Oakland Unified School District: Asset Managment Plan by MKThink

OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

JANUARY 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In accordance with Oakland Unified School District’s (OUSD) updated strategic plan and the Asset Management Policy approved by the Board of Education, this report outlines the strategies that OUSD should undertake in order to optimize its physical assets. The work for this plan began with the 2012 Facilities Master Plan that measured and documented every space at every school site owned by the district. The data collected during the master planning effort created the baseline for this plan. Many additional data sets were used to augment the facilities data in the development of this plan, including Live Go data, utilization data, enrollment data, and census data. Data used in this report is for the 2013-14 school year unless otherwise specified. This report begins by outlining the guiding principles that

drive the analysis and synthesis for asset management. The guiding principles section also highlights the district’s goal of enrolling 50,000 students in community and charter schools and the capture rates by grade level needed to achieve that enrollment target.

process. These factors include the Intradistrict Open Enrollment policy, student assignment and enrollment processes, site capacity, classroom utilization, facilities operations and maintenance, and space needs for district leadership.

The following section of the report documents the current state of OUSD’s facilities and discusses work that has been done to date on this effort, including the facilities master plan, the development of design guidelines and education specifications, and the district’s goal of creating 21st century schools and a full service community schools district.

The final section of this report identifies strategies and tactics that the district should employ in order to optimize its physical assets. The first and most impactful strategy is to create attractive programs in schools that are currently underutilized. Decisions regarding which programs to focus on will be additionally informed by the OUSD Strategic Regional Analysis. The report identifies a number of tactics that should be used to achieve optimization including growing enrollment, capping enrollment based on site capacity, using shared site agreements, and expanding or consolidating programs. Another strategy for asset optimization

The report continues with a detailed discussion of the factors affecting asset management. Not all of these factors are directly related to the physical assets, but each has a significant role to play in the asset management

is to organize and align departments to implement optimization streams and to reunify district leadership staff. Other strategies include reducing portable capacity, developing competition-level athletic facilities, and property disposition as a means of generating revenue. The report concludes with a a series of time lines that should act as a guide for facilities managers and academic program developers in future planning efforts. The report finds that OUSD could consolidate the facilities needs associated with housing its leadership staff by up to one third. It also finds that the district could remove nearly a quarter of its portable buildings as a way of aligning site capacity with local student populations. Furthermore, the report identifies the creation of a STEM Corridor in West Oakland as a viable model for the development of attractive academic programs. 3

CONTEXT FOR THIS PROJECT Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) owns and operates 6,000,000 square feet in 1,000 buildings across 115 sites. OUSD uses its facilities to educate 37,000 students in community schools, and 4,000 students in charter schools. An additional 7,000 students attend charter schools in facilities not owned by OUSD. Additionally, OUSD facilities are used to house more than 600 employees. The challenge of managing so many people with such varied needs in so many different facilities is the primary context for this asset management plan. Upon completion of the 2012 OUSD Facilities Master Plan, the board of education approved an Asset Management Policy that seeks 4

to optimize the use of its various facilities by managing its physical assets as a system, as opposed to trying to optimize specific facilities as individual sites. The Facilities Planning and Management division will continue to maintain and modernize certain buildings and sites, but it will determine which services to deliver to which sites based on the goals of the asset system at large. This report begins by outlining the factors that affect asset management such as intradistrict open enrollment, program enrollment, site capacity, and classroom utilization. The plan uses two measures of utilization to assess the current state of each facility: site capacity

versus enrollment, and classroom utilization. These measures indicate the how well a school site is performing relative to its facilities’ capacity to house students. The report continues with an overview of the operating and maintenance costs associated with the ongoing management of OUSD’s physical assets. Energy use, deferred maintenance, and seismic upgrades are the primary ongoing costs associated with operating the district’s properties. The next section of this plan details the space needs of OUSD’s organizational divisions and the impact that these needs are having on the district’s ability to effectively

manage and optimize its properties. The final section of this report describes eight strategies that OUSD can undertake to increase the utilization of individual facilities and to improve the processes associated with ongoing management of district properties. Strategies for optimization include everything from improving academic programs to attract students to underutilized schools to removing portable capacity from certain sites to creating revenue generating athletic facilities. The solutions outlined in this section are not meant to be mutually exclusive. In fact they will be most successful when enacted through a coordinated effort by various district divisions.

171 106

145 161

120

201 127

150

115

214

157

305

143

135 146 170

211 313

303 223

142

213

129

130 147

109

204

111

108

119

304

182

151 133

310

206

210 102 121

116

212

168 131

137 101

124

118

306

148

117

156

906

205 186

236

132

185

139

128

153 105

104

302

136 203 163

141

138

144

216 166

207

165

301

162

134

159

126 202

School Sites By Grade Level Map showing locations and grade level of all schools in the Oakland Unified School District.

174

110

K-8 MS

122

155

103

154 215

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

GUIDING PRINCIPLE ��8

CURRENT FACILITIES

FACILITIES MASTER PLAN � �� 16

ONE DISTRICT MANY SCHOOLS

FACTORS AFFECTING ASSET

ASSET PLAN GOALS ��9

21ST

CENTURY SCHOOLS �� 18

MANAGMENT..........................................................26

STRATEGIC PLAN...................................................... 10

DESIGN GUIDELINES � �� 20

INTRADISTRICT OPEN ENROLLMENT ��28

TARGET ENROLLMENT............................................ 12

COMMUNITY SCHOOLS �� 22

SCHOOL CAPACITY..................................................38 SITE ENROLLMENT �� 42 CLASSROOM UTILIZATION �� 48

FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

ANNUAL ENERGY COSTS ��58 DEFERRED MAINTENANCE �� 60

LEADERSHIP SPACE NEEDS

LEADERSHIP NEEDS �� 66

VACANT FACILITIES

VACANT FACILITIES ��74

LEADERSHIP FACILITIES �� 68

SEISMIC UPGRADES.................................................62 ENERGY COSTS PER STUDENT............................ 64

SOLUTIONS FOR OPTIMIZATION

ATTRACTIVE PROGRAMS �� 80

IMPLEMENTATION TIME LINE

STRATEGY ROLLOUT ��106

APPENDIX

BOARD POLICY ON ASSET MANAGEMENT �� 122

ENROLLMENT TACTICS.......................................... 84

CURRENT, NEAR, AND

OUSD RAW DATA SETS.......................................... 124

REDUCE PORTABLES.............................................. 90

LONG-TERM DISPOSITION ��108

UTILIZATION PROJECTIONS................................ 132

DEPARTMENTAL ALIGNMENT �� 94

MOVES TO REUNIFY DISTRICT LEADERSHIP STAFF..........................................................................116

PORTABLE BUILDINGS.......................................... 142

REUNIFY LEADERSHIP........................................... 96 ATHLETIC FIELDS................................................... 100 PROPERTY DISPOSITION......................................102

1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES The goals of this asset management plan are derived from Board Policy 7350 and from principles and requirements outlined by the Facilities Planning and Management Division.

OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY

In alignment with OUSD’s Asset Managment Policy, the physical assets of the Oakland Unified School District shall be managed and maintained as a system to provide safe, secure, healthy, and technology ready learning environments for students in Oakland’s publicly funded schools. The district shall also use its properties to realize unrestricted revenue to support programs and services for district students.

ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLES The following points are guiding principles for this plan as outlined by the board policy on asset management: 1. Manage Assets as a System – OUSD’s portfolio of physical assets consist of 339 permanent buildings and 673 portable buildings located on 115 sites across the city of Oakland, California. In order to achieve the goals of this asset management plan, the district’s physical assets should be managed as a holistic system. 2. Provide Safe, Secure, Healthy, and Technology Ready Schools – In accordance with OUSD’s strategic plan, the district’s physical assets should support the delivery of quality education programs by providing safe, secure, healthy, and technology ready learning environments.

3. Use Properties to Realize Unrestricted Revenues – Certain and appropriate OUSD facilities should be made available for the district to use to generate unrestricted revenue that will support programs and services for district students. 4. Develop Classroom Loading Model – In order to establish a baseline understanding of classroom utilization and site capacity, a classroom loading formula is needed to define a recommended number of students per classroom for various OUSD programs. 5. Reduce Portable Classrooms – Develop a comprehensive plan to define the appropriate number of portables that should be operated by the district in order to provide classrooms spaces in alignment with the district’s educational goals and school design guidelines.

DISTRICT GOALS The following are the goals of this plan as outlined by the OUSD Strategic Plan and the Facilities Planning and Management division: 1. Quality Community Schools Every student deserves the right to attend a quality community school in their neighborhood. 2. Align Facility Capacity With Student Populations OUSD facilities should have the capacity to serve students where they live. 3. Use School Facilities to Serve Students All facilities designed as schools should be used for the purpose of educating students.

MISSION

VISION

PRIORITIES

STRATEGIES

Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) will build a Full Service Community District focused on high academic achievement while serving the whole child, eliminating inequity, and providing each child with excellent teachers, every day.

All OUSD structends will find joy in their academic experience while graduating with the skills to ensure they are caring, competent, fully-informed, critical thinkers who are prepared for college, career, and community success.

Effective Talent Programs

Make OUSd the premier employer for educators in the bay area.

1. Recruiting and Orientation 2. Supporting and Evaluating 3. Leading and Retaining

Accountable School District Ensure that the district operates as one team with dedicated to the development of quality schools in every Oakland Neighborhood.

Accountable School District 1. Implementing District Core Values 2. Quality School Development 3. District-Charter Compact 4. Performance Management

Quality Community Schools Build schools that all bay area students are proud to attend.

Quality Community Schools 1. Linked Learning 2. Equity-Based Education 3. School Site Governance

PATHWAY TO EXCELLENCE STRATEGIC PLAN Ensuring that every student in Oakland has access to a high-quality education.

ENROLLMENT LEVELS AND ASSET PLANNING Based on data from the 2010 census there were about 60,500 school-aged children living in the city of Oakland in the 2013-2014 school year. Statistics suggest a 0.25% growth rate for the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population, which means that in the 2019-2020 school year, there will be roughly 61,200 school-aged children in Oakland. OUSD facilities currently house around 37,000 students in community schools and about 5,500 students in charter programs. Furthermore, there are about 7,200 additional students enrolled in charter programs that operate in facilities not owned by OUSD. That is a total of 49,700 students in community and charter programs. In order to effectively plan for future capacity levels of district-owned assets, OUSD has set a capacity target of 50,000 seats in OUSD facilities for the 2019-20 school year. This capacity level, along with the that of charter schools operating in nondistrict facilities, should meet the goal of creating enough seats for all students in Oakland. CURRENT CASE:

2017-18 TARGETS:

2019-2020 TARGETS:

Enrollment

49,700 STUDENTS 63,000 SEATS

53,200 STUDENTS 62,000 SEATS

OUSD Facilities

Non-OUSD Facilities

Community

37,000

Charter

5,500

Total

42,500

OUSD Facilities

Non-OUSD Facilities

Community

38,400

7,200

Charter

6,300

7,200

Total

44,700

Capacity

57,000 STUDENTS 61,000 SEATS OUSD Facilities

Non-OUSD Facilities

Community

40,000

8,500

Charter

7,000

10,000

8,500

Total

47,000

10,000

Capacity

Community

49,500

Community

46,200

Community

43,000

Charter

5,500

8,000

Charter

6,300

9,500

Charter

7,000

11,000

Total

55,000

8,000

Total

52,500

9,500

Total

50,000

11,000

DISTRICT-WIDE TARGETS PLANNED CAPACITY District-wide target enrollment and capacity levels set the overall capacity level to which the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s asset plan will be devised.

60 K 60,000 55 K 55,000 50 K 50,000 45 K 45,000 40 K 40,000 35 K 35,000 30 K 30,000 25 K 25,000 20 K 20,000 15 K 15,000

Remaining School Aged Children

10 K 10,000

Enrollment In Charter Programs In Non-District Facilties Enrollment In Charter Programs In District Facilities

5K 5,000

Enrollment In Community Programs 0 K0

2010-11 2010-11

2011-12 2011-12

2012-13 2012-13

2013-14 2013-14

2014-15 2014-15

2015-16 2015-16

2016-17 2016-17

2017-18 2017-18

2018-19 2018-19

2019-20 2019-20

2 CURRENT SCHOOL FACILITIES

UTILIZATION

USE AND UTILIZATION OUSD operates 88 community schools, 13 charter schools, and 27 early child education centers on 86 sites across the city of Oakland. 73% of classrooms assigned to district run TK-12 programs are fully and appropriately utilized.

12%

...of OUSD classrooms are underutilized Underutilized

Charter

Utilized

Admin

Overutilized

Leased

CURRENT SCHOOL FACILITIES

73% of classrooms in OUSD are appropriately utilized, but OUSD could increase its asset optimization by better utilizing the 12% of classrooms that are underutilized and the 1.5% of classrooms currently used to house distirct leadership staff. Additionally, 1% of district classrooms are considered overutilized which means that some district schools are over capacity and do not have an adequate amount of space to house required programs necessary to augment general education. The remaining 11% of district-owned classrooms are used to house charter programs or are leased to an adjacent school district.

PROGRAM ORGANIZATION

USE TYPE

PROGRAM TYPE

BUILDING TYPE

88%

62%

23%

20%

...of OUSD classrooms are used for district programs

...of OUSD classrooms are used for general education

...of OUSD classrooms are used for 9-12 Instruction

...of OUSD classrooms are in portable buildings

Community

Admin

Gen Ed

Parent

Permanent

Charter

Leased

Req Program

Admin

K-8

Portable

Flex

Leased 15

FACILITIES MASTER PLAN GOALS Seven major goals for improving OUSD facilities

The 2012 Facilities Master Plan was developed to direct capital projects throughout the Oakland Unified School District through 2017-22. The document was a collaboration between Facilities staff, education planning experts, and the OUSD community. The plan outlines a path of ongoing improvements that support the district’s strategic vision for a the realization of a Full Service Community School District. The plan contained seven major goals:

continue to operate at a high level of performance. Modernization needs include building system upgrades to heating, roofing, and plumbing systems as well as sustainability upgrades that reduce energy and water consumption resulting in improved efficiencies. While these projects represent the “bricks and mortar” issues facing the district’s facilities, they may also facilitate a school’s ability to serve as a Full Service Community School by providing the necessary systems to support community activities.

1. FULL SERVICE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS In accordance with the district’s strategic vision, the Facilities Master Plan provides the framework for the creation of a “Full Service Community District that serves the whole child, eliminates inequity, and provides each child with excellent teachers for every day.” This means working in collaboration with networks of administrators, educators, and community partners to identify and prioritize projects that support innovative educational programs and “wrap around” services to students and their families.

3. ENHANCE SEISMIC SAFETY Although all OUSD facilities meet California building codes, the everevolving understanding of structural performance during earthquakes means that there are opportunities to reinforce and improve the seismic safety of OUSD buildings. The Facilities Master Plan lays out the framework through which the 118 buildings identified as either highly/ moderately vulnerable to seismic activity can be upgraded in conjunction with other modernization and Full Service Community projects.

2. MODERNIZE AND UPGRADE FACILITIES More than half of OUSD’s buildings are more than 50 years old. Older buildings are in need of repairs and upgrades to

4. SUSTAINABILITY A guiding principle for all district projects is to minimize the consumption of resources. To achieve this goal, the district is employing strategies to improve energy

efficiency, produce energy where possible, and conserve water. All sustainability projects follow the best practices laid out by the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS). 5. EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES A major tenant of the Facilities Master Plan and all district policies is to ensure that all resources are first and foremost used in service of Oakland’s children, youth, and their families. All school sites should be heavily used by school programs, community, partners, and the neighborhoods around them. 6. COMMUNITY INPUT Stakeholder input from students, parents, teachers, administrators, and community members was critical to the development of the Facilities Master Plan and continues to be a major principle of all district projects and prioritization processes. 7. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ENROLLMENT Facilities Planning and Management works closely with the district’s Research, Assessment, and Data division (RAD) and Oakland planners in order to project and anticipate future facility needs.

FACILITIES MASTER PLAN PLANNING FOR CHANGE Developing a long range master plan that will align OUSDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s built environment with its strategic vision.

STATE OF THE ART SCHOOLS Facilities that facilitate educational outcomes

OUSD’s classrooms will be modern, functional spaces that support teaching and learning. In order to maximize sustainability and simplify maintenance and upkeep, designs should align with the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) best practices. Classrooms should also be flexible so as to support a variety of curricular pedagogies, and accommodate changing technologies. Classrooms should be safe environments that promote respect for students to socialize, learn and develop creativity. The standard classroom guidelines are intended to support the needs of programs and curriculums at all school levels; however, certain programs may require a variation on this model. IMPROVED ASSESSMENTS OUSD is implementing the Common Core State Standards, Next Generation Science Standards, and the Smarter Balanced Assessment. Classrooms in the district should support teachers working with these standards. PEDAGOGIES Every school is different and every teacher is different. New and renovated classrooms have equal quality across the district while allowing many different teaching methods to take place within them. 18

STEM Oakland schools at all levels feature programs focusing on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Classrooms should accommodate hands-on, engaging learning experiences that teach students skills in logic and critical thinking and infuse technology into all aspects of student learning. TECHNOLOGY It is essential that classrooms have the ability to support technology as a teaching tool; however, the technologies used in a classroom will evolve and be replaced dozens of times throughout the 100+ year life-cycle of a school building. Rather than update the necessary systems for each new generation of educational technology, the following guidelines describe how to integrate flexible infrastructure and modular fittings into the design of new and modernized buildings at the start. This solution will ensure that classrooms continue functioning as effective, modern learning environments even as the demands and applications of technology change.

OUSD’s classrooms will be modern, functional spaces that support teaching and learning. Classrooms should be safe environments that promote respect for students to socialize, learn and develop creativity.

Speakers and Distributed Sound

Large-Capacity, Multi-Use Raceways

Running Water

Transparent Entrance

Natural Daylighting Secure/Operable Windows 20’ - 48’

Mounts for Teaching Wall Surfaces

Permanent & Secure Storage (Cabinets or Closets)

Adjustable Shades

20’ - 48’

Adequate Power & Wiring

Network Access and Projector Mount in Center of Ceiling

Portable Storage Teacher Station

Re-configureable Furniture Electric Lighting Controls

Intercom/Phone/Bell

21ST CENTURY SCHOOLS NEXT GEN EDUCATION Creating modern and functional teaching and learning spaces to facilitate the delivery of high quality educational programs.

GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS Creating high-quality teaching and learning environments

The goal of OUSD’s strategic vision: Community Schools, Thriving Students is to create “a Full Service Community School District that serves the whole child, eliminates inequity, and provides each child with excellent teachers for every day.” To this end, school facilities must not only be high quality learning environments, but also support a variety of wraparound services and community-based activities.

The OUSD Design Guidelines describe physical design specifications and functional requirements for rooms, building systems, and school grounds, and includes additional guidelines to properly accommodate new patterns of uses, enable shared access, and provide improved security throughout the day. It is the result of a focused engagement process with OUSD staff, school facility experts, as well as a study of relevant school facility code requirements and best practices. Working groups consisting of OUSD stakeholders developed con20

tent for this document through a discussion of topics identified in the 2012 Facilities Master Plan: • Shared Use • Kitchens and Gardens • 21st Century Classrooms/ STEM • Middle School & High School facilities Equity By establishing a consistent framework for the design of all capital projects, facilities built by the district will meet equitable standards of high quality, performance, and functionality. From this common starting point, design teams will engage stakeholders in order

to assess the unique characteristics of the site and develop an understanding of the school program’s distinct identity and needs. As a result, each project will produce individualized architectural outcomes. Sustainability Sustainability is a guiding principle for all projects. OUSD’s Design Guidelines align with design criteria established by the Coalition for High Performance Schools, in order to: “protect student and staff health, and enhance the learning environments of school children everywhere; conserve energy, water, and other natural resources, and reduce waste, pollution, and environ-

mental degradation.” Moreover, these elements should be made visible and prominent so that facilities themselves become teaching tools. IMPLEMENTATION New construction projects should be able to implement the full set of specified criteria, while renovation projects may be constrained by site features or existing structural elements at the project site. In such cases, the cost of each design requirement should be weighed and valued against the benefit it provides.

DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ED-SPECS SPECS AND STANDARDS Designing schools to high quality standards that promote equity, access, community, and education.

SCHOOLS THAT SERVE THE COMMUNITY Extending the reach of OUSDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s services

Oakland Unified School District is becoming a Full Service Community District that serves the whole child, eliminates inequity, and provides each child with excellent teachers for every day. All students will graduate from high school. As a result, they are caring, competent, and critical thinkers, fullyinformed, engaged and contributing citizens, and prepared to succeed in college and career.

Projects to support Full Service Community Schools include the creation of new health centers, improving the quality of classrooms for students with special needs, making specialty classrooms for innovative school programs, and initiatives for school transformations from the Quality School Development Group. HEALTH CENTER School-based health centers provide integrated medical, dental, mental health, health education and youth development programs and services. Some health centers also provide services to families. They are typically located in or near 22

a school facility and are operated through partnerships with community-based organizations/federally qualified health centers. Work with lead agency and medical provider on specific design needs. WELLNESS CENTER Wellness centers offer a range of free, confidential services, and emphasize information and referrals to health resources in the community (as opposed to on-site health services) COUNSELING OFFICES Counseling offices allow students and families to have access to individual or group behavioral health counseling

sessions. Sometimes these offices are embedded in a school-based health center, and sometimes they are located in a separate section of the school. Where possible, they should be co-located with other health services.

FULL SERVICE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS HEALTH AND WELLNESS Developing high quality schools and community outreach programs that serve students, families, and the OUSD community at large.

3 ONE DISTRICT MANY SCHOOLS ASSET SYSTEM OUSD is comprised of many different school types and serves a highly diverse population of students across the city of Oakland.

