunately, Adams is less than 500 feet. It's still pretty far from the visible trace, but it's not far enough. So if that's why the state architect will not commit another school there. Yes.

Just to give you an insight of Adams, the building. I've been in there several times. All the electrical has been gutted. There's constantly break-ins in there. The walls have huge holes from people just doing everything. There's been There's constantly break-ins into there. My thing and my concern is that that building is a potential for a huge lawsuit for the district if it doesn't get torn down soon. Because right now, the only alarm working on there has to be through car batteries that we have to go change. So there's no lighting, there's no water on there.

Mr. You know, I didn't want to remind the previous committee that when we discussed that you're right. We also discussed it when we did I want to we discussed it would be through that we could see it as 3 separate properties because of the way it was here.

Yeah, I think that it could be so this 3 different properties. It may be the wise course of action given them a number of new members of the state to have another site isn't that so we can all go up there. I was on the staff at Adams middle school for a while. And, um, and so I'm familiar with how it used to look. Um, but it's a derelict building. Um, Mr. Mercari and then it's Tom's defense.

So my other kind of observation about this is that I really appreciate what the UC garden is doing at the portfolio site. I was wondering if they could be relocated here to maximize the potential of that site.

There was at one time a community garden at the site, which included some of the members of the UC Master Gardener Program. I know that because they're fans.

And I love walking and running by it. I'm just saying that if a market rate developer were to look at the Portola site, they would see that as a you know, as space that's given up. Yeah. And so to my question, if you could split up the site as earlier, then you could have a couple of different uses and it stays in the district's hands and you can lease it out that you see that your housing is there. They're not trying anything or small stops.

You were asking about what the temperature is. I observed the meetings in 2024 and participated in them in several, at least one of them. But I would be on board with some of the recommendations. But I understand that everybody needs to come up to speed. For instance, the Adams Middle School site, would be a great site for educator workforce housing. But if we went with the second recommendation, which is educator workforce housing and some market rate, we can send out or the district could send out an RFP and see what kind of response you get. We don't need to get into the weeds of where utilities are and what a developer is going to find buildable, profitable, and so on. Our job is just to find out what the highest and best use is. We may get a response to the RFP where they want to do 100% affordable workforce housing. I'm also very familiar with the Seaview site. Even though that site is kind of back in a neighborhood, there is pedestrian access that's very walkable from that site. to San Pablo Avenue, which is an area with high transit. And so that might also fare well with getting funds. I have been an advocate for workforce housing and have talked to our senator and our assembly member on getting pre-development money that perhaps once this process is over, there's possibility of getting funding for pre-development funds that would help assemble an RFP package for a couple of them. I am also in support of doing market rate housing on the Portala site because that site is one that could get the district some funds right away but um i just wanted to let folks know where i stand and and i'm um you know i think it's totally reasonable to have everybody else come up to speed as well okay

Mr. Kellogg. So on the topic of coming up to speed, I've been trying my best to parse the language of the Adams site three recommendations. And I was wondering if I could tell you what I think they mean and somebody could be like, you got it or you didn't get it. It uses a lot of the same words, but I think it reaches different points. So number one, don't declare it as surplus, but try to build workforce employee housing, which I assume means that's something the district would do more directly than option two, where you do declare it as surplus, but then you seek a developer to do open market rate housing, though not workforce housing in option number two, as I read it. And then option three is declare it a surplus, try to work with a developer to do both workforce and open rate housing on the same site. Am I reading that correctly? That

I have the answer for that as far as without deeming it the Adams Middle School site surplus, we can still have it recommend that it be deemed surplus, but there's state laws that bypass that process. And so if it's 100% affordable workforce housing, it doesn't have to go through this process.

Which is one, right? Option one is that option. Okay. So I guess, so, okay.

Correct. There's an alternative to the surplus process that allows for affordable housing, employee housing projects to proceed without procuring them under the surplus statutes.

So the answer to this question is yes. You did get it correct.

I read it like six times. So

Once again, the sense that I get is that the committee would like to postpone making a determination and investigate this further. Mr. Christensen.

