HBCSD Corruption

Proof of the lie:

Claiming that an asbestos coated pipe “delayed” the rebuilding of North School.

(1) The March 2017 Notice of Preparation – Initial Study of North School, identified 48 items out of 83 total items as being potentially significant impacts in its rebuilding.  Therefore, School board members knew that the plan to rebuild North School would entail many complicated and time-consuming issues. 

NOTE: See letter from Miyo Prassas, dated March 13, 2017, addressing the Districts Notice of Preparation Intial Study of North School 48 items out of 83 total items as being potentially significant impacts.

(2) According to the Hazardous Materials in Structures section:

“Any activity that involves cutting, grinding, or drilling during building renovation or demolition, or relocation of underground utilities, could release friable asbestos fibers unless proper precautions are taken.”

NOTE: Asbestos is considered a hazard if it is released into the air.  Asbestos that has been covered up by other materials such as paint or soil outdoors is not considered a hazard.

(3)  According to Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials section under Asbestos-Containing Building Materials:

“A survey of site buildings identified suspected ACMs [asbestos containing materials] and asbestos containing construction materials within wall material (plaster in kitchen storage heater room), a 12-inch vinyl floor tile and associated mastics [glue/puddy] in the restrooms of two classrooms (ENCORP 2016)”

NOTE: Asbestos is considered a hazard if it is released into the air.  Asbestos that has been covered up by other materials such as paint or soil outdoors is not considered a hazard.

NOTE: North School was NOT riddled with asbestos.  Asbestos was only found in two places (Plaster in a kitchen storage heater room and in a 12-inch vinyl floor tile in two restrooms.) in the entire North School campus prior to the decision to demolish and rebuild North School.

(4)  According to Section 5.7, 7.6.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials section in the Environmental Impact Report for North School under Asbestos:  

“Evaluation for ACM [asbestos containing materials] including building interiors and “as encountered” on the exterior of the facilities; it did not include all potential ACM on the exterior of the buildings.  According to the study, ACM were identified within the surfacing material (plaster in kitchen storage heater room) and the 12-inch vinyl floor tile and associated mastics in the restrooms of two classrooms.  Project-related demolition activities would have the potential to expose construction workers and/or the public to ACMs not already identified.  Prior to the demolition of the school facilities, the District will complete [a] comprehensive report to determine all ACM within the interior and the exterior of the campus to ensure potential exposure to ACM is limited.  ACM identified would be removed, contained, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.”

(5)  Section 7.6.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials recommended that HBCSD NOT tear down North School: 

…“Since the proposed project would require the removal of older buildings, which may contain lead-based paint and asbestos, and Alternative B would not require building removal, Alternative B impacts would be superior to the proposed project for hazards and hazardous materials.” 

(6) According to the wording of the district’s $59M bond Measure S, school board members would determine whether or not demolition and reconstruction of North School made more sense than modernization.  Therefore, school board members should have been well aware of the need of an extensive EIR prior to deciding whether or not to demolish and rebuild North School.

The three-page long version of the FULL TEXT of BALLOT MEASURE S, page two, states that:

"Projects may also include the costs of demolition and reconstruction of existing facilities currently scheduled for modernization, if the Board of Education determines that such an approach would be more cost-effective solution.” 

(7) The Board of Education made the determination that demolishing and rebuilding North School and thus waiting five years and spending $29M was the most cost-effective solution for Hermosa Beach taxpayers. 

See Lie #50: HBCSD's stated "project objectives" listed in the Environmental Impact Report do NOT match the facts or the district's plan to rebuild North School.   Several "project objectives" seem to be arbitrary and unnecessary.

(8) School board members should have been aware of the issues, including the length of time needed for demolition and reconstruction versus modernization of North School before they made their decision to demolish the campus.  School Board members were elected by the public to investigate these things. Superintendent Pat Escalante was paid by the public to investigate these things. Nevertheless, school board members decided to demolish North School over renovating the campus despite possible problems, expense and length of time.

(9) When an asbestos coated pipe was found at North School that required removal and thus according to the district “delayed” the new campus, school board members did not take responsibility for the “delay” in rebuilding North School, despite being warned in their own Environmental Impact Report of that very issue.

(10) It is disingenuous for school board members, Superintendent Pat Escalante and Superintendent Jason Johnson to blame the long wait for the reconstructed North School as "unforeseeable DELAYS” and push false narratives out to their supporters.   Don’t HBCSD School Board members EVER take responsibility for their own decisions?