171 106

145 161

120

201 127

150

115

214

157

305

143

135 146 170

211 313

303 223

142

213

129

130 147

109

204

111

108

119

304

182

151 133

310

206

210 102 121

116

212

168 131

137 101

124

118

306

148

117

156

906

205 186

236

132

185

139

128

153 105

104

302

136 203 163

141

138

144

216 166

207

165

301

162

134

159

126 202

School Sites By Grade Level Map showing locations and grade level of all schools in the Oakland Unified School District.

174

110

K-8 MS

122

155

103

154 215

EIGHT FACTORS AFFECTING ASSET MANAGEMENT

OPEN ENROLLMENT

PROGRAM QUALITY

SITE CAPACITY

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT

The districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s physical assets were designed to accommodate a certain number of students given the population of school aged children inside the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attendance boundary. Prior to the Intradistrict Open Enrollment policy, schools sites were relatively well sized to accommodate surrounding student populations.

The primary factor driving school choice behavior is the quality of the program at each school site. Neighborhoods that have high quality school options are attractors for students from across the district. Discrepancies between programs drive students toward some schools and away from others.

The district has 2,578 classrooms. If each classroom was loaded with the maximum number of students, the district could house 55,695 students. Currently, the district has enough capacity to house and educate 93% of all school aged children in the city of Oakland.

Enrollment in community schools has dropped in the past 15 years from a high of 55,000 students to its current level of 37,000 students. During this time, enrollment in charter programs has grown creating a more diversified landscape of educational opportunities. This has provided students with more options to consider during the open enrollment process.

CLASSROOM

OPERATIONS &

LEADERSHIP STAFF

UTILIZATION

MAINTENANCE

SPACE NEEDS

OUSD has the capacity to serve enrollment levels of decades past at 55,000 students. The problem is that site capacity does not align with program viability, and certain schools have too many students, while other schools have too few. Currently, 65% of OUSD facilities have underutilized classrooms.

Every year, OUSD spends $5 million on energy costs alone. Adding costs associated with maintenance, materials, and modernization puts the operating budget associated with facilities into the 10’s of millions of dollars. Because OUSD’s facilities are fixed assets, costs associated with operations and maintenance remain the same whether a school is half full or over capacity.

Due to damage at the old administration building, OUSD’s leadership staff are currently distributed across 7 sites consuming more than 300,000 ft2 of space to house nearly 600 full time and flex time workers. This distribution of district staff means that employees are spending more and more time traveling, communicating, and coordinating.

VACANT FACILITIES The district currently holds a number of properties that are vacant. These properties represent sunk costs for OUSD as this district continues to pay some operating and occupancy expenses associtated with these facilities, while gaining no benefit from the use of these facilities.

4.0 mi

3.0 mi

2.0 mi

1.0 mi 0.5 mi

Live Go Data Analysis Map showing the home locations of students attending Skyline High School in the 2013-2014 school year.

SCHOOL CHOICE AND PROGRAM QUALITY EQUITY AND COMPLEXITY The Intradistrict Open Enrollment Policy offers parity in terms of access to education. But it also adds complexity to asset optimization.

INTRADISTRICT OPEN ENROLLMENT POLICY Improving access to high-quality district programs

25% ...of high school students travel

MORE THAN 3.5 MILES to school each day

53% ...of middle school students travel

MORE THAN 1.0 MILE to school each day

50% ...of elementary school students travel

LESS THAN 0.5 miles to school each day

SCHOOL CHOICE BEHAVIOR AND PROGRAM QUALITY The district’s physical assets were designed to accommodate a certain number of students given the population of school-aged children living within the school’s attendance boundary. Prior to the Intradistrict Open Enrollment Policy (IOEP), school sites were relatively well sized to accommodate neighborhood student populations. The introduction of the IOEP meant that all district students suddenly had the opportunity to apply to any school of their choice. Various factors affect school choice behavior, including the quality of a school’s academic and extracurricular programs,

the quality of other nearby program options, the ability to travel to and from school, and the safety of a school’s surroundings. The primary effect of the IOEP is that students began gravitating toward certain schools and away from others, indicating the perceived quailty of each school in the system. The district’s desire to allow as many students as possible to benefit from school choice increases the assignment of students to high-demand programs. This means that some schools are currently enrolled beyond the bounds of what the facilities were designed to accommodate, while others

have excess space that could be used to house additional students. The static nature of building assets cannot keep up with the dynamism of school choice behavior. While most elementary schools serve a core neighborhood population, some students, like those in the Lakeview attendance boundary, have to travel farther than others because the school facilities in their neighborhoods have been re-purposed to house other functions. At the middle and high school levels, students travel greater distances to find viable program options. Students in the Fremont and Castlemont attendance boundaries travel farther than many other high school students because the programs in these neighborhoods are not as highly desirable in the minds of potential students. Creating robust academic programs that function as viable programs of choice is critical to the effective management of OUSD’s physical asset system. Another major effect of the

School Options Program is that some students travel great distances to get to and from school each day. OUSD’s 37,000 students travel 111,500 miles to and from school each day. If each student attended the nearest school, the total number of miles traveled would be 35,800 miles. That means that an extra 75,700 miles are traveled each day as a product of the IODP. These extra miles traveled means extra time spent commuting, reduced economic output from parents who have to drive their children to school across town, higher levels of carbon emissions emitted into the environment, and increased levels of tardiness and truancy. In all, 46% of community school students attend their neighborhood school. Developing an asset management model that draws students back to their local schools by creating attractive academic programs will help reduce the social, environmental, and economic impacts associated with school choice.

LIVE GO ANALYSIS

Measuring the geospatial relationships between students and their schools

LIVE IN: HIGHLAND

LIVE IN: FRANKLIN

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

5.0

0.5

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 0.5

GO IN: FRANKLIN

GO IN: HIGHLAND

LIVE GO DATA ANALYSIS: ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

LIVE IN: GRASS VALLEY

OUSD keeps an annually updated data set that holds information about each studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s home location and school attended. This is called Live Go data and is used to understand the relationships between students and their schools. In the adjacent maps, the small orange dots each represent one student, with the color of the dot indicating the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grade level.

attendance boundary. The larger orange dots on these maps indicate the school sites attended by the students living in that attendance boundary. The maps on the bottom of the page show the home locations of all the students attending that school site. The clustering or scattering of the dots indicate the degree to which each school serves the children in its neighborhood.

The maps on the top of the page show all of the students living in a certain school

OUSD elementary schools tend to serve local student populations to a greater degree than OUSD middle and high schools. Some schools, like Franklin, attract students from across Oakland, and well beyond their attendance boundaries. Other schools, like Highland, server a much more local student population. Other schools still, like Grass Valley, do not have a very large population of local students and therefore serve students from across the district. Before IOEP, schools would have looked much more like Highland than either Franklin or Grass Valley.

LIVE IN GO IN - ES Live In Go In Live In Go Out

5.0

4.0

49%

3.0

2.0

1.0 0.5

GO IN: GRASS VALLEY

51%

LIVE GO ANALYSIS

Measuring the geospatial relationships between students and their schools

LIVE: MONTERA MIDDLE

LIVE: FRICK MIDDLE

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 0.5

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 0.5

GO: MONTERA MIDDLE

GO: FRICK MIDDLE

LIVE GO DATA ANALYSIS: MIDDLE SCHOOLS At the middle school level, livego patterns take a different form. The overall percentage of students who go to the school that is within the attendance boundary that they live in (i.e. Live In Go In) is 46%, which is slightly lower than that for elementary schools (49%). All community middle schools, serve a population of students beyond their attendance boundary. This may be because there are only about 16 school sites for all OUSD students to choose from.

LIVE: WESTLAKE MIDDLE

LIVE IN GO IN - MS 5.0

4.0

3.0

Live In Go In Live In Go Out

2.0

1.0 0.5

46% 54%

Other patterns emerge when analyzing the Middle school live go data. It is very clear, for instance, that Montera Middle School is a highly attractive program in the system because heavy concentrations of students are traveling from all over the district to attend school there. This finding is made even more interesting by the fact that Montera is situated near the edge of the district boundary, making it a relatively long trek for students to take from distant parts of the city. On the other end of the spectrum are school like Frick Middle School. This program is not attracting students from across the district the way that other programs are, which means that students living in the Frick attendance boundary travel much farther to school each day (2.4 miles on average) than their counterparts in other attendance boundaries.

GO: WESTLAKE MIDDLE

LIVE GO ANALYSIS

Measuring the geospatial relationships between students and their schools

LIVE: OAKLAND TECH

LIVE: FREMONT HIGH

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 0.5

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 0.5

GO: OAKLAND TECH

GO: FREMONT HIGH

LIVE GO DATA ANALYSIS: HIGH SCHOOLS Because there are only a handful of comprehensive high school options, students travel much greater distances to get to high school than they do at the middle or elementary school levels. That being said, similar patterns appear for high schools as for middle and elementary schools. Oakland Technical High School is an example of a high school that attracts students from great distances through a robust academic and extracurricular program

LIVE: CASTLEMONT HIGH

LIVE IN GO IN - HS Live In Go In Live In Go Out

5.0

4.0

3.0

37%

2.0

1.0 0.5

63%

GO: CASTLEMONT HIGH

offering. This is evidenced by the fact that more students attend Oakland Tech from outside the attendance boundary (68%) than do from within the attendance boundary (32%). Oakland High School and Skyline High School also have greater numbers of so called Live Out Go In students indicating the attractiveness of these programs. While schools like Fremont High, Castlemont High, and McClymonds High School attract some students from outside the attendance boundary, they have a much more centralized cluster of students served. This indicates that the programs at these schools are not highly attractive to students across the district. Improving the academic and extracurricular programs at these schools could help to bring more local students to these school sites, thereby decreasing the overall distance traveled to school by students in these attendance boundaries.

MEASURING CAPACITY

Determining how many students a site can hold

The district has 2,578 classrooms to fill. If every classroom were loaded with the maximum number of students, the district could house 55,695 students. The district has enough capacity to educate 93% of all school aged children in the city of Oakland.

24:1

31:1

32:1

GRADES TK - 3

GRADES 4-5

GRADES 6-8

GRADES 9-12

Site capacity is the maximum number of students that should be assigned to a given school in order to deliver appropriate academic programs to all district students. Capacity is calculated by determining the number of rooms available for use as general education classrooms and then applying the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s loading standards to each of these classrooms. Loading standards are a set of student to teacher ratios that determine the maximum number of students that can be assigned to a given teacher and a given classroom. The loading standard (also referred to as a student to teacher ratio) for transitional kindergarten through 3rd grade is set at 24:1. This ratio is outlined by the state of California under the Local Control Funding Formula. If the district can achieve average daily attendance of 24 or fewer students per class for grades TK-3, the state will reward the district with higher per pupil funding

levels. Assigning students appropriately to achieve these loading standards is a important parameter for asset management. Loading standards for grades 4-5, 6-8, and 9-12 are currently set according to the maximum number of students that each teacher can teach as outlined in the teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; contracts. For grades 4 and 5, the ratio is 31:1. For grades 6 through 12, the ratio is 32:1. Determining site capacity for every district school is a critical first step in the asset optimization process as it sets a baseline level for determining whether a given school is at, over, or under capacity.

SITE CAPACITY STUDENTS PER SITE In an ideal world, every community school would have enough room to house all of the students who wanted to attend it. In the real world, some schools have too much room, while others do not have enough.

40 Longfellow

Ascend

Lazear

Santa Fe

Parker

Lakeview

Brookfield

Allendale

Lafayette

Horace Mann

Glenview

Crocker Highlands

Sequoia

Piedmont Ave

Madison Park

Joaquin Miller

Urban Promise

1600

Hillcrest

1700

Thornhill

1800

Martin Luther King

1900

Ralph Bunche

2000

Hoover

2100

Cleveland

2200

Carl B. Munck

La Escuelita

Washington

Prescott

Emerson

Redwood Heights

Peralta

Grass Valley

Dewey

Kaiser

Howard

Burckhalter

Far West

2111 International

Burbank

Thurgood Marshall

Sherman

Street Academy

Community Day

Toler Heights

Total Site Capacity

2400 2300

CAPACITY LEVELS FOR OUSD SCHOOLS

Site Capacity is the maximum number of students that could be assigned to a given school site. In this case, capacity is calculated by determining the number of loadable rooms at a given site and then applying a classroom loading standard to each loadable room.

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Cole

Montclair

Laurel

Maxwell Park

Melrose

Skyline

Oakland Tech

Castlemont

Oakland High

Fremont

Calvin Simmons

Elmhurst

E. Morris Cox

Montera

McClymonds

Bret Harte

Havenscourt

Frick

Edna Brewer

Jefferson

Roosevelt

Lowell

Manzanita

Franklin

King Estates

Highland

Lockwood

Stonehurst

Hawthorne

Garfield

Webster

Cesar Chavez

Lincoln

Whittier

Westlake

Claremont

Woodland

Bella Vista

Markham

Verdese Carter

Golden Gate

Tilden

Chabot

Fruitvale

James Madison

MEASURING ENROLLMENT

Determining how many students a school houses

When OUSD operated under the neighborhood school model, a school’s enrollment was determined by how many neighborhood kids wanted to go to school. Now, with the IOEP and the limited capacity at each school site, school enrollment has to be determined by assigning children to specific schools. For students and families in the OUSD system, the student assignment process begins with an application to attend a Kindergarten, 6th grade, or 9th grade class of an elementary, middle, or high school of their choosing. Children are then assigned to a certain school based on two specific factors: whether or not they have a sibling attending that school, and whether or not the school is in the neighborhood they live in. While all children have the opportunity to apply to any school they wish, not all students get the first - or even second - school of their choosing. OUSD’s future enrollment

target will act as a guiding parameter for this plan as it provides the capacity level to which the physical assets should be managed. OUSD’s future capacity target for the entire district is set at 50,000 students. To this end, OUSD will need to capture an additional 7,200 community and charter students in order to fully optimize it’s asset capacity. In order to reach the 50,000 student target, OUSD will need to increase enrollment across all grade levels, but will need to focus primarily on attracting more students at the middle and high school levels. Middle school enrollment will have to grow by 54% and high school enrollment will have to grow by 63%, whereas elementary school enrollment will only have to grow by 16%. Meeting these targets will require the district to develop high-quality program options to attract more students to district schools.

ENROLLMENT IN DISTRICT PROGRAMS BY GRADE LEVEL (2013-14)

Grade Level

K 1 2 3

6 7 8 9

4 5

10 11 12

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT REINFORCING LOOPS Choice drive enrollment. Enrollment drives funding. Funding drives program quality. Program quality drive choice.

2400 2300 2200

ENROLLMENT IN OUSD FACILITIES (2013-14)

2100 2000 1900

School enrollment is the number of students counted on the twentieth day of October. OUSD Elementary schools are capturing 51.5% of the elementary school-aged children living in Oakland. At the middle school level, the capture rate drops to 22.4%. For high school aged students, the capture rate is 26.1%. Increasing enrollment to meet enrollment targets means OUSD will have to increase the capture rate at the middle and high school levels.

1800 1700

Total Site Enrollment (District Schools and Charter Schools)

1600 1500

1400 1300 1200 1100

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

Elmhurst

Brookfield

Melrose

Horace Mann

Redwood Heights

Washington

Markham

Maxwell Park

Verdese Carter

Hillcrest

Emerson

Peralta

Urban Promise

Martin Luther King

Frick

Carl B. Munck

Lazear

La Escuelita

Woodland

Hoover

Burckhalter

Lafayette

McClymonds

Grass Valley

Kaiser

Madison Park

Dewey

Thurgood Marshall

Pescott

Far West

Parker

Sherman

Howard

Burbank

2111 International

Ralph Bunche

Street Academy

Toler Heights

Tilden

Lakeview

Community Day

Cole

Santa Fe

Ascend

Joaquin Miller

Cleveland

Thornhill

Piedmont Ave

Allendale

Oakland Tech

Skyline

Oakland High

Montera

E. Morris Cox

Castlemont

Calvin Simmons

Jefferson

Havenscourt

Edna Brewer

Lockwood

Franklin

Stonehurst

Lincoln

Fremont

Manzanita

Hawthorne

Longfellow

Cesar Chavez

Highland

King Estates

Garfield

Chabot

Roosevelt

Westlake

Golden Gate

Lowell

Laurel

Montclair

Whittier

Bret Harte

James Madison

Bella Vista

Glenview

Webster

Sequoia

Claremont

Fruitvale

Crocker Highlands

2400 2300 2200 2100

SITE CAPACITY VS ENROLLMENT

2000 1900

13 district schools are enrolled beyond capacity, while 72 district school sites are under capacity, meaning they could hold more students. This indicates that there is a misalignment between enrollment and capacity across the district. Asset optimization entails evening out this misalignment. Comparing site capacity and school enrollment illustrates those schools that are over loaded with students and those that have available seats. Sites on the right side of the chart have more students enrolled than is appropriate for building capacity. Schools on the left side of the chart have capacity for additional students. capacity

1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300

Total Site Capacity and Total Site Enrollment

1200

enrollment

1100

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

Edna Brewer

Manzanita

Cesar Chavez

Montera

Community Day

2111 International

Bella Vista

Prescott

Toler Heights

Westlake

E. Morris Cox

Fruitvale

Madison Park

Garfield

Havenscourt

Lafayette

Whittier

Highland

Melrose

King Estates

Claremont

Maxwell Park

Lazear

Ralph Bunche

Parker

Roosevelt

Verdese Carter

Lowell

Markham

Webster

Oakland High

Elmhurst

Skyline

Lakeview

Santa Fe

Bret Harte

Cole

Tilden

Frick

McClymonds

Calvin Simmons

Fremont

Castlemont

Longfellow

Redwood Heights

Joaquin Miller

Sequoia

Cleveland

Thornhill

Peralta

Glenview

Lincoln

Washington

Thurgood Marshall

Emerson

At Capacity

Chabot

Crocker Highlands

Oakland Tech

Burckhalter

Laurel

Kaiser

Jefferson

Sherman

Montclair

Lockwood

Piedmont Ave

Stonehurst

Golden Gate

Woodland

Hillcrest

Grass Valley

Burbank

Far West

Hawthorne

Franklin

Street Academy

Martin Luther King

Dewey

La Escuelita

James Madison

Carl B. Munck

Urban Promise

Ascend

Hoover

Allendale

Horace Mann

Howard

Brookfield

Under Capacity Over Capacity

enrollment capacity

MEASURING UTILIZATION

Determining how well a school site is used

OUSD has the capacity to serve enrollment levels of decades past at 50,000 - 55,000 students. The problem is that site capacity does not align with program viability, and certain schools have too many students, while other schools have too few.

UTILIZATION

12% 12% 1% 73%

Underutilized Utilized Overutilized Charter Admin Leased

Utilization is a measure of how well a school site is being used. Determining utilization is an important step of the asset optimization process because it indicates whether or not a school site has an opportunity to expand or a need to contract. Utilization is a measure of the current state as compared to the potential state of a school. In this case, utilization is determined in two different ways. The first measure of utilization is to compare a school siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity with the enrollment of the schools housed at that site. If the total school enrollment exceeds site capacity, then the school site it overutilized. If the capacity of the school site is is greater than the number of students enrolled at the school or schools housed on that site, then the school site is considered underutilized. By this measure, 13 OUSD school sites are overutilized, while 72 school sites are underutilized. 3 schools in the 2013-2014 school year were enrolled exactly to capacity.

The second way to measure utilization is to determine the number of classrooms that are being used for approved academic programs as compared to the total number of classrooms available for use at a given school. While the capacity utilization measure is an indication of the whether the school is over or under enrolled, the classroom utilization rate indicates how many classrooms could be filled with additional students (underutilized rooms), and how many classrooms are filled with students when they should be used for other academic functions (overutilized rooms). By both measures, OUSD has some schools that are overutilized and others that are underutilized. Increasing the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s utilization rate is a critical for true asset optimization. The solutions in section 6 will address strategies for how to increase utilization.

CLASSROOM UTILIZATION FILLING ROOMS OUSD has enough site capacity to house all of its students and then some. Unfortunately, capacity at any given site does not necessarily align with the desirability of the program.

LOADING FORMULA

Calculating Classroom Utilization and Availability

OUSD has adopted a loading formula that can be used to determine the appropriate number of classrooms to be used at each site given the number of classrooms and the number of students enrolled at each site.

The classroom loading model was developed through the coordinated efforts of multiple divisions of district leadership and staff. The loading model is used for many of the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planning purposes including determining where there are potentially available classroom spaces for required educational programs, charter programs, and/or expansion of community programs. The following are a list of defined categories of classroom uses that are taken into account when calculating a siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s classroom utilization rate. Total Classrooms - Rooms above 600 sq ft that are not used for libraries, multipurpose 50

rooms, gymnasiums, auditoriums, etc. General Education Classrooms - Classrooms used for instruction of district-run TK-12 programs. Required Program Classrooms - Classrooms used for the delivery of classes for Programs for Exceptional Children, bilingual programs, newcomer programs, prekindergarten and early childhood education programs, and A through G programs at the high school level. Classrooms used for charter programs are also counted in this category.

Flex Rooms - Flex rooms are used to allow programs flexibility in how they use classroom spaces to offer programs outside of general education. At the elementary level, flex rooms are calculated as 1/8 of general education classrooms. These rooms are used for classes including but not limited to science prep, art, and reading intervention, At the middle school level, flex rooms are calculated as 1/6 of general education classrooms. Middle school flex rooms are used to house elective classes that augment general education. At the high school level, flex rooms are calculated as 1/10 of general education classrooms. These

rooms are typically used for purposes above and beyond general education and required A through G programs such as computer labs and science labs. Parent / Family Resource Rooms - Each school is allocated one parent resource room. Available Classrooms The number of classrooms remaining after subtracting general education, required program, flex, and parent rooms from the total number of classrooms.