I would just like to ask Ms. Tompkins because I would defer to her expertise as her former role with the county. What would be the likelihood of what the county would require as being affordable to make a development like this go through easily with its zoning and all its review process.

It's in the housing element. It's very likely to go forward. In fact, there's I believe there's some affordable housing projects that don't even require a lot of a certain level of entitlements. And it's very likely that it would get approved as workforce housing.

But I'm just saying if it was not workforce housing, if it went to open market, a developer who wanted to fast most likely be required to make affordable? 10%, 20%? 15%.

It would be the inclusionary housing for affordability.

Next question. Ms. Hooper? Well, a question for the committee. Because while I hear that there's some maybe potential for additional information, Does anybody think that the Adams site should not have housing? Because really the current recommendation is like, we are still deciding what kind of housing, but we really think it should be housing. Is there anybody who's like, oh, absolutely not. It should be, I mean, I heard the Master Garden might be a good alternative for that particular program. But beyond that, I haven't heard anything that says, no, housing is a really bad idea for the site.

Or there's no other ideas being proposed, and if not, then open up to public to add ideas. I mean, that's really where we're at. It feels like with this site.

Mr. Moore?

I like the idea of housing there. It's a good site for that. I live around the corner. I also was involved with Urban Tilt and that community garden there, and it's actually on the part of the property that borders Arlington. So as far as that 50-foot setback, that garden would probably take up that whole 50-foot setback if that was a good place for that. I did have a question on the valuation. It's just hard to understand what this says. The demo costs are by square foot, but then is the $6 to $8.6 million, is that the value of the property without considering the demo costs?

It does say that it's exempt of the demolition.

It says demo costs would be a deduct from this range of values. But it doesn't say what the demo costs would be. It just says that they're $23 to $33 per square foot.

I think you're reading it correctly. And with respect to how that the information as I recall the discussion when you were first given an idea of that. Because of the tomography, not all of the parcel, the aggregated parcels can be built on as is. There are different levels which you might recall from the garden. So. So the anchorage was a net figure for that parcel, how much could be developed. And I think that affected the value. Mr. Kellogg.

So I actually think that you're not quite reading right. So the first line is demo cost, including hazmat, TBD. So they don't know it. And then they go on to say that the sale value will be $23 to $33 a square foot, which then they cut that out at $6,898.6. So the way I read it, they have no idea what demo cost is. That's just a magic number.

Thank you. Mr. Dryson, maybe we'll get some information from Ms. Mejia Hooper about what it costs these days for demolition. Ballpark, what did it cost us to demolish Steege and then Kennedy?

Um, I'd have to look back to find out what that was because we combined phase 1.2 and 1.3 together, or 1.1 and 1.2 together, so it includes the underground utilities. But I do have the information about what it would be split apart. There was a cost evaluation done for Adams quite a few years ago. And it was above $5 million to demolish the site. Part of the problem is that the building itself is partially supporting the street. So the bottom floor is built on a lower level, and the street level is actually at the second floor. So there's a retaining wall on the backside of the building that's supporting the hillside structure. And that's part of the reason why the demolition cost would be as high as it would be. So it is a significant cost to demolish.

If I could finish. One of the reasons I chose Steege and Kennedy's, both of them were filled full of asbestos, both of them were filled full of lead-based paint, as Adams would be. You don't take it to the dump, take it down to Buttonwillow. or down by Bakersfield. The cost for depositing the demolition refuge is tremendous. We may have to give away the property and still pay to demolish it.

Okay.

I just have one more question. So this is a question for the committee members from before. I understand this to be a priority order, one, two, three. And so I was curious if somebody could speak to why two got put before three. Why, if we're going to declare it surplus, why did we say market rate housing before the combo option?

Is it true, too, that that's priority order? Or is it just listing out potential?

So all of our previous documents said we had to do it in a priority order. That's what we reviewed earlier. Cause to have circulated through the attendance area. Priority list. So I always assumed this was a priority list, but maybe that's wrong.

I can comment on that as well, just from the legal perspective. A lot of times before the recommendations, and I'd have to go back and look at the draft to see if it contains this language, it will advise the board that these are not necessarily in priority order. They're just alternatives to be considered on a parallel track. So if it's not in there, that's something that can be inserted. I just want to make that clear as far as from the legal perspective.