EXAMPLE UTILIZATION CALCULATIONS

Total Classrooms

General Education Classrooms

Required Program Classrooms

Flex Classrooms

Parent Resource Rooms

Available Classrooms

Example - Lafayette Elementary School

26 Total Classrooms

General Education Classrooms

Required Program Classrooms

Flex Classrooms

Parent Resource Rooms

Available Classrooms

Example - Bret Harte Middle School

45 Total Classrooms

General Education Classrooms

Required Program Classrooms

Flex Classrooms

Parent Resource Rooms

Available Classrooms

Example - Fremont High School

70* Total Classrooms

General Education Classrooms

Required Program Classrooms

Flex Classrooms

Parent Resource Rooms

Available Classrooms

*Total number of classrooms at Fremont High School was taken prior to the removal of 12 portable classrooms in summer 2014. 51

100 95 85 80

OUSD CLASSROOM UTILIZATION

Undertilized Utilized

This chart illustrates the number of classrooms that are used for appropriate educational purposes based on the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s loading model outlined above. The underutilized classrooms could be better utilized for district programs. 17 district schools have overutilized classrooms, while 56 district schools have underutilized classrooms. 17 district sites house non-district programs or administrative functions.

Overutilized

Charter 65

Admin Leased

60 55

*Parker Elementary is transitioning to a K-8 program which will increase utilization over the course of three academic years.

50 45 40 35

25 20 15 10 5

Dewey

Melrose

Edna Brewer

Piedmont

Brookfield

Lowell

Garfield

Highland

Verdese Carter

La Escuelita

Carl B. Munck

Hoover

King Estates

Whittier

Castlemont

Far West

Prescott

Grass Valley

Montera

Allendale

Westlake

Elmhurst

Bella Vista

Howard

Madison Park

Ralph Bunche

Fruitvale

Fremont

Castlemont

Bret Harte

Roosevelt

Lafayette

Markham

Webster

McClymonds

Parker

Frick

Toler Heights

Tilden

Santa Fe

Martin Luther King

Lakeview

0 Cole

Number of Classrooms

Oakland Tech

Manzanita

Jefferson

Stonehurst

Lockwood

Woodland

Washington

Urban Promise

Thornhill

Redwood Miller

Lincoln

Kaiser

Joaquin Miller

Horace Mann

Hillcrest

Utilized

Crocker Highlands

Street Academy

Thurgood Marshall

Sherman

Sequoia

Peralta

Longfellow

Lazear

James Madison

Hawthorne

Golden Gate

Community Day

Franklin

Cleveland

Burbank

Ascend

2111 International

Havenscourt

Montclair

Chabot

E. Morris Cox

Laurel

Skyline

Maxwell Park

Glenview

Emerson

Cesar Chavez

Burckhalter

Calvin Simmons

Oakland High

Underutilized Overutilized

MAP OF CLASSROOM UTILIZATION AT OUSD SCHOOL SITES 101 Allendale 102 Bella Vista 103 Brookfield 104 Burbank 105 Burckhalter 106 Anthony Chabot 108 Cleveland 109 Cole 110 E. Morris Cox 111 Crocker Highlands 115 Emerson 116 Franklin 117 Fruitvale 118 Garfield 119 Glenview 120 Golden Gate 121 La Escuelita 122 Grass Valley 124 Hawthorne 126 Highland 127 Hillcrest 128 Jefferson 129 Lafayette 130 Lakeview 131 Laurel 132 Lazear 133 Lincoln 134 Lockwood 135 Longfellow 136 Horace Mann 137 Manzanita 138 Markham 139 Maxwell Park 141 Melrose 142 Joaquin Miller 54

143 Montclair 144 Parker 145 Peralta 146 Piedmont 147 Prescott 148 Redwood Heights 150 Santa Fe 151 Sequoia 153 Sherman 154 Sobrante Park 155 Stonehurst 156 Tilden/Swett 157 Thornhill 159 Toler Heights 161 Washington 162 Webster 163 Whittier 165 Woodland 166 Howard 168 Carl Munck 170 Hoover 171 Henry Kaiser 174 Thurgood Marshall 182 Martin Luther King Jr 185 Ascend 186 Cesar Chavez 201 Claremont 202 Elmhurst 203 Frick 204 Lowell 205 Calvin Simmons 206 Bret Harte 207 Havenscourt 210 Edna Brewer 211 Montera

212 Roosevelt 213 Westlake 214 Verdese Carter 215 James Madison 216 King Estates 222 Rudsdale 223 Ralph Bunche 236 Urban Promise 288 Neighborhood Centers 300 Hillside 301 Castlemont 302 Fremont 303 McClymonds 304 Oakland High 305 Oakland Tech 306 Skyline 310 Dewey 313 Street Academy 335 2111 International Blvd 338 MetWest 404 Edward Shands 405 Bond Street Annex 900 900 High Street 901 1025 2nd Ave 906 Community Day 988 955 High Street

171 106

145 161

120

201 127

150

115

214

157

305

143

135 146 170 303 223

211 313 142

213

129

111

130 147

109

204

108

119

304

182

151 133

310

206

210 102 121

116

212

168 131

137 101

124

118

306

148

117

156

906

205 186

236

132

185

139

128

153 105

104

302

136 203 163

141

138

144

216 166

Site Utilization Rate

207

165

50%

60%

70%

122

159

126 202

80% 90% 100%

Classroom Utilization of District Owned Properties Map showing location and classroom utilization for all schools in the Oakland Unified School District.

301

162

134

174

110 155

103

154 215

4 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE ONGOING COSTS Every year, OUSD spends more than $5 million on energy costs alone. Adding costs associated with maintenance, materials, and modernization puts the operating budget associated with facilities into the 10â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s of millions of

ONGOING COSTS

OPERATING MODEL

In addition to the $5.5 million in energy costs that OUSD spends annually, many sites throughout the district are in need of maintenance and seismic upgrades. Altogether, these projects account for more than $400 million in deferred maintenance district-wide.

Despite the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s continued commitment to sustainability, annual energy costs have risen each year since 201112. The adoption of districtwide Design Guidelines which hold all current and future sites to Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) standards should help to mitigate new costs, but the rapidly increasing inefficiencies of some sites cannot be ignored. Oakland Technical, for example, cost the district more than $300,000 in annual energy. Sites like this have annual energy costs increases over 5%, greater than the average increase of around 2%. In order to reduce operational costs, OUSD will need to manage currently inefficient building systems and transition to sustainable energy practices.

throughout the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; currently 92% of district sites are in need of some form of modernization. These projects will not only help to create more efficient buildings across the district, but they will also help create modernized facilities that can facilitate current pedagogies (such as STEM) and enable sites to provide wrap-around services to surrounding communities.

Part of the effort to drive down operational costs is the implementation of a large number of modernization and maintenance projects

The following pages provide a more detailed breakdown of the costs associated with the districts operations and maintenance needs,

In addition to deferred maintenance and modernization projects, the district also needs to respond to the findings from the 2011 seismic vulnerability report conducted by ZFA Structural Engineers. The report identified 118 buildings across 78 sites that are either moderately or highly vulnerable to seismic activity.

Oakland T ech HS 369,619

V erdese C arter HS 137,137

C alvin S immons MS 133,192

Oakland High HS 294,572

C ole Admin 100,243

J efferson ES 89,280

F oster Admin 86,372 McC lymonds HS 119,601

W estlake MS 83,518 R oosevelt MS 115,118 S kyline HS 200,440

B ret Harte MS 82,166

J ames Madison MS 67,767

Lowell MS 104,490

Lincoln ES 63,946

J oaquin Miller ES 102,096

G arfield ES 61,191 K ing E states HS 75,649

S tonehurst ES 75,132

C esar C havez ES 74,071

Martin Luther K ing Jr ES 73,848

C laremont MS 60,446

955 High S treet Admin 49,628

W oodland ES 73,489

F ranklin ES 54,927

Urban P romise MS 49,575

E lmhurst MS 71,878

Highland ES 72,938

Lockwood ES 53,613

C habot ES 54,050

E merson ES 41,680

MetW est HS 69,649

900 High S treet Admin 52,551

Montclair ES 53,281

T ilden Admin 38,937

F ruitvale ES 38,811

Lakeview Admin 38,485

R alph B unche HS 33,702

P arker ES 33,579

G rass V alley Hoover ES ES 32,938 32,367

B rookfield ES 38,483

E dna B rewer MS 66,221

E . Morris C ox ES 77,833

C astlemont HS 195,135

F rick MS 68,709

W ebster ES 62,689

Havenscourt MS 109,650

F remont HS 187,103

Montera MS 74,426

Manzanita ES 61,159

P iedmont Ave ES 37,810

Markham ES 37,223

Laurel ES 37,183

Horace Mann ES 35,830

2111 International B oulevard ES 35,223 S equoia ES 34,421

P rescott ES 60,738

W ashington K -8 34,260

Dewey HS 34,030

B ella V ista ES 33,977

W hittier K -8 32,163

B urckhalter ES 30,056

Melrose ES 29,899

Maxwell P ark K -8 29,233

Lafayette ES 27,547

G lenview ES 27,522

Allendale ES 31,879 Howard ES 31,407 C leveland ES 30,839 R edwood Heights ES 30,530 S anta F e ES 30,091

F ar W est HS 27,320

T hornhill ES 20,723

C rocker Highlands ES 26,348

K aiser ES 19,985

P eralta ES 26,028

T hurgood Marshall ES 23,199

B urbank ES 19,255

Madison P ark ES 20,553

Hillcrest K -8 20,333

Ascend S treet C arl K -8 B. 13,503

T oler Heights

Alice C DC

B ond S treet Annex Admin

C entro Infantil se Harriet

La E scuelita ES

Y uk Y au C DC

B ella V ists

ENERGY COSTS Following from the district’s commitment to sustainability, all school sites should be high performing buildings that use energy and water efficiently while contributing to the quality of Oakland’s built environment. Written in 2013, the OUSD Design Guidelines showcase the district’s dedication to sustainable practices by holding all existing and new facilities to the best practices laid out by the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS). By adhering to CHPS standards, school sites will reduce resource consumption, improve energy efficiency, and in some cases utilize solar technologies (in partnership with the HELiOS Project and the US Department of Energy) in order to produce green-energy on-site. In addition to making Oakland a greener district, these projects will also help to reduce operational costs across the district. In 2013-14, annual energy costs were estimated at $5,552,169. Of the energy costs in 2013-14, five schools accounted for 22% of the total while ten account for 34%. Overall energy costs in 2013-14 rose 2% from 2012-13.

Oakland Technical HS 21,709,128

Urban P romise MS 10,028,682

Oakland High HS 9,494,769

S kyline HS 14,222,048

Lowell MS 6,990,224

Longfellow ES 6,989,580

G arfield ES 6,571,084

E lmhurst MS 5,666,931

C habot ES 4,253,948

Fremont HS 11,646,417

C astlemont HS 10,671,877

Webster ES 7,728,388

Melrose ES 3,320,644

Kaiser ES 3,304,389

Maxwell P ark ES 3,163,379

E dna Brewer MS 8,133,901

C ole Admin 8,130,194

King E states HS 3,786,852

C laremont MS 3,695,343

Havenscourt MS 5,257,368

E . Morris C ox ES 3,585,371

R oosevelt MS 5,142,779

Horace Mann ES 3,565,736

Markham ES 3,426,849

Fruitvale ES 3,302,750

Lafayette ES 3,283,807

Manzanita ES 3,198,989

Lockwood ES 3,214,956

P rescott ES 4,157,358

Bret Harte MS 2,632,618

Toler Heights ES 2,081,624

Thornhill ES 2,097,325

Lakeview Admin 2,063,158

Laurel ES 1,979,238

Franklin ES 3,923,768 Montera MS 5,936,659

Westlake MS 11,612,904

S tonehurst ES 3,788,741

C rocker Highlands ES 5,336,383

E merson ES 4,187,863

McC lymonds HS 8,876,837

Bella Vista ES 6,569,219

J ames Madison MS 5,354,625

C leveland ES 5,396,004

C arl B. Munck ES 2,612,863

Washington ES 3,141,259 G olden G ate ES 3,922,467

C alvin S immons MS 5,918,998

P arker ES 3,060,049

P iedmont Ave ES 2,314,956

S obrante P ark ES 3,918,304

Verdese C arter HS 3,831,522

Hillcrest ES 1,336,926

Highland ES 1,831,779

J efferson Burckhalter Ascend ES ES ES 1,746,501 1,661,875 1,546,390

Tilden Admin 2,358,242

Hoover ES 2,681,662 G lenview ES 5,760,181

Burbank ES 1,896,423

Frick MS 2,306,208 Hillcrest MS 1,336,926

S herman ES 2,103,351

S treet Academy HS 1,543,510 Hawthorne ES 1,514,437 Lincoln ES 1,468,437 Lazear ES 1,429,255

J oaquin Miller ES 1,391,044

Howard ES 1,164,357 S anta Fe ES 984,904 Allendale ES

Martin Luther King J r ES

G rass Valley ES

Whittier ES

P eralta R alph ES

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE All buildings require periodic modernization and upgrades in order to maintain a high level of operational performance. With an aging building inventory—more than half of OUSD’s buildings are 50 years or older—the district’s facilities are in need of maintenance and upgrades. These upgrades are necessary, not only to fulfill the “brick and mortar” issues facing the district, but to provide the necessary infrastructure for wrap-around services that enable the district’s facilities to serve as Full Service Community Schools. For example, more advanced security systems may facilitate after-school use of certain rooms. The specificity of deferred maintenance varies widely across the district, but generally addresses upgrades to building systems and/or site and grounds. Building systems upgrades target deficiencies with regards to building infrastructures such as: Heating/ventilation/air conditioning systems (HVAC), roofing/ waterproofing, plumbing, electrical, accessibility, technology infrastructure, security systems, and/or fire alarm upgrades. Whereas site and grounds upgrades confront the shortcomings of exterior landscapes by improving paving, security, and providing students and communities with amenities such as gardens, athletic facilities, and sun shades. Currently, 84 district sites—92% of the entire district—are in need of some form of deferred maintenance. The total cost for all maintenance and modernization driven projects is estimated at $333 million. The top five schools in need of maintenance represent 21% of that total while the top ten account for 34%.

Oakland Technical HS 10,736,060

Lowell MS 2,922,724

E dna Brewer MS 2,246,696

S kyline HS 1,938,036

G arfield ES 1,921,844

Frick MS 1,911,219

E lmhurst MS 1,807,175

Oakland High HS 1,795,657

R oosevelt MS 2,673,865 Bella Vista ES 1,614,360

P arker ES 1,403,953

Lockwood ES 1,367,550

King E states HS 1,360,081

G lenview ES 1,149,765

Maxwell P ark ES 1,086,967

Lincoln ES 1,074,176

C alvin S immons MS 2,662,556 Lafayette ES 1,602,563 Markham ES 1,036,404 McC lymonds HS 5,570,278

Bret Harte MS 2,404,088

Havenscourt MS 2,336,327

Fremont HS 3,868,472

Washington ES 1,467,829

C ole Admin 1,467,578

Burckhalter ES 1,020,453

Montera MS 968,171

Webster ES 906,958 C astlemont HS 2,314,611

Fruitvale ES 1,452,904 J ames Madison MS 856,047

Hoover ES 829,715

Horace Mann ES 703,744

P iedmont Ave ES 475,304 C habot ES 458,299 Verdese C arter HS 436,760 C laremont MS 400,084

Westlake MS 829,706

G olden G ate ES 783,248

C rocker Highlands ES 754,048

S anta S equoia Fe ES ES 252,511 252,511

Martin Luther King P rescott Jr ES ES 273,181 372,745 Brookfield ES 372,631 Dewey HS 370,953 Franklin ES 355,542 Manzanita ES 307,729 S tonehurst ES 291,782

E . Morris C ox ES 742,171

Highland Laurel J oaquin ES Miller ES 225,066 220,946 E S

Howard ES 235,126

S obrante P ark ES

C arl B. Munck ES

Allendale ES 196,452

E merson ES

Burbank ES 191,072

C leveland ES

Toler Heights ES

G rass Valley

P eralta ES Tilden

S treet

SEISMIC UPGRADES Although no OUSD building in its present condition poses an imminent seismic hazard, the ever-evolving understanding of structural performance during earthquakes means that there are opportunities to reinforce and improve the seismic safety of district buildings. In 2002, the California Division of the State Architect released the AB300 report that presented an analysis of the State’s K-12 facilities and identified buildings that present a potential risk based on location and age. In 2011, the district commissioned ZFA Structural Engineers to conducted a district-wide survey of all permanent OUSD structures to validate AB300 findings and re-assess overall seismic vulnerability. Per ZFA’s assessment of the district’s 326 permanent buildings, 35 were deemed as moderately vulnerable and 83 were assessed as being highly vulnerable to seismic activity. The 118 buildings that are in need of seismic upgrades are dispersed throughout the district across 78 sites—86% of the district’s properties. The total cost of addressing these collective seismic deficiencies of the entire district is estimated at $80.6 million. The top five schools in need of upgrades/repairs account for 32% of this total while the top ten represent 47%.

500 475 450

ENERGY COSTS PER STUDENT FOR DISTRICT FACILITIES

425 400

This chart shows the cost of the energy used to operate school facilities per each student enrolled. Energy costs were determined by reviewing energy bills from 2012-2014. Small sites like Community Day and MetWest have high energy costs per student because they are medium sized facilities with small numbers of students. This indicates an economy of scale when designing at a per student energy costs. Highly underutilized sites like Roosevelt, Frick, Fremont, and Castlemont have higher per student costs because energy costs are related to the size of the facility and when facilities are underutilized there are fewer students to spread those costs over.

375 350 325

275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25

B rookfield

S kylin e

J effers on

G arfield

Hoover

P iedmon t Ave

M on tera

Fru itvale

M arkh am

S ton eh u rs t

C h abot

Was h in gton

E lmh u rs t

M on tclair

Horace M an n

L in coln

M an zan ita

R edwood Heigh ts

Allen dale

S equ oia

E . M orris C ox

E dn a B rewer

P eralta

C levelan d

M adis on P ark

B ella Vis ta

Fran klin

K ais er

M elros e

L ockwood

L au rel

M axwell P ark

C rocker High lan ds

G len view

Hillcres t

Th orn h ill

Wh ittier

S h erman

L a E s cu elita

Th u rgood M ars h all

As cen d

0 C arl B . M u n ck

Energy Costs Per Student (Dollars) (2013-14 Energy Bill Data)

300

Fremon t

C as tlemon t

R oos evelt

Oaklan d High

Oaklan d Tech

L owell

B ret Harte

Dewey

Wes tlake

Urban P romis e

C alvin S immon s

Webs ter

Haven s cou rt

C laremon t

K in g E s tates

E mers on

Howard

Far Wes t

P arker

L afayette

C es ar C h avez

J ames M adis on

G ras s Valley

S treet Academy

B u rckh alter

High lan d

C ole

Fos ter

Tilden

L akeview

S an ta Fe

R u ds dale

Toler Heigh ts

E dward S h an ds

C ommu n ity Day

M etWes t

M cC lymon ds

Verdes e C arter

R alph B u n ch e

Frick

P res cott

21 1 1 In tern ation al

Woodlan d

J oaqu in M iller

M artin L u th er K in g

5 LEADERSHIP SPACE NEEDS RECENTRALIZATION The distributed model for housing OUSD administrative staff means that district employees spend a lot of time traveling to meetings, and more time than is needed on communication and coordination.

ADMINISTRATIVE NEEDS

OUSD’s leadership staff of nearly 600 full time and flex time workers are currently distributed across six district-owned sites and one leased site consuming more than 300,000ft2 of space. By consolidating the leadership staff currently housed in 180,000 ft2 of school space to a centrally located 100,000 ft2 facility, OUSD could reduce ongoing costs associated with moving district employees, add capacity to the school system, and generate unrestricted revenues in the process.

FACILITIES HOUSING DISTRICT STAFF Tilden/John Swett Elementary School Tilden/John Swett is located in the Oakland foothills in a residential neighborhood near the junction of I-580 & CA-13. Mills College sits just opposite of Tilden/John Swett on the other side of the I-580 freeway, and High Street lies three blocks to west, providing easy circulation and public transportation to Oakland’s hill communities as well as neighborhoods further to the south and west.

Lakeview Elementary School Lakeview Elementary is situated in the Grand Lake District, at the north-east corner of Lake Merritt. The area features a substantial commercial backdrop, as well as several parks, a popular weekly farmer’s market, and is a nexus of public bus routes and highways. These factors create a lively, healthy atmosphere, but also produces a large amount of background noise, especially where

Lakeview is situated directly adjacent to I-580 and Grand Avenue. Foster Middle School The Foster site is located near the border between Oakland and Emeryville near the intersection of 27th Avenue and San Pablo Avenue. The area is mostly residential with a small number of businesses and stores concentrated on San Pablo Avenue to the west and MLK Way to the east. This site is not presently being used as a school, but continues to house district administrative functions. Cole Middle School Cole was originally an elementary school, which was later converted into a middle school. Today it’s in use as an administrative facility, and as the headquarters for the OUSD police unit. The site is located in the heart of West Oakland, across from the Oakland Housing Authority offices on 10th Street, and adjacent to Wade Johnson Park on 12th Street. A few blocks away are the Mandela Parkway, The Port of Oakland, and the West

Oakland BART station. 900 & 955 High Street This site, located on High Street between San Leandro Avenue and I-880, is in use by several OUSD administrative departments. It is surrounded by a mix of warehouses, storage yards, and a limited amount of commercial sites, manufacturing, and housing. The area is accessible from I-880 by car, by buses that run along International Boulevard, or by BART which has a station at Fruitvale Avenue half a mile to the north-west. 1000 Broadway 22,000 ft2 of office space is leased at this site in downtown Oakland. Offices are used for the executive leadership team and board members along with the legal department. The site is situated next to a BART station and on several bus routes. An additional 63,000 ft2 of space is currently available for lease and could be used to temporarily house leadership staff currently distributed to schools sites.

ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE NEEDS

TILDEN ELEMENTARY This school site is commonly refereed to as Tilden and current houses the Learning, Curriculum, and Instruction and the Continuous Improvement divisions along with the office of charter schools. Tilden is home to nearly 30 portable buildings, a number of which are condemned. There are five other elementary school sites within 0.5 miles of Tilden. Freeing up this site would allow the district to reduce its portable count and potentially generate unrestricted revenues.

ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE NEEDS

LAKEVIEW ELEMENTARY Lakeview Elementary School currently houses 148 FTEs and up to 25 flex employees in multiple OUSD divisions. The 35,000 ft2 permanent building and the eight portable buildings at Lakeview sit on three acres of land in the Grand Lake neighborhood of Oakland. There is only one other community school (and no charter schools) within one mile from Lakeview, which means that the 584 children living in the Lakeview boundary have to travel much greater distances to attend a district program.

ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE NEEDS

COLE MIDDLE This site is currently used to house the Technology Services division and the OUSD Police Depaterment. While the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s primary server lives in the new La Escuelita complex, the back up server lives at Cole. The OUSD Police Department utilizes the one portable building at Cole to house a summer program for children.

ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE NEEDS

FOSTER MIDDLE The Foster site currently houses OUSD’s Programs for Exceptional Children division. The middle school site is set to be transformed into a central kitchen to serve the district’s schools. The project is currently in the design phases and ground breaking is set for January 2015. This means that PEC’s 86 FTEs and up to 30 flexTEs will have to move to a new location. Divisions undergo these types of moves every year and create ongoing costs for the district. Centralizing administrative functions could reduce the annual costs.

ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE NEEDS

955 HIGH STREET 955 High Street is home to 79 district employees from the Facilities Planning and Management division, Buildings and Grounds, and the districts construction management team. The facilities on site include a large machine shop and various equipment storage and management areas as this site acts as the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s maintenance shop.

ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE NEEDS

900 HIGH STREET 900 High Street houses OUSD’s Student Nutritional Services, Custodial Services, Buildings and Grounds, and Procurement divisions. In addition to offices, the facilities contain a 130,000 ft2 warehouse space that acts as the district’s primary inventory management and distribution center.

6 VACANT FACILITIES FIXED COSTS The distributed model for housing OUSD administrative staff means that district employees spend a lot of time traveling to meetings, and more time than is nedded on communication and coordination.

VACANT FACILITIES

1025 2ND AVENUE

BOND STREET ANNEX

This site is located in the Merritt district on 2nd Avenue, in the same vicinity as Dewey Academy, Laney College, the Oakland Museum, La Escuelita Elementary School, and Met West High School. IThis site was home to the district administrative divisions.. The neighborhood is also very nearby Oakland Chinatown, which features a mix of residential and commercial uses, transitioning into warehouses, train tracks, and port-related industry to the south-west.

The Bond Street facility is a recently closed adult education center located a the intersection of 45th Avenue and Bond Street, just south of Fremont High School. The site is very close to both High Street and Foothill Boulevard, which offer a selection of commercial outlets, North of International Boulevard are primarily residential, with a public library branch and a municipal pool within 3 blocks. To the south, the area becomes heavily industrial with warehouses, storage facilities, and manufacturing.

Building Area: 73,400 ft2

Building Area: 2,643 ft2

VACANT FACILITIES

RUDSDALE

EDWARD SHANDS

The Rudsdale site is located adjacent to the Lockwood and Havenscourt sites, accross the street from the MLK, Jr. Library branch and Greenman Field. International Boulevard to the north, and the Hegenberger Expwy to the east are major city thoroughfares with numerous small businesses and pocket commercial districts along their paths, but the rest of Rudsdaleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s immediate surroundings is residential, including a handful of public housing projects to the north-west.

Edward Shands is a recently closed adult education center located on Church Street between Bancroft Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The Eastmont Shopping Center is two blocks away facing 73rd Avenue, and includes, in addition to the Mall itself, an Oakland Police Station, the Eastmont Wellness Center, and the Eastmont Transit Center. To the north and south however are the residential communities of Millsmont and Havenscourt, respectively.

Building Area: 11,393 ft2

Building Area: 18,046 ft2

PLEASANT VALLEY his facility is located on the Santa Fe Elementary School site in West Oakland between Market Street and Adeline Street. The surrounding neighborhood is primarily residential, although there are several major avenues in the area as well as a substantial business presence at various points along Market and Adeline, and also further east on MLK Boulevard. The adult education center is not currently in use.

Building Area: 4,584 ft2

7 STRATEGIES FOR OPTIMIZATION OPTIMIZE AT THE SYSTEM LEVEL In order to meet the district-level asset management goals, OUSD can employ combinations of the following strategies to align capacity with student populations and to even out utilization rates of district facilities.

CREATE ATTRACTIVE PROGRAMS

The most impactful thing that OUSD could do to optimize the use of it physical assets is to grow robust academic programs in schools across the district to attract more students who are currently choosing alternative options to public education.

EXPAND PROGRAMS

Expanding program offerings to include additional grade levels is an effective way to increase utilization. Program Expansions will increase classroom utilization at district schools while also creating a seamless educational experience for OUSD students.

REUNIFY DISTRICT LEADERSHIP STAFF

Reunification of the district’s leadership divisions means would allow OUSD to benefit from more efficient and effective work flows. Reunification would also allow the district to utilize schools sites to add capacity to the system or generate unrestricted revenues.

CAP ENROLLMENT BASED ON SITE CAPACITY

Asset management and student assignment go hand in hand. Data sets and process used to determine student assignment should be co-managed together with facilities asset data and planning to create efficiencies in the district’s annual planning processes.

REDUCE PORTABLE CAPACITY

Based on future district-wide enrollment targets, OUSD current has the capacity to meet it’s future needs. But because current enrollment falls below the target, OUSD can remove up to 20% of it’s portables now.

DEVELOP COMPETITIONLEVEL ATHLETIC FACILITIES

Developing competition-level athletic fields and facilities would provide district students with high quality physical education and extracurricular assets. Athletic facilities would also allow the district to generate revue by hosting sporting competitions and other athletic events.

USED SHARED SITE AGREEMENTS

The primary way that classroom utilization can be increased is by assigning more students to underutilized sites. This can be achieved quickly by consolidating multiple programs onto one site or using other forms of shared site agreements.

CREATE ORGANIZATIONAL ALIGNMENT

Optimizing the utilization of sites across the district means aligning the enrollment at each school with the site’s capacity. Certain attractive schools are currently enrolled well beyond capacity and capping enrollment can help to distribute student enrollment across other sites.

PROPERTY DISPOSITION

Disposition of certain district owned properties would allow OUSD to benefit from additional revenue streams while also unloading the costs associated with operating and maintaining vacant and underutilized facilities.

INCREASING QUALITY PROGRAM OPTIONS

SCHOOLS AFFECTED

The quality of a schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s academic program offering is one of the primary factors affecting student choice behavior. Because strong schools attract potential students, OUSD should develop robust academic programs at certain sites to provide functional schools of choice and highly desired programs in areas of the district that are currently highly underutilized.

High Schools Growth API Utilization (2013) (2013-14) McClymonds High 513 54.7% Castlemont High 509 70.2% Fremont High - 71.4%

The Intradistrict Open Enrollment Program has the effect of channeling students toward high performing academic programs. For lower performing programs, the policy creates a negative reinforcing loop: fewer students apply to and enroll in the school; the school receives less perpupil funding and has less flexibility to grow the strength of its program offerings; therefore, even fewer students attend that program the following year.

demand for high quality education across the district.

Elementary Schools East Oakland Pride 668 62.2% Markham Elementary 749 63.3% Lafayette 605 65.4% Fruitvale 703 72.4% Madison Park Academy 701 77.8% Howard 777 78.3% Bella Vista 813 78.8%

In order to counteract this negative reinforcing loop, OUSD should develop high-quality academic programs at certain school sites to attract and retain students who would otherwise not apply to attend their neighborhood school. Investing in program development will have longterm effects because it will afford more students access to strong academic programs while also evening out the

The adjacent list of schools represents those sites where there is the greatest opportunity for growth in the system. Developing highly attractive academic programs at theses site could drive greater number of students to attend the school nearest to them, thereby evening out the demand for OUSD programs while also increasing utilization rates at OUSD school sites.

The perceived safeness of a neighborhood surrounding a school also contributes to how attractive it is to potential students. In addition to improving academic outcomes as a way of making schools more attractive, OUSD should find ways to make the community perceive certain schools as safe places for children to be educated.

Middle Schools Frick Middle Roosevelt Middle Bret Harte Middle Alliance Academy Elmhurst Community

621 679 666 627 686

52.6% 65.9% 68.9% 80.0% 80.0%

STRATEGY [1]:

CREATE ATTRACTIVE PROGRAMS IMPROVING ACADEMIC OUTCOMES The quality of academic programs drives school choice. Developing a greater number of viable options for district students at strategically located sites will create highly attractive schools that draw students in and even out demand.

By middle school that interest has been cultivated and expanded to the realms of programming.

C O R R I D O R OUSD STEM CORRIDOR The OUSD STEM Corridor links three schools in West Oakland with cutting edge academic programs focusing on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The corridor is more than just a physical connection between facilities in West Oakland. The STEM Corridor also represents a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s journey starting in kindergarten and continuing through elementary, middle, and high school, and beyond. As the student grows and progresses, new STEM projects and learning opportunities will be made available through partnerships with local business that operate in STEM fields. West Oakland is the perfect place to develop the STEM Corridor because it has underutilized facilities and an under served population. Only 23% of students living in West Oakland attend schools in West Oakland. Developing strong STEM programs in West Oakland schools will attract students to currently underutilized school sites by creating hands-on learning opportunities that bring real world business and technology challenges into the classroom. 82

In elementary school children get an introduction to tech courses such as robotics.

Education continues beyond the classroom drawing from a number of partnerships with organizations in West Oakland who advocate and teach robotics oriented courses.

STEM ACTIVITIES BY GRADE LEVEL

Ecosystems/ Estuaries, Dissecting Owl Pellets, Growing Seeds, Seismic Testing, Drones, Silk Worms

Light Spectrum-Lenses, Lighting Circuits, Dissection, Testing Water Quality, Digital Microscopes, Seismic Testing, Soap Making, Sound Waves, Gardening

Lighting Design, Dissecting Frogs/Pigs, Darkroom Chemistry, Soil Testing, Farming

Agricultural Systems, Biochemistry, Medicine, Pharmaceuticals, Bioprocess Engineering

Lego robotics, 3d-Printing, Programming

Digital Animation, Build a Computer, 3d-Printing, Programming, Robotics, Sound Engineering

Data Centers, Digital Animation, Circuit Board Creation, Programming, 3d-Printing, Digital Music Production, Digital Film Production, Drones, Aerial Imaging, CNC, Laser Cutters

Automation and Robotics, Cyber Crime Technology, Information Systems, UI/UX Design, Computer Science, Digital Production, Game Design, Programming

Erosion/Water Flow, Egg Drop, K-Nex Projects, Building projects, Introduction to Physical Principles

Seismic Testing Shake Tables, Rube Goldberg Perpetual Motion Machines, Model Building, Physics

Design-Build Studio, Fabrication Laboratories, Welding, Auto Shop, Physics, Digital Modeling, Drafting

Structural Engineering, Civic Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Hydraulics, Music Recording, Geographic Information Systems

Math Computer Games, Math Blocks, Pedometer/ Measuring Distance

Spread Sheets, Geometry and Building, Stock Trading, City-Resource Management Game

Data Analysis, Data Visualization, Geometry Applications, Pedometer Mapping/Measuring in 3 Dimensions, Taxes, Algorithms

Data Modeling, Accounting, Banking and Finance, Economics, Logistics Management, Music Theory

COMMUNITY COLLEGE

HS By high school, students are experts, building and experimenting with their own drones.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE

OUSD STEM CORRIDOR POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIPS

Photo Science Geospatial Solutions

Almost Scientific

Radiorobot

McClymonds HS Robots for Fun

HUB Oakland

West Oakland MS

Lafayette ES

New Tech Network Tech Liminal

CIVIC AND EDUCATIONAL Alameda City College | California State University East Bay | Exâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;pression College | Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce | UC Berkeley

Laney College 83

MANAGING SCHOOL SIZE

SCHOOLS AFFECTED

A primary effect of the Intradistrict Open Enrollment Policy is that high-performing schools attract more and more students - and funding - which creates a cycle that allows programs to grow and attract even more students. This leads to over crowding at many schools in the district.

High Schools Oakland Tech Sojourner Turth Far West

Even though district-wide enrollment has diminished over the past decade and even though there is more than enough capacity in the system to accommodate students, some schools continue to be overloaded. Capping enrollment at overcrowded schools is an important step in the effective, system-level management of OUSDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s physical assets because it will help to even out student populations and provide over-crowded schools with enough flex space to adequately serve their student populations. In order to better manage the effects of the School Options Program, OUSD should develop a policy that specifies how schools should be loaded and the point at which schools should be considered full. This would have the effect of reducing the number of over-crowded schools while also increasing enrollment at underutilized schools. Because capping enrollment will mean that 84

there are fewer opportunities for students to attend one of OUSDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current, highquality programs, this solution should be deployed in conjunction with improving academic programs so that the district can provide more viable program options to all students. Capping enrollment will help to provide schools with more space to provide appropriate academic programs. Capping school enrollment is a solution that will yield results after several years of coordination between facilities managers, enrollment coordinators, and student assignment staffers. An enrollment cap would begin with an incoming kindergarten class and would continue each year with the following incoming class. Over a six year period, this strategy would work to even out the loading of each school in the system by setting a maximum number of students per class and managing enrollment based on the number of classrooms at each site.

Capacity Enrollment (2013-14) (2013-14) 2095 2096 225 219 261 220

Middle Schools Roots International

384

Elementary Schools Redwood Heights Joaquin Miller Sequoia Cleveland Thornhill Peralta Glenview Lincoln Community United Sankofa Emerson Global Family Korematsu Chabot Crocker Highlands Burckhalter Laurel Kaiser EnCompass Montclair Piedmont Ave Acorn Woodland Hillcrest

316 368 388 429 412 450 364 398 371 396 316 340 446 468 728 748 408 424 349 361 336 345 408 417 412 418 594 599 436 439 285 284 570 561 285 275 316 301 570 552 412 392 316 294 381 351

351

STRATEGY [2]:

CAP SCHOOL ENROLLMENT ASSIGNING FOR OPTIMIZATION Capping school enrollment will reduce the effects of over crowding and allow more schools to focus on providing rich educational opportunities.

COLLOCATING PROGRAMS

SCHOOLS AFFECTED

Certain sites throughout the district have high levels of underutilization and could benefit from sharing their sites with other underutilized programs. Shared sites are an effective way to increase utilization at these sites, but sharing one school facility between two or more programs can create added levels of operational complexity. Consolidating and expanding programs will increase classroom utilization at district schools while also freeing up assets for reuse or disposition.

High Schools Enrollment Capcity (2013-14) (2013-14) McClymonds High 276 1,039 Castlemont High 914 1,938

Using shared site agreements can be an effective way for OUSD to quickly increase utilization rates at highly underutilized sites. Sites can be shared between two community school programs, two charter school programs, or one community school and one charter school program. Consolidating two community programs onto one site is one form of site sharing that can also be an effective way of quickly increasing classroom utilization. In cases where two schools that are geographically proximate and both have enrollment numbers well below the site’s capacity, consolidating the two programs onto one of the two underutilized sites would allow the district to more fully utilize one building, while also freeing up the other building up for reuse, disposition or other revenue generation purposes. In ceratin cases, it may make sense 86

for OUSD to offer classrooms at an underutilized site to interested and qualified charter programs. These determinations should be made through the Proposition 39 process and should be vetted by various OUSD divisions. There are a variety of facilities use agreements that can be utilized for shared site ventures including: Joint Use Agreements Joint Use with Capital Improvements Joint Occupancy Agreements Long Term “In Lieu” Facilities Use Agreements

Middle Schools Frick Middle Roosevelt Middle Bret Harte Middle

313 576 540

Elementary Schools Webster Markham Lafayette Fruitvale Howard

465 579 358 625 280 450 448 580 205 285

928 832 1,024

STRATEGY [3]:

USE SHARED SITE AGREEMENTS COLLOCATING PROGRAMS The primary way that classroom utilization can be increased is by assigning more students to underutilized sites. This can be achieved quickly by consolidating multiple programs onto one site.

GROWING ENROLLMENT AND INCREASING UTILIZATION

SCHOOLS AFFECTED

The primary way that classroom utilization can be increased is by assigning more students to underutilized sites. This can be achieved achieved over time by expanding program offerings to include additional grade levels. Program Expansions will increase classroom utilization at district schools while also creating a seamless educational experience for OUSD students.

Current Future Elementary Schools Grades Grades Whittier/Greenleaf K-6 K-8 Washington/Sankofa K-7 K-8 Parker K-5 K-8 Markham K-5 K-8 La Escuelita K-5 K-8

Some of the strategies for optimizing asset utilization, such as improving academic programs and capping school enrollment, may take several years of work before the intended outcomes are realized. Another strategy for increasing utilization over time is to expand program offerings at certain school sites to accommodate additional grade levels. Grade level expansions are currently taking place at two elementary schools and one middle school. Grade level expansions are particularly effective solutions at schools that have high populations of English language learners because they can offer a seamless educational experience for students and families that have specific needs when it comes to language development and communication. Furthermore, expanding elementary 88

school programs to include middle school classes could also be an effective way for the district to boost its middle school enrollment numbers by making it easier for students to stay in a district school that they are already familiar with. This strategy could increase the OUSDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capture rate of 6th and 9th graders thereby mitigating some of the drop off currently seen between elementary and middle and middle to high school transitions. Special attention should be paid to program expansion decisions as they also have the affect of disrupting feeder patterns. When an elementary school that historically feeds a certain middle school is expanded to a K-8 program, the middle school may see lower enrollment numbers as students who would otherwise attend that school, choose instead to stay on at the school they are already familiar with.

Middle Schools Frick James Madison Roosevelt

6-8 6-12 6-8 6-12 6-8 K-8

High Schools McClymonds

9-12

6-12

STRATEGY [4]:

EXPAND PROGRAMS GROWING ENROLLMENT Some programs could expand grade levels to increase utilization, while others could be collocated to optimize multiple sites.

ALIGNING CAPACITY WITH STUDENT POPULATIONS

SCHOOLS AFFECTED

Portable classrooms account for 17% of the district’s classroom capacity. Removing all portables would shrink the district’s capacity by 9,500, to 45,500 students. Under current enrollment targets, OUSD could reduce its portable building count by 23%.

OUSD currently owns 673 portable buildings, 473 of which are classroom spaces. In order to achieve the district’s goal of aligning site capacity with the surrounding neighborhood population, some sites will need to remove portable buildings.

High School Sites Portables Utilization Castlemont High 4 70.2% Fremont High 23 71.4% King Estates 7 87.9% Verdese Carter 4 88.9% Dewey 2 92.9% Skyline High School 35 95.9%

In addition to schools that have excess capacity tied up in portable buildings, there are a handful of sites with multiple portable buildings that currently house administrative functions. Moving these administrative divisions to a central location will free up these sites and allow the district an opportunity to remove portable buildings.

Middle School Sites Frick Middle Roosevelt Middle Bret Harte Middle Elmhurst Middle Montera Middle Calvin Simmons

7 7 6 9 16 2

52.6% 65.9% 68.9% 80.0% 84.1% 94.0%

Elementary School Sites John Swett Elementary Lakeview Elementary Toler Heights Webster Elementary Markham Elementary Fruitvale Elementary Howard Elementary Bella Vista Elementary Allendale Elementary Grass Valley Elementary Highland Elementary Garfield Elementary Brookfield Elementary Melrose Elementary

23 10 2 17 8 15 5 13 1 10 9 2 13 11

0% 0% 0% 62.2% 63.3% 72.4% 78.3% 78.8% 84.0% 84.2% 89.2% 89.5% 89.7% 92.6%

BUILDING TYPE

20%

Over all, OUSD can remove 152 portable buildings while still maintaining enough capacity to meet its future enrollment targets. The district should conduct this portable reduction over a multi-year period in order to maintain a certain level of flexibility as circumstances may change in years to come.

80%

Portable Permanent 90

STRATEGY [5]:

REMOVE PORTABLES MANAGING CAPACITY Portable buildings were an effective way for the district to add capacity when enrollment numbers were high. Now that enrollment has dropped, the district has underutilized portable buildings that can be removed.