Do we ultimately need to provide a priority when we go to the board at the end?

No, you do not. No.

Okay. I misread this whole slide then. That's clearly what it says. Establish a priority list.

I thought that was in the statute.

It does say to present it that way for public hearing purposes, but you can ask the community and the board to consider these options independently and on a parallel track.

All right. Mr. Rensfieler, and then I'd like to want to come to a conclusion with respect to either. It's an official company choice or not to move on.

Yes, I just want to know I just want to know that it would have been helpful to understand these like what they want when he's in his word. When we recommend that. Yeah, so people can go back and review the video in the base. But maybe there's not what they did here.

Great recommendation. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Mr. Gosling.

I would recommend that we do not take any action on this tonight, that we defer it to a later time. And also, before that later time comes up, schedule a site visit so the newbies can get a better feel for what it looks like other than just looking through the fence line on Arlington.

I agree.

There's always been like everything.

Well, when we come, when it comes to time is the set based on the meetings and things, which we'll have to do in the next 22 minutes.

Good time of year for site visits. Sun is still up. And that's a long day. So it's great.

All right. So is there a motion to You know such time as you can visit. So. Mr. Johnson with such a motion. Mr. Kowalski seconded the motion so we're going to go down discussion questions. All right so let's just open up for public comment. Oh yeah we can.

Is there any public comment. I see no hands at this time.

No hand. Very good. All right. With that, I'd like to proceed to a vote. All for it. Mr. Gosney? Yes. Myself, yes. Mr. Antila? Yes, please. Mr. Crescenzi?

Yes.

Ms. Toms? Yes. Mr. Kellogg? Aye. Gee? Yes. Mr. Moore? Yes. Mr. McCartney. Yes. Mr. O'Connor.

Yes.

All right. So before we go further, can we choose a date for this? One question about the site visit.

Any chance that we can actually step inside something to see how damaged it is?

Mr. O'Connor, what's your?

No. Okay. THE REASON WHY THE DISTRICT HAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT NOT EVEN STAFF SHOULD BE IN THERE UNLESS IT'S NOT AN EMERGENCY TO BE PRESENT IN THERE.

IT'S ALSO FIRMLY BOARDED. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING SECURITY SCREWDRIVERS AND WHATNOT TO TAKE OFF.

I HAVE THAT IN MY TRUCK. JUST FOR SAFETY REASONS, LIABILITY AND INSURANCE AND THE FACT THAT Many break since then there and they've been playing with the walls which would have asbestos boards so potentially there's that risk of exposing the members to that hazard which I from the best that would not advise the district all out.

Okay, I have the June calendar. On the 15th of June or two weeks that's Another Monday. What we did before in the earlier iteration of the committee was to both visit the site and then reconvene here. So I would like to... Mr. Gostin?

The 15th is the same night as the CBOC meeting. That's a lot.

Let's try another day.

Ellen can't be in two places at the same time. Me neither. 22nd of June.

I'll move the other way. One week from tonight? No. Twenty-second works. Twenty-second works?

It works for everyone else.

The show has the 22nd of June work. Thank God.

Should we try to visit both Adams and Portola since they're relatively close to one another?

We can do that. Yeah, we know where it is just looking at it.

It's not complicated.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no

Is that what you have in mind?

Rather than 6 o'clock? 5.30? I think some people work for a living.

Who's that? I mean, it's fine. Which site would you visit first? No, it'd just be the Adams.

No, we have a twofer. The suggestion of Portola and Adams. um or would not take on and there's adequate parking on the street.

And we can see the garden first and then go to Adams and see if it could maybe fit there.

So, um, so right. Report on a site. Oh, let's see. Since we want to see the Master Gardener downslope from Navalier on Portola at 5 30 p.m. On the 22nd of June.

I'm sorry you you suggested portal 1st or 1st.

But there is that by 30. The 22nd of June. And then what's in the swim center whatever that is more well the sort of center is border between Mosher and or one yeah, but the master gardeners portion of the portal site.