171 106

145 161

120

201 127

150

115

214

157

305

143

135 146 170

211 313

303 223

142

213

129

111

130 147

109

204

108

119

304

182

151 133

310

206

210 102 121

116

212

168 131

137 101

124

118

306

148

117

156

906

205 186

236

132

185

139

128

153 105

104

302

136 203 163

141

138

144

216 166

207

165

301

162

134

202

Distribution of Classrooms By Building Type At District Owned Properties Map showing location and quantity of portable classrooms for all schools in the Oakland Unified School 92

Permanent

174

110

Portable 155

103

154 215

122

159

126

MAP OF OUSD PERMANENT AND PORTABLE CLASSROOMS 101 Allendale 102 Bella Vista 103 Brookfield 104 Burbank 105 Burckhalter 106 Anthony Chabot 108 Cleveland 109 Cole 110 E. Morris Cox 111 Crocker Highlands 115 Emerson 116 Franklin 117 Fruitvale 118 Garfield 119 Glenview 120 Golden Gate 121 La Escuelita 122 Grass Valley 124 Hawthorne 126 Highland 127 Hillcrest 128 Jefferson 129 Lafayette 130 Lakeview 131 Laurel 132 Lazear 133 Lincoln 134 Lockwood 135 Longfellow 136 Horace Mann 137 Manzanita 138 Markham 139 Maxwell Park 141 Melrose 142 Joaquin Miller

ALIGNING IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES Various OUSD divisions contribute to the optimization of the district’s physical assets. In order to increase classroom utilization at certain schools and decrease over crowding at others, OUSD should create a stronger link between the Student Assignment Office, the Office of Continuous Improvement, the Office of Charter Schools, and the Facilities Planning and Management division. Developing a more robust assignment and planning system will allow the district to effectively manage how its facilities are used and utilized. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT AND ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS In addition to enrollment projections, one of the primary inputs to the student assignment process is information pertaining to the number of classrooms available for loading at every school. This information is important because it is the basis for decisions on how many students the district assigns to any given school. Furthermore, state mandated class sizes dictate how many students can be assigned to certain classrooms, so linking the facilities information with the student assignment information is crucial for meeting state-wide standards and districtwide goals. OUSD divisions currently hold their own data sets and information sharing can be 94

cumbersome. Coupling these divisions can smooth out the assignment and loading processes, making it easier for the district to achieve the goals of capping school enrollment and improving the academic programs. To achieve this integration, OUSD should bring the Facilities Planning and Management division and the Student Assignment Office under the same organizational umbrella. Reorganizing in this way would allow the two units to communicate and collaborate more effectively. While the two divisions do not necessarily have to be collocated, making them responsible to the same division chief will increase their accountability toward one another. PROPOSITION 39 FACILITIES ASSESSMENT PROCESS Another important district process that relies on accurate facilities information is the offering of available space to qualifying charter programs. Proposition 39 regulations requires that underutilized classrooms be made available to charter programs. In order to make appropriate decisions regarding charter assignment, accurate information regarding school site utilization and potentially available classrooms is needed. OUSD is currently piloting a standard for the Facilities Assessment Process associated with

Proposition 39. The Facilities Planning and Management division is working directly with the Office of Continuous Improvement and the Office of Charter Schools to ensure that this process is robust and that appropriate offers are made each year depending on the utilization and availability of district classrooms.

Optimizing OUSD’s physical assets will require the work of multiple district divisions. Optimization begins with the loading, assignment, and enrollment of schools. Furthermore, allocation of space to charter programs affects classroom utilization. In order to effectively utilize and optimize the district’s physical assets, OUSD’s Facilities Planning and Management division should be more directly linked with other district divisions.

STRATEGY [6]:

ORGANIZE AND ALIGN DEPARTMENTS AROUND IMPLEMENTATION REORGANIZE FOR OPTIMIZATION Multiple divisions of the OUSD organization have a stake in the assessment and allocation of classroom resources. These divisions should work together to develop robust classroom assignment processes.

UNDER ONE ROOF

A centralized office building that houses many - but not all - of OUSD’s leadership divisions could increase operating efficiency and reduce time spent on coordination and travel. A 100,000 ft2 facility would shrink the district’s administrative space need by 30% and free up school FACILITY USES

As per the vision set by the OUSD Board of Education on 4 September 2014, the property at 1025 2nd Avenue should be redeveloped into an educational and leadership complex that will house district administrative divisions along with a new development for Dewey High School. A school district as large and complex as OUSD requires a great deal of organization and administration in order to keep things operating smoothly. As stated in section five, OUSD divisions are currently housed on seven different sites, consuming about 300,000 ft2 of space. With 505 full time employees and 75 flex time employees, OUSD’s distributed system for housing district employees requires extra time and energy spent on coordination of work streams and communications amongst divisions.

dispersed from the district’s previous administrative facility into a 100,000 ft2 office space save time, money, and travel, it would also add a level of cohesion to OUSD’s organizational culture. When members of an organization are collocated, they are more likely to feel like they are part of something larger than their own division, and they can see more easily how their work and effort fits in with that of other individuals and other departments. A culture based around a decentralized model for housing staff leads to siloing of divisions, less cultural cohesion, and inefficient organization processes. Moving OUSD back to a centralized model would create greater efficiencies not only from a facilities point of view, but also from an organizational culture point of view.

Not only would reunification of those administrative divisions that were Community Charter

% of Total Area

501,901

8.5%

82,155

1.4%

305,121

5.1%

4,881,292

82.2%

Community School

CDC

Charter School

Admin

CDC

Leased

40,069

0.7%

Vacant

127,470

2.1%

Admin Leased Vacant 96

Building Area (sqft)

Total

5,938,008

STRATEGY [7]:

REUNIFY DISTRICT LEADERSHIP STAFF COLLOCATING STAFF A distributed model for housing district staff leads to inefficiencies in work streams and excess effort for communication between divisions. Recentralizing OUSD administration will greatly affect the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to optimize the use of its physical assets.

Tilden Elementary School

1025 2nd Avenue

Foster Middle School

1025 2nd Avenue

Foster Middle School

2011

2012

2013

2014

CENTRALIZED ADMINISTRATION

ADMINISTRATION BUILDING DAMAGED

RELOCATE DIVISIONS

ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

CENTRALIZED ADMINISTRATION

DEVELOPED FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

DISTRIBUTED DIVISIONS TO UNDERUTILIZED OR VACANT SCHOOL SITES

CONDUCT UTILIZATION ANALYSIS

MOVED STAFF AND MATERIALS

DOCUMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE NEEDS DEVELOP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOP DISPOSITION STRATEGY

Lakeview Elementary School

1025 2nd Avenue

Lakeview Elementary School

1025 2nd Avenue

Cole Middle School

2015

2016

2017

2018

PLANNING FOR NEW ADMIN BUILDING

DESIGN OF NEW ADMIN BUILDING

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ADMIN BUILDING

RECENTRALIZED ADMINISTRATION

BEGIN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

DEVELOP ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT

BREAK GROUND

MOVE INTO NEW ADMIN BUILDING

SELECT ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION TEAMS

DESIGN BUILDING SYSTEMS

INFILL PLAN FOR VACATED SCHOOL SITES

DEVELOP CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

FURNITURE INVENTORY AND REPLACEMENT

BID PROJECT

SELECT FINISHES

DOCUMENT USER AND FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND DEVELOP BUILDING PROGRAM

MOVE OUT OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS REUTILIZE SCHOOL FACILITIES

PLAY FIELDS AND REVENUE GENERATION

SCHOOLS AFFECTED

An important component of the high school experience is the school spirit that is derived from sports programs and extracurricular activites. Developing competition-level athletic facilities at OUSD sites could be elements that attract students to under enrolled district programs while also generating unrestricted revenues for the district.

High Schools Castlemont High Fremont High McClymonds High Oakland High Oakland Tech Skyline High

Optimization of OUSD’s physical assets primarily means increasing utilization rates at district schools sites. Optimization can also mean generating revenues from the district’s physical assets. One way for the facilities division to help the district generate revenue from its properties is to develop competition-level athletic facilities. Athlietic fields and facilities that can be used to host outside sporting events such as basketball tournaments, football games, or track meets can be rented out to private businesses in Oakland, neighboring schools districts, or 100

other sporting organizations. OUSD should consider developing these facilities across its high school sites so as to distribute athletic resources for physical fitness and extracurricular activities to multiple district schools. A competition level football field at McClymonds High School could bolster its football program and bring additional enrollemt and prestige to the school. Furthermore, a new football field at Fremont High School could be an important component of that school’s redevelopment and revitalization. Competition-level athletic fields could bring new life to district high schools and generate unrestricted revenues.

STRATEGY [8]:

COMPETITION LEVEL ATHLETIC FACILITIES DIVERSIFYING REVENUE STREAMS Developing competition-level athletic facilities will allow OUSD to generate revenues associated with outside sporting events while also providing state of the art fields and facilities to bolster physical education, extracurricular activities, and school spirit.

101

USING FACILITIES TO GENERATE UNRESTRICTED REVENUES

SITES AFFECTED

Property disposition can be a strong way for the district to generate unrestricted revenues, reduce costs associated with the ongoing operations and maintenance of unused or underutilized facilities, and reduce overall capacity to align with future enrollment targets.

1025 2nd Avenue Edward Shands Rudsdale Bond Street Annex Neighborhood Centers 7/23/14 Pleasant Valley Hillside Academy

OUSD has a number of options for property disposition including but not limited to selling a property, entering into a joint use agreement with a partner occupant, exchanging the property for another property or asset of equal value, or entering into a short or long-term lease agreement. Regulations for each option are outlined by specific standards set in the California Education Code and should be followed for all property dispositions. Evaluation of proposals for vacant properties should follow a set of five processes in order to determine appropriate rental rates and sale rates for district properties: 1. Analyze Suitability Step one involves evaluation of the legality of leasing conditions and determining the tenure and terms of any potential lease. Assessing suitability also means that OUSD should evaluate the impact of modernization project and whether or not a portion of the revenue has to be returned to the state.

102

2. Compare Relevant Properties This step involves research of lease rates and/or sale rates for comparable retail and office properties within a one mile radius of the site in question. 3. Assess Condition Condition assessment requires an evaluation of the current facilities condition and identification of any upgrades that may be necessary. A discount rate should be applied to the overall rental fee based on the asset condition. 4. Identify User and Type Once potential rental parties have been identified, OUSD should apply a discount rate based on the user type and the alignment of the user’s property use with the district’s goals. 5. Recommend Disposition Option Upon completion of steps one through four, the facilities department should recommend renter and fee to the Board of Education for approval.

Page 1 of 1

Rudsdale Continuation School

1180 70th Ave, Oakland CA 94621 Facility SF

11,393 sf

Average Comparables Rental Fee

$10.86 sf/year

Base Rental Fee

$123,671 /year

Facility Condition Discount

$0 /year $0 /year

Intended Use Discount

$ 123,671 /year

Rental Fee

CONDITION ASSESSMENT Condition Score

Qualitative Assessment Discount Rate

Good

CONDITION ASSESSMENT TABLE

Condition Score 1 2 3 4

Qualitative Assessment Discount Rate Very Poor 30% Poor 20% Fair 10% Good 0%

COMPARABLES Address

Square Footage

Rental Fee

7800 MacArthur Blvd, Oakland CA 49605 4108 International Blvd, Oakland CA 94601 2558 Seminary Ave, Oakland CA 94605 5833 Bancroft Ave, Oakland CA 94605 5845 MacArthur Blvd, Oakland CA 94605 5383 Bancroft Ave, Oakland CA 94601

14,000 sf 10,000 sf 1,200 sf 2,178 sf 2,000 sf 2,400 sf

$6.60 sf/year $11.88 sf/year $12.00 sf/year $12.00 sf/year $14.40 sf/year $8.25 sf/year

sources: LoopNet (http://www.loopnet.com/),CityFeet (http://www.cityfeet.com/), CoStar Group (http://www.costar.com/), Craigslist

INTENDED USE DISCOUNT Program Type

Discount Rate

Discount

Private Users

$0 /year

Describe intended use: The proposed tenant for the site is the Bethel Missionary Baptist Church who intends to use the site to further the church’s mission. The proposed tenant shall be designated as a Private User as the intended

STRATEGY [9]:

PROPERTY DISPOSITION GENERATING REVENUE Disposition of certain district owned properties would allow OUSD to benefit from additional revenue streams while also unloading the costs associated with operating and maintaining vacant and underutilized facilities.

103

8 IMPLEMENTATION TIME LINE PLAN FOR SUCCESS Implementation of the OUSD Asset Management Plan will require the hard work and coordinated efforts of many of the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s administrative and educational divisions.

104

TIME LINES The strategies outlined in the previous section are intended to be implemented in conjunction with one another. The following pages outline schedules for all the components of this asset management plan. The first schedule is a high-level time line showing the steps that should be taken over the next six years for each of the strategies for asset optimization. Facilities managers should work in conjunction with leaders and staffers from other district divisions in order to effectively implement these strategies. This time line illustrates the sequence of actions that, when taken together, will lead the district to increased optimization of its physical assets.

CREATE ATTRACTIVE PROGRAMS

CAP SCHOOL ENROLLMENT

CO-MANAGE FACILITIES AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT EXPAND OR CONSOLIDATE PROGRAMS

REDUCE PORTABLE CLASSROOMS

RECENTRALIZE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION

2014-2015

2015-2016

Assess Feasibility of STEM Corridor; Begin Community Engagement for Fremont; Develop Plan for Academic and Architectural Programs at Fremont High School

Begin Engagement for STEM Corridor Begin Planning and Design for Fremont High

Begin and Design for STEM Corridor Begin Construction for STEM Corridor Complete Construction Corridor ProjectsSchool 124Planning Hawthorne Cesar Chavez Charter Elementary SchoolProjectsCharter Elementary School for STEM Charter Elementary Begin Construction For Fremont High Continue Construction For Fremont High Move In To New Fremont High School Buildings

Cap Enrollment at Some Overutilized Schools

Site ID

DEVELOP COMPETITION LEVEL ATHLETIC FACILITIES

PROPERTY DISPOSITION

Assess and Improve Student Assignment Processes; Conduct Site Visits for Prop 39 Charter Assignment Process Program Expansions at: James Madison Washington Elementary Whittier Elementary Remove Portables at: Fremont High Castlemont High Frick Middle Roosevelt Middle

Webster Elementary Fruitvale Elementary Markham Elementary

Document User and Functional Requirements Select Site Select Architect Develop Building Program

Conduct Assessment of Current Athletic Facilities Develop Feasibility Study for Location and Build Out of Athletic Facilities Identify Partners for Lease and/or Joint Use for: Edward Shands Rudsdale Neighborhood Centers Pleasant Valley

HIGH LEVEL TIME LINE

2016-2017 Site

Attendance Boundary

2017-2018 Current Use (2013-14)

The third time line is a detailed series of moves that will allow the district to reunify its leadership staff into one central location while it undergoes the process of developing the joint Education and Leadership Complex at 1025 2nd Avenue. This time line also includes the critical path steps necessary in order to move district leadership staff off of sites that play an important role in several ongoing redevelopment projects including the construction of a central kitchen facility at Foster Middle School and the development of new facilities at Glenview.

2015

2018-2019 Near-Term Use (2015-16) Long-Term Use (2018-19)

2016 M

2017 M

2018 M

Tilden

126

Highland

128

Jefferson

129

The second time line indicates the best current, near-term, and long-term uses for each property owned by OUSD. Most properties in this time line matrix are and will continue to be district run school sites. Some site, however, will be vacated due to program consolidations and leadership reunification. These properties will require a reuse and/or disposition strategy prior to being vacated. The column indicating the near-term use for site indicates an action that should be taken to transform each site from its current state toward its desired operating state based on its utilization, capacity, enrollment, and population information.

Roll Out New Student Assignment Process Assess, Improve, and Implement Prop 39 Process

Lafayette

131

Program Expansions at: Parker Elementary

Laurel

Consolidate Programs at: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Lafayette Elementary; Markham Elementary and Lockwood Webster

133

Lincoln

134 Remove Portables at: Montera Middle Elmhurst Middle Bret Harte Middle Brookfield Elementary

Melrose Elementary Howard Elementary

Develop Architectural Concept Design Building Systems Develop Construction Documents Bid Project

Draft Plans for New Athletic Facilities Integrate Athletic Facilities Into New Construction At Fremont High School

Develop Disposition Strategy For All Remaining Vacant Properties

Laurel

137

Manzanita

Break Ground on Admin Building

District Elementary School /

Assess, Improve, and Implement Prop 39 Process

1000 Broadway

Assess, Improve, and Implement Prop 39 Process

Lincoln

District Elementary School

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School

Lockwood

McClymonds High District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

Program Expansions at:

Shared Site With Two District Programs

Manzanita Markham

Elementary Move District Staff Out Of SchoolsSchool Buildings Move Staff Into New Admin Building

Remove Portables at:

Rebalance Enrollment District Elementary School Lakeview Elementary Rebalance Enrollment Reduce Portable Capacity / Collocate Programs On Site

District Elementary School / Shared Site

Melrose

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

142

Joaquin Miller

District Elementary School

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School

Construct New Athletic Facilities Lease Out Athletic Facilities to Generate Revenue

Lease Out Athletic Facilities to Generate Revenue

143

Montclair

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

144

Parker

District Elementary School

Epand Program From K-5 to K-8

District K-8 School

145

Peralta

District Elementary School

Cap Enrollment

District Elementary School

Develop Disposition Strategy For All Remaining Vacant Properties

85,000

3.6 Facilities Improvements

3.2 Move Family, Community, Health,

And Other Offices To 1000 Broadway

0.1

Leadership 195 5

FTE FlexTE

PEC

With Available Space Through An Updated Facilities Use Agreement

Cont. Improvement FTE FlexTE

-$0.5 M

-$1.5 M

31 2

LCI FTE

Foster Area (ft2)

60,000

1.5

McClymonds / Lowell / Lafayette Area (ft2) Available Area

6,000 18,000

AEC 15 5

FTE FlexTE

1.1

Tech Services FTE FlexTE

Cole Area (ft2) Portables

48,500 1

1.2

37 3

3.5 Move Student Assignment Office To 2111 International Blvd

1.3

OUSDPD FTE FlexTE

14 0

FTE FlexTE

66 31

42,750 23 7

Students

268

40,000 22

Students

250

-$0.3 M

1.4

PEC

Glenview Area (ft2) Classrooms Portables

Area (ft2) Classrooms

3.8 Construction of New Glenview Facilities

-$48 M 3.9 Move Glenview Program to New Glenview Facilities

2.0

-$0.5 M

2.1

2111 International Area (ft2) Classrooms

17,500 13

Edward Shands Area (SF) Classrooms Portables

Area (ft2) Classrooms

Student Assign FTE FlexTE

Barack Obama 11,500 9

Area (ft2) Classrooms Portables

3.4 Facilities Improvements

29 5

Community Partners

18,000 22 1

Rudsdale

CURRENT, NEAR- AND LONG-TERM USES

3.3 Move Community School for Creative Education to Another Site

0.3

FTE

-$1.5 M

3.7 Move Glenview Program to Lakeview Site

-$0.7 M

0.2

Santa Fe

141

Construct New Athletic Facilities

Area (ft2)

43,000 9

Tilden Elementary

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

-$0.5 M

Lakeview Area (ft2) Portables

District Elementary School

Furniture Inventory and Replacement Select Finishes

3.1 Move LCI and Contintuous Improvement to 1000 Broadway

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

Remove Portables At Any District Elementary School Remaining Schools With Additional Capacity and District Elementary School / Underutilized Classrooms

37,500 23

Shared Site With Two District Programs

District Elementary School

Toler Heights Elem Remove Portables at: SkylineHorace High Mann Allendale Elementary 136 Horace Mann Garfield Elementary Lockwood Elementary

138 Infill Markham Plan For Vacated Schools

Grow Enrollment

District Elementary School /

Grow Enrollment / District Elementary School / District Elementary School Collocate Programs On Site Shared Site House Student Assignment, Move Leadership Division to Charter Elementary School / Health, Socail Emotional, Family 1000 Broadway and Assignment 2111 Assess Assignment and Enrollment Assess and Enrollment Revenue Generation and Community Divisions International Boulevard Strategy to Improve Process Strategy to Improve Process

Lafayette

130 Lakeview Assess Assignment and Enrollment Lakeview Strategy to Improve Process Assess, Improve, and Implement Prop 39 Process

Shared Site With Two District Programs

Shared With Charter SchoolsShared Site With Charter Cap Enrollment atSite Some Overutilized

Area (ft2) Portables

8,750 6 2

-$1.5 M

0.4 0.5

Move Costs

0.6

Project Costs

Revenue $0.0 M Costs -$7.0 M -$48.0 M

LEADERSHIP REUNIFICATION TIME LINE 105

CREATE ATTRACTIVE PROGRAMS

CAP SCHOOL ENROLLMENT

CO-MANAGE FACILITIES AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT

EXPAND OR CONSOLIDATE PROGRAMS

REDUCE PORTABLE CLASSROOMS

RECENTRALIZE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION

DEVELOP COMPETITION LEVEL ATHLETIC FACILITIES

8 106

PROPERTY DISPOSITION

2014-2015

2015-2016

Assess Feasibility of STEM Corridor; Begin Community Engagement for Fremont; Develop Plan for Academic and Architectural Programs at Fremont High School

Begin Engagement for STEM Corridor Begin Planning and Design for Fremont High

Cap Enrollment at Some Overutilized Schools

Assess and Improve Student Assignment Processes; Conduct Site Visits for Prop 39 Charter Assignment Process

Roll Out New Student Assignment Process Assess, Improve, and Implement Prop 39 Process

Program Expansions at: James Madison Washington Elementary Whittier Elementary

Program Expansions at: Parker Elementary

Remove Portables at: Fremont High Castlemont High Frick Middle Roosevelt Middle

Webster Elementary Fruitvale Elementary Markham Elementary

Remove Portables at: Montera Middle Elmhurst Middle Bret Harte Middle Brookfield Elementary

Melrose Elementary Howard Elementary

Document User and Functional Requirements Select Site Select Architect Develop Building Program

Develop Architectural Concept Design Building Systems Develop Construction Documents Bid Project

Conduct Assessment of Current Athletic Facilities Develop Feasibility Study for Location and Build Out of Athletic Facilities

Draft Plans for New Athletic Facilities Integrate Athletic Facilities Into New Construction At Fremont High School

Identify Partners for Lease and/or Joint Use for: Edward Shands Rudsdale Neighborhood Centers Pleasant Valley

Develop Disposition Strategy For All Remaining Vacant Properties

2016-2017

2017-2018

2018-2019

Begin Planning and Design for STEM Corridor Begin Construction For Fremont High

Begin Construction for STEM Corridor Projects Continue Construction For Fremont High

Complete Construction for STEM Corridor Projects Move In To New Fremont High School Buildings

Cap Enrollment at Some Overutilized Schools

Assess Assignment and Enrollment Strategy to Improve Process Assess, Improve, and Implement Prop 39 Process

Consolidate Programs at: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Lafayette Elementary; Markham Elementary and Webster

Program Expansions at: McClymonds High

Remove Portables at: Skyline High Garfield Elementary Lockwood Elementary

Toler Heights Elem Allendale Elementary

Remove Portables At Any Remaining Schools With Additional Capacity and Underutilized Classrooms

Break Ground on Admin Building Infill Plan For Vacated Schools Furniture Inventory and Replacement Select Finishes

Move Staff Out Of Schools Buildings Move Staff Into New Admin Building

Construct New Athletic Facilities

Construct New Athletic Facilities Lease Out Athletic Facilities to Generate Revenue

Assess Assignment and Enrollment Strategy to Improve Process Assess, Improve, and Implement Prop 39 Process

Remove Portables at: Lakeview Elementary Tilden Elementary

Lease Out Athletic Facilities to Generate Revenue

Develop Disposition Strategy For All Remaining Vacant Properties

107

CURRENT, NEAR-TERM, AND LONG-TERM DISPOSITIONS OF DISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITES

Site ID

108

Site

Attendance Boundary

Current Use (2013-14)

Near-Term Use (2015-16)

Long-Term Use (2019-20)

101

Allendale

District Elementary School

Grow Enrollment / Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

102

Bella Vista

District Elementary School

Grow Enrollment / Use Shared Site Agreement

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Charter

103

Brookfield

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

104

Burbank

Burckhalter

PEC Center

105

Burckhalter

District Elementary School

Grow Enrollment

District Elementary School

106

Anthony Chabot

Chabot

District Elementary School

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School

108

Cleveland

District Elementary School

Cap Enrollment

District Elementary School

110

E. Morris Cox

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Charter

Grow Enrollment

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Charter

111

Crocker Highlands

District Elementary School

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School

115

Emerson

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

116

Franklin

District Elementary School

Cap Enrollment

District Elementary School

117

Fruitvale

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

118

Garfield

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

119

Glenview

District Elementary School

Develop New Facility

District Elementary School

120

Golden Gate

Santa Fe

Charter Elementary School

121

La Escuelita

District Elementary School

Grow Enrollment

District Elementary School

122

Grass Valley

District Elementary School

Grow Enrollment

District Elementary School

CURRENT, NEAR-TERM, AND LONG-TERM DISPOSITIONS OF DISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITES

Site ID

Site

Attendance Boundary

Current Use (2013-14)

Near-Term Use (2015-16)

Long-Term Use (2019-20)

124

Hawthorne

Cesar Chavez

Charter Elementary School

126

Highland

Shared Site With Two District Programs

Grow Enrollment

Shared Site With Two District Programs

128

Jefferson

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Charter

129

Lafayette

District Elementary School

Cap Enrollment

District Elementary School / Shared Site

130

Lakeview

House Student Assignment, Health, Socail Emotional, Family and Community Divisions

Move Leadership Division to 1000 Charter Elementary School / Broadway and 2111 International Revenue Generation Boulevard

131

Laurel

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

133

Lincoln

District Elementary School

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School

134

Lockwood

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

136

Horace Mann

District Elementary School

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School

137

Manzanita

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

138

Markham

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity / Collocate Programs On Site

District Elementary School / Shared Site

141

Melrose

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

142

Joaquin Miller

District Elementary School

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School

143

Montclair

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

144

Parker

District Elementary School

Expand Program From K-5 to K-8

District K-8 School

145

Peralta

District Elementary School

Cap Enrollment

District Elementary School

109

CURRENT, NEAR-TERM, AND LONG-TERM DISPOSITIONS OF DISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITES

Site ID

110

Site

Attendance Boundary

Current Use (2013-14)

Near-Term Use (2015-16)

Long-Term Use (2019-20)

146

Piedmont

Piedmont Ave

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity Cap Enrollment

District Elementary School

147

Prescott

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

148

Redwood Heights

District Elementary School

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School

150

Santa Fe

Leased to Emery Unified

Develop District Run Program

District Elementary School

151

Sequoia

District Elementary School

Cap Enrollment

District Elementary School

153

Sherman

Maxwell Park

Charter Elementary School

154

Madison Park

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

155

Stonehurst

156

Tilden/Swett

Laurel

157

Thornhill

159

Toler Heights

162

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs House T&L, OCS, Continuous Improvement Division Staff

Move Staff to 1000 Broadway / Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs Charter Elementary School / Revenue Generation

District Elementary School

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School

Howard

District Elementary School

Charter Elementary School

Webster

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity / Collocate Programs On Site

District Elementary School

165

Woodland

Highland

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

Cap Enrollment

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

166

Howard

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

168

Carl Munck

Carl B. Munck

District Elementary School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Elementary School

170

Hoover

District Elementary School

Grow Enrollment

District Elementary School

Rebalance Enrollment

CURRENT, NEAR-TERM, AND LONG-TERM DISPOSITIONS OF DISTRICT ELEMENTARY AND K-8 SCHOOL SITES

Site ID

Site

Attendance Boundary

Current Use (2013-14)

Near-Term Use (2015-16)

Long-Term Use (2019-20)

171

Henry Kaiser

Kaiser

District Elementary School

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School

174

Thurgood Marshall

Charter Elementary School

182

Martin Luther King Jr

Martin Luther King Jr District Elementary School

Grow Enrollment / Collocate With Other District School

District Elementary School

186

Cesar Chavez

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

Rebalance Enrollment

District Elementary School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

335

2111 International Boulevard Garfield

Charter Elementary School

House Student Assignment Office

Site ID

Site

Attendance Boundary

Current Use (2013-14)

Near-Term Use (2015-16)

Long-Term Use (2019-20)

127

Hillcrest

District K-8 School

Rebalance Enrollment

District K-8 School

132

Lazear

Charter K-8 School

139

Maxwell Park

District K-8 School

Reduce Portable Capacity / Cap Enrollment

District K-8 School

161

Washington

Peralta

District K-7 School

Reblance Enrollment

District K-8 School

163

Whittier

District K-8 School

Grow Enrollment / Reduce Portable Capacity

District K-8 School

185

Ascend

Jefferson

Charter K-8 School

111

CURRENT, NEAR-TERM, AND LONG-TERM DISPOSITIONS OF DISTRICT MIDDLE SCHOOL SITES

Site ID

112

Site

Attendance Boundary

Current Use (2013-14)

Near-Term Use (2015-16)

Long-Term Use (2019-20)

109

Cole

Lowell

House OUSDPD and Tech Services Divisions

House OUSD PD and PEC Outreach Divisions

201

Claremont

District Middle School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Middle School

202

Elmhurst

District Middle School / Shared Reduce Portable Capacity Site With Two District Programs

District Middle School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

204

Lowell

District Middle School / Shared Site With Charter

205

Calvin Simmons

District 6-12 School / Shared Cap Enrollment Site With Two District Programs

206

Bret Harte

District Middle School

207

Havenscourt

District Middle School / Shared Cap Enrollment Site With Two District Programs

District Middle School / Shared Site With Two District Programs

210

Edna Brewer

District Middle School

Grow Enrollment

District Middle School

211

Montera

District Middle School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District Middle School

212

Roosevelt

District Middle School

Reduce Portable Capacity / Share Site

District Middle School / Shared Site

213

Westlake

District Middle School

Grow Enrollment

District Middle School

215

James Madison

District Middle School

Expand Program From 6-8 to 6-12

District 6-12 School

236

Urban Promise

Calvin Simmons

District Middle School

Rebalance Enrollment

District Middle School

906

Community Day

Montera

District 6-12 School

Cap Enrollment

District 6-12 School

Grow Enrollment

Reduce Portable Capacity / Grow Enrollment

District 6-12 School / Shared Site With Two District Programs District Middle School

CURRENT, NEAR-TERM, AND LONG-TERM DISPOSITIONS OF DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL SITES

Site ID

Site

Attendance Boundary

Current Use (2013-14)

Near-Term Use (2015-16)

Long-Term Use (2019-20)

135

Longfellow

Santa Fe

Charter 6-12 School

214

Verdese Carter

Oakland Tech

District High School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District High School

216

King Estates

Castlemont

District High School / Shared Reduce Portable Capacity / Site With Two District Programs Consolidate Programs and One Charter

District High School / Shared Site With Two District Programs and One Charter

223

Ralph Bunche

McClymonds

District High School

Reduce Portable Capacity

District High School

300

Hillside

Castlemont

Vacant

Revenue Generation

301

Castlemont

District High School / Shared Site With Charter

Collocate Programs On Site / Grow Enrollment

District High School / Shared Site With Multiple Charter Programs

302

Fremont

District High School

Develop New Facilities

District High School

303

McClymonds

District High School

Collocate Programs On Site / Grow Enrollment

District 6-12 School / Shared Site With Charter

304

Oakland High

District High School

Grow Enrollment

District High School

305

Oakland Tech

Oakland Technical

District High School

Cap Enrollment

District High School

306

Skyline

District High School

Rebalance Enrollment / Reduce Portable Capacity

District High School

310

Dewey

Oakland High

District High School

Develop New Facilities

District High School

313

Street Academy

Oakland Tech

District High School

338

MetWest

Oakland High

District High School

Relocate Program To La Escuelita Complex

Demo

113

CURRENT, NEAR-TERM, AND LONG-TERM DISPOSITIONS OF ADMINISTRATION AND VACANT SITES

Site ID

Site

Current Use (2013-14)

Near-Term Use (2015-16)

Long-Term Use (2019-20)

900

900 High Street

House SNS, Custodial Services, and Distribution Center

988

955 High Street

House Facilities and B&G Divisions

988

1000 Broadway

House District Leadership and Board Members

Expand Lease to 85,000 SF to house District Leadership

End Lease Agreement

288

Neighborhood Centers

Leased to ACOE

Revenue Generation

Site ID

114

Attendance Boundary

Site

Attendance Boundary

Current Use (2013-14)

Near-Term Use (2015-16)

Long-Term Use (2019-20)

Pleasant Valley

Vacant

Revenue Generation

222

Rudsdale

Vacant

House Charter School / Lease to House Charter School / Lease to Community Partner Community Partner

404

Edward Shands

Vacant

House Charter School / Lease to House Charter School / Lease to Community Partner Community Partner

405

Bond Street Annex

Vacant

Revenue Generation

901

1025 2nd Ave

Vacant

Develop Strategy for Demolishing Existing Building and Redeveloping the Site

Develop Facility to House An Educational and District Leadership Complex

115

CURRENT STATE

2015 O

Tilden Area (ft2) Portables

37,500 23

Cont. Improvement FTE FlexTE

FTE

LCI

Lakeview Area (ft2) Portables

43,000 9

Student Assign FTE FlexTE

29 5

Social/Emotional Behavioral Health FTE

Others

FTE FlexTE

105 20

1000 Broadway Area (ft2)

63,000

Leadership FTE FlexTE

195 5

FTE FlexTE

86 31

FTE FlexTE

15 5

Foster Area (ft2)

60,000

PEC

McClymonds / Lowell / Lafayette Area (ft2) Available Area

6,000 18,000

AEC

48,500 1

OUSDPD

Cole Area (ft2) Portables

FTE FlexTE

14 0

Tech Services FTE FlexTE

37 3

42,750 23 7

Students

268

40,000 22

Students

250

Students

138

Glenview Area (ft2) Classrooms Portables

Santa Fe Area (ft2) Classrooms

2111 International Area (ft2) Classrooms

17,500 13

Edward Shands Area (SF) Classrooms Portables

18,000 22 1

Barack Obama

Rudsdale Area (ft2) Classrooms

116

11,500 9

Area (ft2) Classrooms Portables

8,750 6 2

2016 M

2017 M

2018 M

PHASE 0 - LEADERSHIP REUNIFICATION 2015 O

2016 M

2017 M

2018 M

Tilden Area (ft2) Portables

37,500 23

Cont. Improvement FTE FlexTE

31 2

FTE

LCI

Lakeview Area (ft2) Portables

43,000 9

Student Assign FTE FlexTE

29 5

Social/Emotional Behavioral Health FTE

Others

FTE FlexTE

105 20

1000 Broadway Area (ft2)

85,000

0.1 Lease Additional 22,000 SF at 1000 Broadway 0.2

-$7.2 M

Re Program 85,000 SF at 175 ft2/Employee To hold 485 People

0.3 Facilities Improvements

-$0.1 M

Leadership FTE FlexTE

195 5

FTE FlexTE

86 31

FTE FlexTE

15 5

Foster Area (ft2)

60,000

PEC

McClymonds / Lowell / Lafayette Area (ft2) Available Area

6,000 18,000

AEC

48,500 1

OUSDPD

Cole Area (ft2) Portables

FTE FlexTE

14 0

Tech Services FTE FlexTE

37 3

42,750 23 7

Students

268

40,000 22

Students

250

Glenview Area (ft2) Classrooms Portables

Santa Fe Area (ft2) Classrooms

2.0 End Lease Agreement with Emeryville Unified 2.1

Reestablish a district-run program at Santa Fe Elementary School

2111 International Area (ft2) Classrooms

17,500 13

Edward Shands Area (SF) Classrooms Portables

138

Community Partners

18,000 22 1

Rudsdale Area (ft2) Classrooms

Students

Barack Obama 11,500 9

Area (ft2) Classrooms Portables

8,750 6 2

0.4 Lease Edward Shands to Community Partners Or Charter Program 0.5 Lease Rudsdale to Community Partners Or Charter Program 0.6 Lease Barack Obama to Charter Program

$0.2 M

$0.3 M

Move Costs Project Costs

Revenue $0.8 M Costs -$7.3 M -$0.0 M 117

PHASE 1 - LEADERSHIP REUNIFICATION O

2015 N

2016 M

2017 M

2018 M

Tilden Area (ft2) Portables

37,500 23

Cont. Improvement FTE FlexTE

31 2

FTE

LCI

Lakeview Area (ft2) Portables

43,000 9

Student Assign FTE FlexTE

29 5

Social/Emotional Behavioral Health FTE

Others

FTE FlexTE

1000 Broadway Area (ft2)

85,000

105 20

0.1 0.2 0.3

Leadership 195 5

FTE FlexTE

PEC 20

FTE

Foster Area (ft2)

60,000

1.5 Conversion of Foster Middle to Central Kitchen Facility

-$35 M

McClymonds / Lowell / Lafayette Area (ft2) Available Area

6,000 18,000

AEC 15 5

FTE FlexTE

1.1 Facilities Improvements

Tech Services FTE FlexTE

Cole Area (ft2) Portables

48,500 1

-$1.0 M

1.2 Move Tech Services To McClymonds

37 3

1.3 Facilities Improvements

OUSDPD FTE FlexTE

14 0

FTE FlexTE

66 31

-$0.5 M

-$2.0 M

1.4 Move PEC to Cole and 1000 Broadway

PEC

-$1.0 M

Glenview Area (ft2) Classrooms Portables

42,750 23 7

Students

268

40,000 22

Students

250

Santa Fe Area (SF) Classrooms

2.0 2.1

2111 International Area (ft2) Classrooms

17,500 13

Edward Shands Area (SF) Classrooms Portables

118

138

Community Partners

18,000 22 1

Barack Obama

Rudsdale Area (ft2) Classrooms

Students

11,500 9

Area (ft2) Classrooms Portables

8,750 6 2

0.4 0.5

Move Costs

0.6

Project Costs

Revenue $0.0 M Costs -$4.5 M -$35.0 M

PHASE 2 - LEADERSHIP REUNIFICATION 2015 O

2016 M

2017 M

2018 M

Tilden Area (ft2) Portables

37,500 23

3.1 Move LCI and Contintuous Improvement to 1000 Broadway

-$0.5 M

Lakeview Area (ft2) Portables

3.6 Facilities Improvements

43,000 9

3.2 Move Family, Community, Health,

1000 Broadway Area

(ft2)

85,000

And Other Offices To 1000 Broadway

0.1

Leadership 195 5

FTE FlexTE

3.3 Move Community School for Creative Education to Another Site

0.3

FTE

With Available Space Through An Updated Facilities Use Agreement

Cont. Improvement FTE FlexTE

3.7 Move Glenview Program to Lakeview Site

-$0.5 M

-$0.7 M

0.2

PEC

-$1.5 M

31 2

LCI FTE

Foster Area

(ft2)

60,000

1.5

McClymonds / Lowell / Lafayette Area (ft2) Available Area

6,000 18,000

AEC 15 5

FTE FlexTE

1.1

Tech Services FTE FlexTE

Cole Area (ft2) Portables

48,500 1

1.2

37 3

3.5 Move Student Assignment Office To 2111 International Blvd

1.3

OUSDPD FTE FlexTE

14 0

FTE FlexTE

66 31

Students

268

-$0.3 M

1.4

PEC

Glenview Area (ft2) Classrooms Portables

42,750 23 7

3.8 Construction of New Glenview Facilities

3.9 Move Glenview Program to

Santa Fe Area (ft2) Classrooms

-$48 M

40,000 22

New Glenview Facilities

2.0

Students

-$0.5 M

250

2.1

2111 International Area (ft2) Classrooms

17,500 13

Edward Shands Area (SF) Classrooms Portables

FTE FlexTE

Community Partners

Barack Obama 11,500 9

Area (ft2) Classrooms Portables

3.4 Facilities Improvements

29 5

18,000 22 1

Rudsdale Area (ft2) Classrooms

Student Assign

8,750 6 2

-$1.5 M

0.4 0.5

Move Costs

0.6

Project Costs

Revenue $0.0 M Costs -$7.0 M -$48.0 M 119

9 APPENDIX SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS

120

121

BOARD POLICY 7350

Facilities: Physical Asset Management

I. Guiding Principle The physical assets of the Oakland Unified School District (“District”) shall be managed and maintained as a system to provide safe, secure, healthy, and technologically ready learning environments for students in Oakland’s publicly funded schools in alignment with the District’s Strategic Plan. To support the District’s educational and operational functions, the District shall also use its properties to realize unrestricted revenue to support programs and services for District students. II. Students for Whom the Oakland Unified School District Is Responsible In the context of this Asset Management Policy, the Oakland Unified School District is responsible for: 1. Students enrolled in schools operated by the District, including students with special needs. 2. Students enrolled in charter schools authorized by the District. 3. Students enrolled in charter 122

schools authorized by the County or the State. III. Optimizing Use of District Properties A. Issues Identified For Further Assessment and Study 1. Portables. The District has many portables being used as classrooms that are 30 years or older. A comprehensive plan is needed to determine if the older portables need to be removed and replaced. 2. Underutilized Facilities. The District currently has underutilized facilities. These underutilized spaces are distributed across the City. Improving facility utilization will enable the District to focus more resources on students and teachers, and less on administration, and generate unrestricted revenues that can be used to support school operations. 3. Classroom Loading. In order to develop a clear understanding of facility use, no later than December

11, 2013, the Superintendent is directed to generate a classroom loading model to define a recommended number of students per classroom for various OUSD school programs. B. Priority Order for Use of Properties 1. Protect and sustain the District’s physical assets (i.e., ownership, title, maintenance). 2. House (i) District-operated schools and programs, and (ii) District-sponsored contract schools1 and Qualified District and County-authorized charter schools. a) Establish baseline facility use requirements for a Full-Service Community School for various grade configurations. (i.e., classroom loading for general education and special education services, library, parent center, health center). b) Establish criteria for what constitutes a “qualified” charter school. (i.e., governance, fiduciary, program performance;

compliance with District Quality School Development standards; meeting a District instructional and/or feeder pattern need; ability to add significant value to asset protection). c) Identify opportunity sites for school locations (i.e., campuses currently used exclusively for administrative purposes). d) Establish an effective planning process involving key stakeholders. 3. House administrative operations that foster accessible and efficient customer service. 4. Lower on-going costs and/or increase on-going revenues. C. Considerations for Use of Properties 1. The District shall pursue long-term leases over sale of property unless otherwise directed after consultation with the Board of Education. 2. Specific to students with

special needs, the District shall manage its properties in a manner that creates maximum opportunity to serve these students in Oakland schools, and in schools in relative proximity to students’ homes. 3. Facility uses should consider the creation and maintenance of technology infrastructure. 4. Any entity entering into a lease agreement with the District shall demonstrate its commitment to helping the District achieve the goals of the District’s Strategic Plan. 5. Agreements with outside entities, including charter schools and community-based organizations, shall include provisions to sustainably maintain facilities to accommodate the increased hours of use and numbers of users. 6. Agreements should include the daily and longterm maintenance of District properties by District

Custodial Services employees, and additionally, agreements shall acknowledge that except where other arrangements are made and approved in advance by the District that are consistent with the law, and the District’s Health and Wellness Policy, the District’s Nutrition Services department is the food provider in facilities owned by the District. IV. Best Use of Properties to House Core Administrative Services 1. There is significant value in housing core administrative functions in central locations. The District shall determine how it can best provide core administrative services from centrally accessible locations. The District shall determine whether it can enter into a joint use agreement, joint powers authority, or other partnership agreement such as a public-private partnership to develop joint administrative functions. Such an arrangement may also include use of property for other

purposes, including housing for District employees. 2. The District’s warehousing and facility operations infrastructure should be upgraded. The District shall determine how it can upgrade the facilities that house these functions in a manner that is cost-neutral or revenue generating, if possible. This upgrade may include entering in a joint use agreement or other partnership agreement with other entities. V. Using District Properties to Generate Unrestricted Revenues to Support Services and Programs for Students 1. Properties that are not being used to educate students, provide core administrative services, or leased by community-based partner organizations, shall be leased to other entities unless the Board of Education declares the property surplus and approves the sale of any such property.