So we'll see the Master Gardener site.

So you'll see the Master Gardener site. And I would say park a little uphill from the Master Gardener site.

So it's an easy walk down. So we're looking at right here, in case people are more map-oriented. Right across the street from the power station. Am I listening correctly, too? Right. Yes.

OK. Northwest corner of the parcel before you get to the end of this Academy.

Oh, on that side. Okay.

Yeah, that's horrible. Instead of the side lots of lots of there's no treats called prevalent.

I still think of that schools. Everything.

It's really convenient.

School Street.

All right, Mr. and Mr. Dawson. Yeah, real quick. So when the Master Gardeners did a presentation here, I thought we had made, or the group, the rest of you, had made a commitment to them of some type. But I don't recall if it was like giving them that property for a couple of years.

Yes.

We need to find that out.

It's still a recommendation to the board. We didn't make any decisions. except maybe pass it on. I don't think it ever came up.

It is in the recommendations.

Number five.

Yeah.

What I was going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, is I actually was able to go inside the garden area and I can provide photographs that we can put them down in spreadsheets and forward them out to people because you're only going to be able to look through the fence line. That's the view.

I don't have to have a key.

I can check see if it's district a lot that I'm not sure. So I can definitely. You know. The second by there tomorrow.

The site with the portables. If you're on the grounds we can look up.

We can definitely get into the campus. That's not a problem.

Well and I'm sure that the Master Gardener group would be more than happy to make sure that the committee can properly. So I will reach out and see what we can find out about getting access. It's three weeks away. I will work on it.

OK. On the topic of Invictus, I feel like I asked this question, but I don't remember the answer. Is where Invictus is currently located outside of the scope of what we're recommending? Yes.

Right. It was not. The grounds are owned by Invictus. Right. The whole, all the grounds. Right.

But we would leave Invictus or whatever would be there.

We're only looking at what's east of the three lines.

So this yellow line is our yellow line in north.

Right.

And the old junior high building does not exist. It's just bare ground. It's an ancient picture. Oh, is that, that used to be a junior high?

That was Portola. Oh, wow.

That was Portola Junior High, just to use the name once again. One more time.

Named after Gaspar de Portola, asked by the King of Spain to enslave the indigenous people in this area. But he got lost and couldn't find the Golden Gate. That's serious.

Okay. All right, so we've chosen a date and place and time for the next boom. I wanted to estimate the travel time of 15 minutes between sites.

Well, we'll issue an agenda that will have all of that.

So we'll go from Fort Lauderdale to Adam. And just go up to Arlington and keep on going before you get to Patterson Circle.

I would recommend taking care of Richmond and key is it that's just 2 blocks away as opposed to Arlington is a mile up the hill.

We're going to go.

That's about it.

Yeah. That's what you want to know if you want to drive actually into the campus that they would have key to go in there from the turnaround of Arlington. There's a little thing where you can drive in and basically see all be an open area where you can see the gym, the workshop in the back, and the main building. But we wouldn't be accessing any of the buildings.

Any thoughts?

We're not talking about the Invictus campus. We're talking about the uphill.

I think he was talking about Adam.

I'm sorry.

I believe that last time we came through a gate in the lower Yeah, it's called Southwest corner.

It's the same with Northwest corner, Northwest corner. Come off of Ralston. Yeah. There's a way. On the west side of the campus or Patterson Circle is where I came before. Patterson Circle is the main, you know, where the main entrance is. See the loop right there? Yeah.

No, the other, the higher level.

Where's your finger pointing?

Yeah, put it on the laser. It's, I actually did have one, but don't have it with me. But like.

Again, we can set out an agenda. We will show where the information dates are.

Right here is the, this is Harlington. You would come here and then go here. I could have this open and we can be here, the main building, gym. shop over here. So basically you would be able to park right in here. And look look at it.

We're part of our work. But whichever you guys want to have the key.

Okay, okay, it's on the South West corner of the gate right here. It'll be on the agenda. Yeah.

Just a reminder, this is a public meeting, and we have to notice the public to invite them. Yeah, it'll be on the agenda, Chris.

Nope.

You've got to go beyond just putting it on the agenda. And we've got neighborhood councils right in there, for instance. We had 50 people because of that, just letting them know last time, as opposed to what we have here.

Mr. McEwen is still our neighborhood council.

We have to put out the work. Sure.

Will you talk to the communications people and they can put it off. All right. And the possible time for that would be 5.45, 6 p.m. 6 p.m. Okay. Okay. I have seven or move on to produce.

So do we want to call for public comment on this topic? I know it's fun, right? You guys, you guys are very good.

I'm trying to save I'm appreciating every everybody's system. They should have a lot easier. Is there any public comment on and

It also gives ample time for somebody to raise their hand, but I see no hands at this time.

I see no hands. Okay. E2, Harmon Knowles. There's only one recommendation, and that is the board not deem Harmon Knowles surplus.

Good question. Didn't we just... wasn't the motion to all of these. I'm sorry.

I don't believe the motion was to continue all of them. It was just for the Adams site. And then we skipped forward to next meeting dates, but I wasn't going there.

I didn't realize there was a motion. We didn't vote. Yes, we did.

We voted on the Adams site.

That was just the Adams site, right? Right out of the state.

That was the status. So I'm moving on to the two. The whole site. So previously, the committee has then constituted recommended that we not where the property surplus that the issue can be the property for future educational purposes, including a potential very small site. And the reason is the top is to be redeveloped natural as housing. And it's directly across the street. Now with respect to schools in the area. And so I don't know once again would you comment on the condition of the view and higher. They are continuing schools with the

I don't know. Maybe you in probably better shape than Highland. Both are probably in need to be modernized. Ms. Hooper?

So Bayview was modernized. There was also new construction that was completed back in the early 2000s, I believe, maybe the late 90s. So while that happens to be close to 26 years ago so um there are needs on those campuses it's um its enrollments is not um high at the moment um there's a lot more building than there are a number of students that they view highland um has not seen substantial um work since its original construction there was a light Modernization that was done in the early 90s, but it was much less extensive than what was done at Bayview. So there are major needs at the Highland campus. And in the 2016 Facilities Master Plan, we are aware that they, especially the backside of the Highland campus is undocumented built. So putting new facilities in that area would be extremely expensive for the amount of structural reinforcement, but that would need to be completed on the hillside. So you basically would have to build your new buildings where they currently are, which is hard to do when there's kids there. So in the 2016 master plan, it was recommended that if we were going to rebuild Thailand, that the Harman Nile site would be the appropriate site for that to occur. And wrap all that is true.

There's only one recommendation for the home and also to Boston.

I need to preface this by saying that. Mr. And I are very good friends. I hope that by the time we get out of here we're still good friends. But when it comes to building a new school that need has nothing to do with it. OK. Yeah. If the city of Richmond wants the owner of the property, Hilltop Mall, to put in a tremendous amount of housing to meet their needs. We're talking neighborhood of 3,000 to 3,500 elementary school kids if they go with that. That's 11 elementary schools that they would have to put in there. That's if Prologis, the owner, goes along with the recommendations, or they could sit on that property for a very long time. But then we've got the issue of building a school, possibly at department goals, or at that site right now. You can't do that without money, okay? Right now, if you look at your property tax bill, you see nine items on there that say WCCUSD. You've got to pay off a tremendous amount of the indebtedness before we can sell any new bonds. We're talking maybe nine years from now before you can sell any bond if you can get the voters of this West County to vote to approve the bond. You've got to be realistic about that as well. We're not talking about a bond program. If you look at the other bond measures that were on the ballot, there was a lengthy list of schools that might be considered. This would be one school only for the bond measure. So why would the good people of Kensington at one end or Hercules at the other vote to adept themselves for another 40 years when their kids are never, ever going to even see that school. I mean, sorry, I'm just saying it's not likely that we're going to be able to pass a bond measure in the next 15 years for that school. So is it appropriate to hang on to that site and have it sit there for 15 years or longer or find another alternative use for it at this time where we can use the money?

Mr. Renteo, would you like to offer a rebuttal?