2. Except as provided by law or in this policy, rental rates for non-OUSD facility users shall be based on the type of use and set at a rate that supports the generation of unrestricted general fund revenues to support programs and services for students and generate cash reserves for long-term maintenance, equipment, and capital facilities needs. No later than December 11, 2013, the Superintendent shall develop administrative guidelines establishing rates for nonOUSD facility users. VI. Creation of Real Estate Manager Position Creation of a Real Estate Manager position that will be responsible for strategic management and optimization of the District’s real estate assets, property management, and information related to easements, assessments, encroachment, permits, leases, licenses, and developer fees. The manager should be the point of contact regarding the use of district facilities, including Proposition 39 123

OUSD RAW DATA

Data Sets Used For Analysis

Site #

Site

Program

Program Program Type Organization

101 Allendale

District

102 Bella Vista

District

103 Brookfield

District

104 Burbank

104 Burbank PEC

District

105 Burckhalter

District

106 Chabot

District

108 Cleveland

District

109 Cole

Admin

110 E. Morris Cox

193 Reach Academy

District

506 EFC Cox Academy

Charter

111 Crocker Highlands

District

115 Emerson

District

116 Franklin

District

117 Fruitvale

District

118 Garfield

District

119 Glenview

District

K-8

Charter

110 E. Morris Cox

120 Golden Gate

124

Program #

505 Aspire Berkeley Maynard Academy

121 La Escuelita

District

122 Grass Valley

District

124 Hawthorne

507 Achieve Academy

Charter

124 Hawthorne

591 World Academy

Charter

126 Highland

125 New Highland Academy

District

126 Highland

192 RISE

District

Tot Classro

gram zation

Total Permanent Portable Classrooms Classrooms Classrooms

Site Capacity

Site Enrollment

Site Utilization Rate

Program Capacity

Program Enrollment

Program Utilization Rate

rict

460

386

84.0%

460

386

84.0%

rict

628.5

512

78.8%

628.5

512

78.8%

rict

460

378

89.7%

460

378

89.7%

rict

234

200

100.0%

234

200

100.0%

rict

285

284

94.1%

285

284

94.1%

rict

594

599

96.3%

594

599

96.3%

rict

364

398

100.0%

364

398

100.0%

min

576

0.0%

576

0.0%

rict

1078

948

96.2%

642

566

100.0%

rter

1078

948

96.2%

642

566

100.0%

rict

436

439

100.0%

436

439

100.0%

rict

336.5

345

95.0%

336.5

345

95.0%

rict

807

758

100.0%

807

758

100.0%

rict

580.5

448

72.4%

580.5

448

72.4%

rict

769

608

89.5%

769

608

89.5%

rict

446.5

468

95.7%

446.5

468

95.7%

rter

601

572

100.0%

601

572

100.0%

rict

357

300

88.9%

357

300

88.9%

rict

309

276

84.2%

309

276

84.2%

rter

769

721

100.0%

217

224

100.0%

rter

769

721

100.0%

217

224

100.0%

rict

800

626

89.2%

436

320

90.0%

rict

800

626

89.2%

436

320

90.0%

125

OUSD RAW DATA

Data Sets Used For Analysis

Site #

Site

Program

Program Program Type Organization

127 Hillcrest

K-8

District

128 Jefferson

114 Global Family

District

Charter

128 Jefferson

550 Learning Without Limits

129 Lafayette

District

130 Lakeview

Admin

District

131 Laurel

126

Program #

131 Laurel

132 Lazear

593 Lazear Academy (K-8)

K-8

Charter

133 Lincoln

District

134 Lockwood

123 Futures

District

134 Lockwood

149 Community United

District

135 Longfellow

589 Oakland Military Institute

Charter

136 Horace Mann

District

137 Manzanita

175 Manzanita SEED

District

137 Manzanita

179 Manzanita Community School

District

138 Markham

District

139 Maxwell Park

235 Melrose Leadership Academy

K-8

District

141 Melrose

178 Bridges Academy

District

142 Joaquin Miller

District

143 Montclair

District

144 Parker

District

145 Peralta

District

146 Piedmont Ave

146 Piedmont Avenue

District

147 Prescott

183 Place @ Prescott

District

Tot Classro

gram zation

Total Permanent Portable Classrooms Classrooms Classrooms

Site Capacity

Site Enrollment

Site Utilization Rate

Program Capacity

Program Enrollment

Program Utilization Rate

rict

381

351

100.0%

381

351

100.0%

rict

851.5

839

100.0%

443

422

100.0%

rter

851.5

839

100.0%

443

422

100.0%

rict

450

280

65.4%

450

280

65.4%

min

467

0.0%

467

0.0%

rict

570

561

96.2%

570

561

96.2%

rter

500

300

100.0%

500

300

100.0%

rict

728

748

100.0%

728

748

100.0%

rict

779.5

761

100.0%

371

337

100.0%

rict

779.5

761

100.0%

371

337

100.0%

rter

544

666

100.0%

544

666

100.0%

rict

446.5

372

100.0%

446.5

372

100.0%

rict

824

728

100.0%

436

374

100.0%

rict

824

728

100.0%

436

374

100.0%

rict

625

358

63.3%

625

358

63.3%

rict

556

357

95.8%

556

357

95.8%

rict

546

372

92.6%

546

372

92.6%

rict

388

429

100.0%

388

429

100.0%

rict

570

552

96.3%

570

552

96.3%

rict

467

216

54.5%

467

216

54.5%

rict

316

340

100.0%

316

340

100.0%

rict

412

392

90.0%

412

392

90.0%

rict

336.5

220

84.2%

336.5

220

84.2%

127

OUSD RAW DATA

Data Sets Used For Analysis

Site #

Site

Program #

Program

148 Redwood Heights

District

150 Santa Fe

Leased

151 Sequoia

District

153 Sherman

553 Urban Montessori

Charter

154 Madison Park

154 Sobrante Park

District

155 Stonehurst

172 Fred T. Korematsu Discovery Academy

District

155 Stonehurst

177 Esperanza

District

156 Tilden

156 John Swett Elementary

Admin

157 Thornhill

District

159 Toler Heights

District

161 Washington

191 Sankofa

K-8

District

162 Webster

107 East Oakland Pride

District

163 Whittier

112 Greenleaf

K-8

District

165 Woodland

165 Acorn Woodland

District

165 Woodland

181 Encompass Academy

District

166 Howard

District

168 Carl B. Munck

168 Carl Munck

District

170 Hoover

District

171 Kaiser

District

174 Thurgood Marshall *

551 100 Black Men

Charter

182 Martin Luther King Jr

182 Martin Luther King, Jr.

District

185 Ascend

552 Ascend

Charter

186 Cesar Chavez

186 International Community

District

*Thurgood Marshall site houses East Bay Innovation Academy as of 2014-15 school year 128

Program Program Type Organization

Tota Classro

ram zation

Total Permanent Portable Classrooms Classrooms Classrooms

Site Capacity

Site Enrollment

Site Utilization Rate

Program Capacity

Program Enrollment

Program Utilization Rate

rict

316

368

100.0%

316

368

100.0%

sed

467

0.0%

467

0.0%

rict

412

450

100.0%

412

450

100.0%

rter

230

214

100.0%

230

214

100.0%

rict

391.5

248

77.8%

391.5

248

77.8%

rict

776

751

100.0%

412

418

100.0%

rict

776

751

100.0%

412

418

100.0%

min

594

0.0%

594

0.0%

rict

371

396

100.0%

371

396

100.0%

rict

127

0.0%

127

0.0%

rict

349

361

100.0%

349

361

100.0%

rict

759

465

62.2%

759

465

62.2%

rict

722

550

87.5%

722

550

87.5%

rict

632

595

100.0%

316

294

100.0%

rict

632

595

100.0%

316

294

100.0%

rict

285

205

78.3%

285

205

78.3%

rict

364

304

88.9%

364

304

88.9%

rict

364

293

88.2%

364

293

88.2%

rict

285

275

100.0%

285

275

100.0%

rter

230

240

100.0%

230

240

100.0%

rict

371

320

82.6%

371

320

82.6%

rter

508

439

100.0%

508

439

100.0%

rict

752

655

94.6%

388

349

100.0%

129

OUSD RAW DATA

Data Sets Used For Analysis

Site #

130

Site

Program #

Program

Program Program Type Organization

186 Cesar Chavez

190 Think College Now

District

201 Claremont

District

202 Elmhurst

221 Elmhurst Community Prep

District

202 Elmhurst

224 Alliance Academy

District

203 Frick

District

204 Lowell

204 West Oakland Middle School

District

204 Lowell

537 KIPP Bridge Academy

Charter

205 Calvin Simmons

228 United For Success

District

205 Calvin Simmons

335 Life Academy

District

206 Bret Harte

District

207 Havenscourt

226 Roots International

District

207 Havenscourt

232 Coliseum College Prep

District

210 Edna Brewer

District

211 Montera

District

212 Roosevelt

District

213 Westlake

District

214 Verdese Carter

353 Oakland International High School

District

215 James Madison

215 Madison

District

216 King Estates

330 Sojourner Truth Independent Study

District

216 King Estates

352 Rudsdale Continuation

District

216 King Estates

504 Bay Area Tech

Charter

223 Ralph Bunche

309 Bunche Continuation

District

236 Urban Promise

District

Tot Classro

gram zation

Total Permanent Portable Classrooms Classrooms Classrooms

Site Capacity

Site Enrollment

Site Utilization Rate

Program Capacity

Program Enrollment

Program Utilization Rate

rict

752

655

94.6%

388

349

100.0%

rict

640

449

86.2%

640

449

86.2%

rict

1120

757

80.0%

576

367

72.7%

rict

1120

757

80.0%

576

367

72.7%

rict

928

313

52.6%

928

313

52.6%

rict

829

566

89.5%

445

350

100.0%

rter

829

566

89.5%

445

350

100.0%

rict

1248

856

94.0%

576

436

91.3%

rict

1248

856

94.0%

576

436

91.3%

rict

1024

540

68.9%

1024

540

68.9%

rict

992

825

97.7%

384

351

100.0%

rict

992

825

97.7%

384

351

100.0%

rict

896

813

92.3%

896

813

92.3%

rict

1056

949

84.1%

1056

949

84.1%

rict

832

576

65.9%

832

576

65.9%

rict

704

575

81.8%

704

575

81.8%

rict

618

356

88.9%

618

356

88.9%

rict

576

518

100.0%

576

518

100.0%

rict

800

616

87.9%

288

209

100.0%

rict

800

616

87.9%

288

209

100.0%

rter

800

616

87.9%

288

209

100.0%

rict

367

118

75.0%

367

118

75.0%

rict

384

324

100.0%

384

324

100.0%

131

OUSD RAW DATA

Data Sets Used For Analysis

Site #

132

Site

Program #

Program

Program Program Type Organization

301 Castlemont

District

301 Castlemont

554 LPS Oakland R&D

Charter

302 Fremont

District

303 McClymonds

351 McClymonds

Admin

304 Oakland High

District

305 Oakland Tech

District

306 Skyline

District

310 Dewey

District

313 Street Academy

District

314 Oakland Tech UC

305 Far West

District

335 2111 International Blvd

592 Community School For Creative Education

Charter

906 Community Day

333 Community Day School

District

Tot Classr

gram zation

Total Permanent Portable Classrooms Classrooms Classrooms

Site Capacity

Site Enrollment

Site Utilization Rate

Program Capacity

Program Enrollment

Program Utilization Rate

rict

1938

914

70.2%

448

345

100.0%

rter

1938

914

70.2%

448

345

100.0%

rict

1694

734

71.4%

1694

734

71.4%

min

1039

276

54.7%

1039

276

54.7%

rict

1859

1560

94.0%

1859

1560

94.0%

rict

2095

2096

100.0%

2095

2096

100.0%

rict

2336

1880

95.9%

2336

1880

95.9%

rict

303

247

92.9%

303

247

92.9%

rict

138

100.0%

138

100.0%

rict

261

220

84.6%

261

220

84.6%

rter

254

138

100.0%

254

138

100.0%

rict

128

100.0%

128

100.0%

133

OUSD PORTABLE BUILDINGS Acquisition Date and Area

Site ID

Building Name

Bella Vista CDC Bella Vista CDC Bella Vista CDC Bella Vista CDC Bella Vista CDC Laurel CDC Laurel CDC Laurel CDC Laurel CDC Laurel CDC Laurel CDC Laurel CDC Lockwood CDC Lockwood CDC Lockwood CDC Lockwood CDC Lockwood CDC Lockwood CDC Manzanita CDC Webster CDC Webster CDC Webster CDC Martin Luther King Jr CDC Martin Luther King Jr CDC

Bella Vista CDC - port-A Bella Vista CDC - port-B Bella Vista CDC - port-C Bella Vista CDC - port-D Bella Vista CDC - port-E Laurel CDC - port-8 Laurel CDC - port-9 Laurel CDC - port-10 Laurel CDC - port-11 Laurel CDC - port-12 Laurel CDC - port-13 Laurel CDC - port-14 Lockwood CDC - port-G Lockwood CDC - port-H Lockwood CDC - port-I Lockwood CDC - port-J Lockwood CDC - port-K Lockwood CDC - port-L Manzanita CDC - port-16 Webster CDC - port-1 Webster CDC - port-2 Webster CDC - port-3 Martin Luther King Jr CDC - port-1 Martin Luther King Jr CDC - port-2

2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 1957 1957 1957 1957 1957 1957 1957 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 2001 1990 1990

1,708 850 850 1,205 898 783 1,045 805 693 805 894 805 1,472 1,472 760 612 1,472 1,472 900 1,044 705 1,017 920 920

813 Martin Luther King Jr CDC Martin Luther King Jr CDC - port-3 813 Martin Luther King Jr CDC Martin Luther King Jr CDC - port-4

1990 1990

653 1,783

101 Allendale 106 Anthony Chabot

Allendale - port-J Anthony Chabot - port-1

1996 1997

864 920

106 Anthony Chabot

Anthony Chabot - port-2

2001

920

805 805 805 805 805 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 809 809 809 809 809 809 810 812 812 812 813 813

134

Portable Acquisition Date

Site

Area

Site ID 106 106 106 106 106 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103

Site Anthony Chabot Anthony Chabot Anthony Chabot Anthony Chabot Anthony Chabot Bella Vista Bella Vista Bella Vista Bella Vista Bella Vista Bella Vista Bella Vista Bella Vista Bella Vista Bella Vista Bella Vista Bella Vista Bella Vista Brookfield Brookfield Brookfield Brookfield Brookfield Brookfield Brookfield Brookfield Brookfield Brookfield Brookfield

Building Name Anthony Chabot - port-20 Anthony Chabot - port-3 Anthony Chabot - port-4 Anthony Chabot - port-5 Anthony Chabot - port-6 Bella Vista - port-C Bella Vista - port-D Bella Vista - port-E Bella Vista - port-F Bella Vista - port-G Bella Vista - port-H Bella Vista - port-I Bella Vista - port-J Bella Vista - port-K Bella Vista - port-L Bella Vista - port-M Bella Vista - port-N Bella Vista - port-O Brookfield - port-1 Brookfield - port-2 Brookfield - port-3 Brookfield - port-4 Brookfield - port-5 Brookfield - port-6 Brookfield - port-7 Brookfield - port-8 Brookfield - port-9 Brookfield - port-27 Brookfield - port-28

Portable Acquisition Date 2001 2001 2006 2006 2006 1999 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 2001 1998 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 1998 1998

Area 1,380 920 920 920 920 897 897 897 897 897 897 897 897 897 897 897 897 897 900 900 861 672 861 796 900 900 900 858 858 135

OUSD PORTABLE BUILDINGS Acquisition Date and Area

Site ID 103 103 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 105 105 168 168 168 168 168 108 108 108 109 111 110 110 110 110 136

Site Brookfield Brookfield Burbank Burbank Burbank Burbank Burbank Burbank Burbank Burckhalter Burckhalter Burckhalter Burckhalter Burckhalter Burckhalter Carl Munck Carl Munck Carl Munck Carl Munck Carl Munck Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cole Crocker Highlands E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox

Building Name Brookfield - port-29 Brookfield - port-30 Burbank - port-D Burbank - port-1 Burbank - port-2 Burbank - port-3 Burbank - port-4 Burbank - port-5 Burbank - port-6 Burckhalter - port-A Burckhalter - port-B Burckhalter - port-C Burckhalter - port-D Burckhalter - port-E Burckhalter - port-F Carl Munck - port-1C Carl Munck - port-C2 Carl Munck - port-D3 Carl Munck - port-D4 Carl Munck - port-E5 Cleveland - port-1 Cleveland - port-2 Cleveland - port-3 Cole - port-1 Crocker Highlands - port-B E. Morris Cox - port-A E. Morris Cox - port-B E. Morris Cox - port-C E. Morris Cox - port-D

Portable Acquisition Date 1998 1998 1974 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 1953 1990 1990 1998 1998 2007 1999 1999 1999 1999 2001 -

Area 858 858 990 880 880 880 880 880 880 1,404 1,404 960 960 356 1,632 546 546 869 869 897 690 690 690 836 640 758 735 954 735

Site ID 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 116 116 116 116 116 116 117 117 117

Site E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox E. Morris Cox Emerson Emerson Emerson Emerson Emerson Emerson Emerson Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale

Building Name E. Morris Cox - port-E E. Morris Cox - port-F E. Morris Cox - port-G E. Morris Cox - port-H E. Morris Cox - port-I E. Morris Cox - port-J E. Morris Cox - port-K E. Morris Cox - port-L E. Morris Cox - port-M E. Morris Cox - port-N E. Morris Cox - port-O E. Morris Cox - port-P E. Morris Cox - port-Q Emerson - port-2 Emerson - port-3 Emerson - port-4 Emerson - port-5 Emerson - port-6 Emerson - port-7 Emerson - port-8 Franklin - port-E Franklin - port-F Franklin - port-G Franklin - port-H Franklin - port-I Franklin - port-J Fruitvale - port-B Fruitvale - port-C Fruitvale - port-D

Portable Acquisition Date 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 2008 2008 1997 1970 1978 1978 1978 1977 1977 1977 1956 2000 1953 2000 2005 1997 1997 1997

Area 909 909 909 909 960 1,366 909 909 909 909 1,626 1,360 960 960 960 696 864 864 792 792 864 956 781 781 956 781 864 957 960 137

OUSD PORTABLE BUILDINGS Acquisition Date and Area

Site ID 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 118 118 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 120 120 120 120 122 138

Site Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale Fruitvale Garfield Garfield Glenview Glenview Glenview Glenview Glenview Glenview Glenview Glenview Glenview Glenview Golden Gate Golden Gate Golden Gate Golden Gate Grass Valley

Building Name Fruitvale - port-E Fruitvale - port-F Fruitvale - port-G Fruitvale - port-H Fruitvale - port-I Fruitvale - port-J Fruitvale - port-K Fruitvale - port-L Fruitvale - port-M Fruitvale - port-N Fruitvale - port-O Fruitvale - port-P Garfield - port-E Garfield - port-F Glenview - port-C Glenview - port-D Glenview - port-E Glenview - port-F Glenview - port-G Glenview - port-H Glenview - port-I Glenview - port-1 Glenview - port-2 Glenview - port-3 Golden Gate - port-D Golden Gate - port-E Golden Gate - port-F Golden Gate - port-G Grass Valley - port-A

Portable Acquisition Date 1969 1967 1968 1957 1969 1969 1998 2002 1998 1997 2006 2002 1997 1997 1957 1971 1957 1968 1969 2001 2001 1922 1922 1922 1922 1997

Area 713 719 720 874 874 874 874 836 836 900 735 900 960 960 864 960 864 954 720 720 720 744 744 684 781 781 781 781 960

Site ID 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 171 171 171 171 126

Site Grass Valley Grass Valley Grass Valley Grass Valley Grass Valley Grass Valley Grass Valley Grass Valley Grass Valley Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Hawthorne Henry Kaiser Henry Kaiser Henry Kaiser Henry Kaiser Highland

Building Name Grass Valley - port-B Grass Valley - port-C Grass Valley - port-D Grass Valley - port-E Grass Valley - port-F Grass Valley - port-G Grass Valley - port-H Grass Valley - port-I Grass Valley - port-J Hawthorne - port-1 Hawthorne - port-2 Hawthorne - port-3 Hawthorne - port-4 Hawthorne - port-5 Hawthorne - port-6 Hawthorne - port-7 Hawthorne - port-8 Hawthorne - port-9 Hawthorne - port-10 Hawthorne - port-11 Hawthorne - port-Q Hawthorne - port-R Hawthorne - port-S Hawthorne - port-T Henry Kaiser - port-5 Henry Kaiser - port-5 Henry Kaiser - port-5 Henry Kaiser - port-5 Highland - port-C

Portable Acquisition Date 1998 1998 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2005 2007 2005 2000 2000 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 1995 2000 2000 2000 2000 1998 1991 2006 1998

Area 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 782 782 782 782 782 782 782 782 300 900 781 781 864 864 713 866 886 960 864 936 139

OUSD PORTABLE BUILDINGS Acquisition Date and Area

Site ID 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 127 170 170 170 136 136 136 136 166 166 166 166 166 142 142 142 142 142 156 156 156 140

Site Highland Highland Highland Highland Highland Highland Highland Highland Hillcrest Hoover Hoover Hoover Horace Mann Horace Mann Horace Mann Horace Mann Howard Howard Howard Howard Howard Joaquin Miller Joaquin Miller Joaquin Miller Joaquin Miller Joaquin Miller John Swett John Swett John Swett

Building Name Highland - port-1 Highland - port-2 Highland - port-3 Highland - port-4 Highland - port-5 Highland - port-6 Highland - port-7 Highland - port-8 Hillcrest - port-B Hoover - port-1 Hoover - port-2 Hoover - port-3 Horace Mann - port-5 Horace Mann - port-5 Horace Mann - port-5 Horace Mann - port-5 Howard - port-1 Howard - port-2 Howard - port-3 Howard - port-4 Howard - port-5 Joaquin Miller - port-1 Joaquin Miller - port-4 Joaquin Miller - port-5 Joaquin Miller - port-6 Joaquin Miller - port-5 John Swett - port-5 John Swett - port-5 John Swett - port-5