Sure. I mean, there's no guarantee that it's going to sit there for 15 years on. And the fact is that it was on the facilities master list right behind stage and it got bumped up.

Mr. Krasinski and then Mr. McCartan.

But Prologis happens to be the 14th largest corporation on the planet. They're worth, I forget, $115 billion in community benefits. It's entirely possible. There are possibilities out there. It doesn't necessarily have to be a bond.

Okay, Mr. Cousins.

I would just like to make an observation of if they were to build the housing right now, if you look at page 130, which is the demographic map of utilization of enrollment, Tara Hills, which is the school of record where these people would go now It's an elementary school, but it's currently only 64% used by student body, right? If you look at the district as a whole, boundary lines are fluid. They change based on what the population is. The fact of the matter is our district was designed with walking to school as the means of getting to school. If you've been to an elementary school lately, Almost no one walks to school. Almost everybody comes in a car. I'm not saying everybody, but almost. The elementary school where my daughter goes to school, there are about, you know, 10% of the kids are coming to school walking. I see parents that I know only live around the block are picking up their kids in their car. So that's just the reality of where we are. So you have to look at the district as a whole for how the utilization is going to be. I understand. I mean, you know, reality is it sounds like Highland Elementary is the property that needs to be surplus because it doesn't sound like it's going to be when the time comes to renovate that school it will probably not be cost effective to renovate it at the current site. And that will be the surplus property, not Harman Knolls in the sense. But to wait on a prayer, I mean, that's the thing. There is a lot of moving parts here. Our district, we have to, our recommendations should be based on where our district is And one of our districts biggest problems is, is its finances. And any piece of property is a drag on its finances. And identifying how it gets used is kind of key. And like I said, there are a lot of different moving parts here. Maybe one of the things that should be recommended, and I don't even know whether this is feasible, is that we surplus the property and give it to the pension fund and try to get the pension funds to build workforce housing for CalPERS members, CalSTRS members, because they have a real estate portfolio. I don't know. That's why I wish Mr. Carter was here, because I could ask him whether he'd heard of any proposals of that nature. There's a lot of, you know, this goes back to you had discussions previously and the dynamic of the people who are on this committee today, I think are very different than the dynamic of the committee that started in 2022, right? And so that level of expertise and knowledge or just even playing the game of what if is going to be very different and those things should probably be considered because Ultimately, that is the stewardship of the district is to manage the public's money and to give the best outcomes of providing education for the kids who are in the district.

Mr. McCormick?

Yeah, I mean, I think the history of the site was that it was the one where the Division of State Architect, though, said that this was the most suitable. It's the only buildable site. So what that got me thinking was, well, what if Invictus boardables were moved there, or I was thinking like, because the rest of that site could then be, and this could be a conversation for later, is tomorrow there's the measure for the El Cerrito Library, which may fail, and in which case El Cerrito would love to talk to the school district about the land swap or something for the Fairmont site to make Fairmont bigger. And then in turn, you know, maybe make the rest of the portal site developable for market rate housing or something. I don't know. I'm just speculating. But being that this is the one site where the Division of State Architects says it's suitable, it just feels like if the district was concerned about letting go of any property for the future, and it has the lease strings attached for future building, and also it has no existing structures on-site, although it costs money, I'm sure, to maintain, to weed and keep people off the property, it probably costs the least as compared to Adams or something.

Mr. Ramstein?

Yeah, I just wanted to add, it's a five-factor, but there's a lot of things to discuss. One of those is that it's the only school surplus property that's within the city limits. It's within the city of Richmond is not in an incorporated area besides also you don't have the report of so. I don't know.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We can't necessarily include our goals, but like to pick it up. After we have our site was it. Is is there a motion to propose postpone for the discussion of items e 2 through the board until there are like there's a one-second dream so that connected. And the objection. Public comment. Public comment.

And you don't have this time. We do have public in case anybody was really there.

I know I related to Senator. So, so the meeting is now April 6 approximately and meeting is adjourned. I want to thank you all for coming and I appreciate very much everyone's contributions. Thank you. I'll see you on the 22nd of June on Portola, at Portola, in Seed Portola, next to Rastergarden. Thank you. Thank you.