Portable Acquisition Date 2001 2001 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 1999 1969 2002 2002 2002 1959 1962 1973

Area 936 936 936 936 936 936 936 1,872 781 972 972 900 667 667 667 667 897 897 897 660 897 1,426 796 920 920 920 784 784 736

Site ID 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 132 132 132 132

Site John Swett John Swett John Swett John Swett John Swett John Swett John Swett John Swett Lakeview Lakeview Lakeview Lakeview Lakeview Lakeview Lakeview Lakeview Lakeview Lakeview Laurel Laurel Laurel Laurel Laurel Laurel Laurel Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear

Building Name John Swett - port-5 John Swett - port-5 John Swett - port-5 John Swett - port-5 John Swett - port-5 John Swett - port-5 John Swett - port-5 John Swett - port-5 Lakeview - port-B Lakeview - port-C Lakeview - port-3 Lakeview - port-4 Lakeview - port-5 Lakeview - port-6 Lakeview - port-7 Lakeview - port-8 Lakeview - port-9 Lakeview - port-10 Laurel - port-1 Laurel - port-2 Laurel - port-3 Laurel - port-4 Laurel - port-5 Laurel - port-6 Laurel - port-7 Lazear - port-A1 Lazear - port-A2 Lazear - port-C3 Lazear - port-C4

Portable Acquisition Date 1973 1977 1974 2001 2001 2001 1976 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2001 1995 1995 1995 1995 1976 1976 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 1957 1957 1975 1975

Area 736 736 736 736 736 736 1,116 264 864 864 884 884 884 884 884 459 874 874 720 720 960 960 960 960 856 1,070 805 875 875 141

OUSD PORTABLE BUILDINGS Acquisition Date and Area

Site ID 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 133 134 134 134 134 134 134 142

Site Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lazear Lincoln Lockwood Lockwood Lockwood Lockwood Lockwood Lockwood

Building Name Lazear - port-D5 Lazear - port-D6 Lazear - port-D7 Lazear - port-D8 Lazear - port-D9 Lazear - port-E10 Lazear - port-E11 Lazear - port-E12 Lazear - port-E13 Lazear - port-E14 Lazear - port-F15 Lazear - port-F16 Lazear - port-F17 Lazear - port-F18 Lazear - port-F19 Lazear - port-G20 Lazear - port-G21 Lazear - port-G22 Lazear - port-G23 Lazear - port-G24 Lazear - port-25 Lazear - port-26 Lincoln - port-9 Lockwood - port-A Lockwood - port-B Lockwood - port-C Lockwood - port-D Lockwood - port-E Lockwood - port-F

Portable Acquisition Date 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 2007 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001

Area 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 516 960 960 960 960 456 960 960 960 960 960 900 1,200 880 902 902 902 902 902 902

Site ID 135 135 135 135 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 139

Site Longfellow Longfellow Longfellow Longfellow Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Manzanita Markham Markham Markham Markham Markham Markham Markham Markham Maxwell Park

Building Name Longfellow - port-29 Longfellow - port-30 Longfellow - port-31 Longfellow - port-32 Manzanita - port-1S Manzanita - port-S2 Manzanita - port-S3 Manzanita - port-S4 Manzanita - port-S5 Manzanita - port-S6 Manzanita - port-S7 Manzanita - port-S8 Manzanita - port-5 Manzanita - port-5 Manzanita - port-10 Manzanita - port-11 Manzanita - port-12 Manzanita - port-13 Manzanita - port-14 Manzanita - port-15 Markham - port-M Markham - port-N Markham - port-O Markham - port-P Markham - port-Q Markham - port-S Markham - port-T Markham - port-U Maxwell Park - port-B

Portable Acquisition Date 2001 2001 2001 2001 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 2001

Area 780 676 760 780 960 960 1,920 960 960 960 720 240 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 897 897 960 920 143

OUSD PORTABLE BUILDINGS Acquisition Date and Area

Site ID 139 139 139 139 139 139 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 143 143 143 143 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144

Site Maxwell Park Maxwell Park Maxwell Park Maxwell Park Maxwell Park Maxwell Park Melrose Melrose Melrose Melrose Melrose Melrose Melrose Melrose Melrose Melrose Melrose Montclair Montclair Montclair Montclair Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker Parker

Building Name Maxwell Park - port-C Maxwell Park - port-D Maxwell Park - port-E Maxwell Park - port-F Maxwell Park - port-G Maxwell Park - port-H Melrose - port-1 Melrose - port-2 Melrose - port-5 Melrose - port-5 Melrose - port-5 Melrose - port-5 Melrose - port-5 Melrose - port-5 Melrose - port-5 Melrose - port-5 Melrose - port-5 Montclair - port-5 Montclair - port-5 Montclair - port-5 Montclair - port-5 Parker - port-1 Parker - port-2 Parker - port-3 Parker - port-4 Parker - port-5 Parker - port-5 Parker - port-5 Parker - port-5

Portable Acquisition Date 2001 2001 1997 1997 1997 1997 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 1966 1997 1997 1990 2009 2009 2009 2009 1975 1975 1975 1975 1957 1969 1970 2000

Area 920 1,016 960 960 960 960 836 836 760 760 760 760 760 760 760 760 864 864 858 858 858 1,028 560 448 624 642 820 605 828

Site ID 144 145 145 145 145 145 146 147 147 147 147 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 150 150 150 151 151 153 153 153 154 154 154

Site Parker Peralta Peralta Peralta Peralta Peralta Piedmont Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Redwood Heights Redwood Heights Redwood Heights Redwood Heights Redwood Heights Redwood Heights Redwood Heights Santa Fe Santa Fe Santa Fe Sequoia Sequoia Sherman Sherman Sherman Sobrante Park Sobrante Park Sobrante Park

Building Name Parker - port-5 Peralta - port-E Peralta - port-1 Peralta - port-2 Peralta - port-3 Peralta - port-4 Piedmont - port-1 Prescott - port-5 Prescott - port-5 Prescott - port-5 Prescott - port-5 Redwood Heights - port-1 Redwood Heights - port-2 Redwood Heights - port-3 Redwood Heights - port-4 Redwood Heights - port-B5 Redwood Heights - port-B6 Redwood Heights - port-B7 Santa Fe - port-1 Santa Fe - port-2 Santa Fe - port-3 Sequoia - port-1 Sequoia - port-2 Sherman - port-E Sherman - port-F Sherman - port-G Sobrante Park - port-5 Sobrante Park - port-5 Sobrante Park - port-5

Portable Acquisition Date 2000 2001 2002 2002 2002 2001 2004 1997 1997 1997 2001 2001 2001 2001 1945 1945 1945 1985 1985 1985 1999 2001 1970 1988 1995 2008 2008 2008

Area 828 735 735 735 735 735 1,794 988 988 988 731 340 915 915 915 725 827 703 1,034 723 1,067 912 912 792 792 819 828 828 828 145

OUSD PORTABLE BUILDINGS Acquisition Date and Area

Site ID 154 154 154 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 157 157 157 157 157 157 177 177 177 177 177 146

Site Sobrante Park Sobrante Park Sobrante Park Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Stonehurst Thornhill Thornhill Thornhill Thornhill Thornhill Thornhill Tilden Tilden Tilden Tilden Tilden

Building Name Sobrante Park - port-5 Sobrante Park - port-5 Sobrante Park - port-5 Stonehurst - port-1 Stonehurst - port-2 Stonehurst - port-3 Stonehurst - port-4 Stonehurst - port-5 Stonehurst - port-6 Stonehurst - port-5 Stonehurst - port-5 Stonehurst - port-5 Stonehurst - port-10 Stonehurst - port-11 Stonehurst - port-12 Stonehurst - port-13 Stonehurst - port-14 Stonehurst - port-15 Thornhill - port-D Thornhill - port-1 Thornhill - port-2 Thornhill - port-3 Thornhill - port-4 Thornhill - port-5 Tilden - port-A1 Tilden - port-A2 Tilden - port-A3 Tilden - port-B Tilden - port-C

Portable Acquisition Date 1997 1997 1968 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2000 2008 2008 2001 1978 2003 2006 2001 1997 1997 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976

Area 828 828 478 810 810 810 810 810 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 1,141 720 920 920 920 920 920 900 900 900 900 900

Site ID 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 159 159 159 159 159 161 161 161 161 161 162 162 162 162 162 162

Site Tilden Tilden Tilden Tilden Tilden Tilden Tilden Tilden Tilden Tilden Tilden Tilden Tilden Toler Heights Toler Heights Toler Heights Toler Heights Toler Heights Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster

Building Name Tilden - port-D Tilden - port-E Tilden - port-F Tilden - port-G Tilden - port-H Tilden - port-I Tilden - port-J Tilden - port-K Tilden - port-L Tilden - port-M Tilden - port-N1 Tilden - port-N2 Tilden - port-N3 Toler Heights - port-B Toler Heights - port-D Toler Heights - port-E Toler Heights - port-1C Toler Heights - port-C2 Washington - port-1 Washington - port-2 Washington - port-3 Washington - port-4 Washington - port-5 Webster - port-30 Webster - port-31 Webster - port-32 Webster - port-33 Webster - port-34 Webster - port-35

Portable Acquisition Date 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1970 1997 1997 1977 1977 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998

Area 900 900 900 592 592 808 592 717 789 660 778 811 812 720 736 828 850 850 864 687 594 768 691 897 897 897 897 897 897 147

OUSD PORTABLE BUILDINGS Acquisition Date and Area

Site ID 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 206 148

Site Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Whittier Whittier Whittier Whittier Whittier Whittier Whittier Whittier Whittier Whittier Whittier Whittier Whittier Whittier Whittier Bret Harte

Building Name Webster - port-36 Webster - port-37 Webster - port-38 Webster - port-39 Webster - port-40 Webster - port-D Webster - port-E Webster - port-F Webster - port-G Webster - port-H Webster - port-I Webster - port-J Webster - port-K Whittier - port-1 Whittier - port-2 Whittier - port-3 Whittier - port-4 Whittier - port-5 Whittier - port-6 Whittier - port-7 Whittier - port-8 Whittier - port-9 Whittier - port-10 Whittier - port-11 Whittier - port-12 Whittier - port-13 Whittier - port-14 Whittier - port-15 Bret Harte - port-F

Portable Acquisition Date 1998 1998 1998 1998 1997 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1967 1967 1969 1969 1968 1969 1969 0 1986 1986 2012 2012 2012 2012 1997

Area 897 897 334 897 897 864 864 864 864 864 864 713 713 672 672 672 682 667 667 665 665 667 776 667 776 776 776 776 864

Site ID 206 206 206 206 206 205 205 205 201 201 201 201 201 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 203 203 203 203 203 203 203

Site Bret Harte Bret Harte Bret Harte Bret Harte Bret Harte Calvin Simmons Calvin Simmons Calvin Simmons Claremont Claremont Claremont Claremont Claremont Elmhurst Elmhurst Elmhurst Elmhurst Elmhurst Elmhurst Elmhurst Elmhurst Elmhurst Frick Frick Frick Frick Frick Frick Frick

Building Name Bret Harte - port-G Bret Harte - port-H Bret Harte - port-I Bret Harte - port-J Bret Harte - port-K Calvin Simmons - port-5 Calvin Simmons - port-6 Calvin Simmons - port-5 Claremont - port-1 Claremont - port-2 Claremont - port-3 Claremont - port-4 Claremont - port-5 Elmhurst - port-E Elmhurst - port-F Elmhurst - port-G Elmhurst - port-H Elmhurst - port-K Elmhurst - port-L Elmhurst - port-M Elmhurst - port-N Elmhurst - port-T Frick - port-G Frick - port-H Frick - port-J Frick - port-K Frick - port-L Frick - port-M Frick - port-N

Portable Acquisition Date 1997 1997 1999 1999 1999 1997 1997 1997 1975 1975 1998 1998 1998 1968 1971 1967 1975 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 1957 1957 1967 1968 1969 1968

Area 864 864 920 920 920 858 858 960 792 1,818 1,357 844 897 897 897 720 644 858 897 858 842 429 720 982 748 874 874 874 897 149

OUSD PORTABLE BUILDINGS Acquisition Date and Area

Site ID 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 215 215 215 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 150

Site Havenscourt Havenscourt Havenscourt Havenscourt Havenscourt Havenscourt Havenscourt Havenscourt James Madison James Madison James Madison King Estates King Estates King Estates King Estates King Estates King Estates King Estates Montera Montera Montera Montera Montera Montera Montera Montera Montera Montera Montera

Building Name Havenscourt - port-1 Havenscourt - port-2 Havenscourt - port-3 Havenscourt - port-4 Havenscourt - port-5 Havenscourt - port-6 Havenscourt - port-5 Havenscourt - port-5 James Madison - port-1 James Madison - port-2 James Madison - port-3 King Estates - port-46 King Estates - port-47 King Estates - port-48 King Estates - port-49 King Estates - port-50 King Estates - port-51 King Estates - port-52 Montera - port-1 Montera - port-2 Montera - port-3 Montera - port-4 Montera - port-5 Montera - port-6 Montera - port-5 Montera - port-5 Montera - port-5 Montera - port-10 Montera - port-11

Portable Acquisition Date 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2001 2001 2001 1997 1997 2002 2003 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002

Area 897 897 897 897 897 897 897 897 814 814 814 885 885 885 885 885 885 885 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720

Site ID 211 211 211 211 211 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223

Site Montera Montera Montera Montera Montera Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche

Building Name Montera - port-12 Montera - port-13 Montera - port-14 Montera - port-15 Montera - port-16 Ralph Bunche - port-1 Ralph Bunche - port-2 Ralph Bunche - port-3 Ralph Bunche - port-A4 Ralph Bunche - port-A5 Ralph Bunche - port-A6 Ralph Bunche - port-A7 Ralph Bunche - port-B8 Ralph Bunche - port-B9 Ralph Bunche - port-B10 Ralph Bunche - port-C11 Ralph Bunche - port-C12 Ralph Bunche - port-C13 Ralph Bunche - port-C14 Ralph Bunche - port-D15 Ralph Bunche - port-D16 Ralph Bunche - port-D17 Ralph Bunche - port-D18 Ralph Bunche - port-E19 Ralph Bunche - port-E20 Ralph Bunche - port-E11 Ralph Bunche - port-G22 Ralph Bunche - port-G23 Ralph Bunche - port-G24

Portable Acquisition Date 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 1975 1975 2001 2001 1975 2001 1975 1963 1963 1963 1963 1963 1963 1963 1962 1962 1962 1962 1963 1963 1963 1975 1975 2001

Area 720 720 720 720 720 781 715 424 820 900 760 900 766 812 812 796 812 812 812 812 812 812 812 776 800 745 680 784 656 151

OUSD PORTABLE BUILDINGS Acquisition Date and Area

Site ID 223 223 223 223 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 214 214 214 214 301 301 301 301 310 310 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 152

Site Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Ralph Bunche Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Verdese Carter Verdese Carter Verdese Carter Verdese Carter Castlemont Castlemont Castlemont Castlemont Dewey Dewey Far West Far West Far West Far West Far West Far West Far West Far West

Building Name Ralph Bunche - port-H25 Ralph Bunche - port-H26 Ralph Bunche - port-H27 Ralph Bunche - port-H28 Roosevelt - port-D Roosevelt - port-E Roosevelt - port-F Roosevelt - port-G Roosevelt - port-H Roosevelt - port-I Roosevelt - port-J Verdese Carter - port-G Verdese Carter - port-H Verdese Carter - port-I Verdese Carter - port-J Castlemont - port-1 Castlemont - port-2 Castlemont - port-3 Castlemont - port-4 1025 2nd Avenue - port-13A 1025 2nd Avenue - port-13B Far West - port-1A Far West - port-C2 Far West - port-C3 Far West - port-C4 Far West - port-C5 Far West - port-D6 Far West - port-D7 Far West - port-D8

Portable Acquisition Date 1962 1962 1962 1962 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 1978 1998 1998 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2003 2003 1992 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981

Area 1,692 1,188 812 811 897 897 897 897 897 897 897 660 858 858 858 923 1,077 858 858 920 920 840 840 805 805 840 1,056 699 732

Site ID 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302

Site Far West Far West Far West Far West Far West Far West Far West Far West Far West Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont Fremont

Building Name Far West - port-E9 Far West - port-F10 Far West - port-G11 Far West - port-G12 Far West - port-G13 Far West - port-G14 Far West - port-G15 Far West - port-H16 Far West - port-H17 Fremont - port-M Fremont - port-N Fremont - port-O Fremont - port-1 Fremont - port-2 Fremont - port-3 Fremont - port-4 Fremont - port-5 Fremont - port-6 Fremont - port-5 Fremont - port-5 Fremont - port-5 Fremont - port-10 Fremont - port-11 Fremont - port-12 Fremont - port-13 Fremont - port-14 Fremont - port-15 Fremont - port-16 Fremont - port-17

Portable Acquisition Date 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001

Area 840 840 1,128 840 840 840 840 840 840 2,892 1,800 1,800 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 2,592 864 864 864 864 153

OUSD PORTABLE BUILDINGS Acquisition Date and Area

Site ID 302 302 302 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 154

Site Fremont Fremont Fremont Oakland Technical Oakland Technical Oakland Technical Oakland Technical Oakland Technical Oakland Technical Oakland Technical Oakland Technical Oakland Technical Oakland Technical Oakland Technical Oakland Technical Oakland Technical Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline

Building Name Fremont - port-18 Fremont - port-19 Fremont - port-20 Oakland Technical - port-1 Oakland Technical - port-2 Oakland Technical - port-3 Oakland Technical - port-4 Oakland Technical - port-5 Oakland Technical - port-6 Oakland Technical - port-5 Oakland Technical - port-5 Oakland Technical - port-13 Oakland Technical - port-14 Oakland Technical - port-15 Oakland Technical - port-16 Oakland Technical - port-17 Skyline - port-1 Skyline - port-2 Skyline - port-3 Skyline - port-4 Skyline - port-5 Skyline - port-6 Skyline - port-5 Skyline - port-5 Skyline - port-5 Skyline - port-10 Skyline - port-11 Skyline - port-12 Skyline - port-13

Portable Acquisition Date 2001 2001 2001 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 1951 2006 2006 2002 2002 1999 1948 1968 1968 1969 1997 1997 1997 1997

Area 1,728 864 864 858 858 858 858 858 858 1,000 900 858 858 858 858 820 868 868 868 868 1,436 805 700 1,582 759 880 880 880 880

Site ID 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 306 405 405 405 906 906 906 906

Site Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Skyline Bond Street AEC Bond Street AEC Bond Street AEC Community Day Community Day Community Day Community Day

Building Name Skyline - port-14 Skyline - port-15 Skyline - port-16 Skyline - port-17 Skyline - port-18 Skyline - port-19 Skyline - port-20 Skyline - port-21 Skyline - port-22 Skyline - port-23 Skyline - port-24 Skyline - port-25 Skyline - port-26 Skyline - port-27 Skyline - port-28 Skyline - port-29 Skyline - port-30 Skyline - port-31 Skyline - port-32 Skyline - port-33 Skyline - port-34 Skyline - port-35 Bond Street AEC - port-A Bond Street AEC - port-B Bond Street AEC - port-C Community Day - port-101 Community Day - port-102 Community Day - port-201 Community Day - port-202

Portable Acquisition Date 1997 1997 1947 1969 1957 1947 1969 1957 1968 1968 1967 1969 1969 1957 2011 1950 1950 1950 1968 1968 -

Area 880 880 782 782 700 913 700 700 700 920 782 700 700 700 700 782 714 650 690 805 805 769 1,083 850 710 1,312 1,924 782 805 155

OUSD PORTABLE BUILDINGS Acquisition Date and Area

Site ID 906 906 906 906 906 906 906 906 404 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 86 86 86 86 86 900 900 900 988 988 156

Site Community Day Community Day Community Day Community Day Community Day Community Day Community Day Community Day Edward Shands AEC Hillside Hillside Hillside Hillside Hillside Hillside Hillside Hillside Hillside Hillside Pleasant Valley AEC Pleasant Valley AEC Pleasant Valley AEC Pleasant Valley AEC Pleasant Valley AEC 900 High Street 900 High Street 900 High Street 955 High Street 955 High Street

Building Name Community Day - port-203 Community Day - port-204 Community Day - port-301 Community Day - port-401 Community Day - port-402 Community Day - port-501 Community Day - port-502 Community Day - port-503 Edward Shands AEC - port-E Hillside - port-1A Hillside - port-A2 Hillside - port-B3 Hillside - port-B4 Hillside - port-C5 Hillside - port-C6 Hillside - port-D7 Hillside - port-E8 Hillside - port-F9 Hillside - port-F10 Pleasant Valley AEC - port-A Pleasant Valley AEC - port-B Pleasant Valley AEC - port-C Pleasant Valley AEC - port-D Pleasant Valley AEC - port-E 900 High Street - port-B 900 High Street - port-C 900 High Street - port-D 955 High Street - port-1B 955 High Street - port-C2

Portable Acquisition Date 1998 1998 1987 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 1977 1985 1950 1950 1996 1940

Area 462 805 280 985 939 1,505 820 820 1,519 616 616 616 616 616 616 252 650 616 616 805 653 1,199 1,099 828 2,848 352 1,285 920 828

Site ID 988 988 988 988 988 988 988 988 988 988

Site 955 High Street 955 High Street 955 High Street 955 High Street 955 High Street 955 High Street 955 High Street 955 High Street 955 High Street 955 High Street

Building Name 955 High Street - port-C3 955 High Street - port-D4 955 High Street - port-D5 955 High Street - port-D6 955 High Street - port-D7 955 High Street - port-D8 955 High Street - port-D9 955 High Street - port-E10 955 High Street - port-E11 955 High Street - port-E12

Portable Acquisition Date 1940 1940 1940 1940 1940 1940 1940 1940 1940 1940

Area 825 1,728 770 240 455 960 768 828 972 800

157