HBCSD Corruption

Proof of the lie:

NOTE: Rebuilding North School (aka Vista School) cost $29M and took from 2016 to 2021 (approximately five years) to accomplish.

NOTE: The cost to RENOVATE North School was only $6.2M as estimated by independent builders, Juge Construction Company (the construction company used to renovate Valley School in the 1980s). See Item #5 below. It is believed that renovation would have been a much quicker process to immediately reduce overcrowding than demolishing and rebuilding North School.

(1) Newport Elementary School, Newport Beach, CA. (Newport Mesa Unified Schol District) Originally built in 1894.  Replaced by brick buildings and a bell tower which had collapsed during the Long Beach Earthquake of March 1933.  Reconstructed in 1936.  Completely renovated in 2001 for $4.1M (hard costs).  Still in use today.  Administration offices have wood floors and wall murals that date back to FDR’s New Deal programs during the Great Depression.

(2) Richmond Street School, El Segundo, CA.  (El Segundo Unified School District)  Destroyed in the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake.  Rebuilt in 1936 by the Public Works Administration (WPA) one of FDR’s New Deal programs during the Great Depression.  Completely renovated in 2002 for $5.3M.  Still in use today. 

(3) Policies and Provisions for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings for Public School Use, Appendix M, Division of State Architects:

“Why use the CHBC (California Historic Building Code)? Buildings

and structures identified to contribute to the culture, community, or

heritage of a locality – and qualified historical – are recognized by

the state as being eligible for special consideration to retain those

attributes that are historic during rehabilitation or subsequent

change of use.  The DSA recognizes that strict use of the regular

[building] code may create difficulties where rehabilitation

attempts to retain the historic characteristics of a building or

structure.  The CHBC provides alternatives that 1) allow most of the

historic characteristics to be retained while 2) achieving the

performance objectives of the regular code.”

(4) Email from Debi Howell-Ardila to the May 31, 2016 Joint City and School District meeting.   Debi Howell-Ardila is Senior Architectural Historian/Historic Preservation Specialist with SWCA Environmental Consultants and vice chair of the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC)

of South Pasadena. 

“In my opinion, and based on the dozens of schools I’ve surveyed

throughout SoCal, North Elementary appears eligible for the City of

Hermosa Beach Register under local criteria A (“It exemplifies or

reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic,

political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history”) C (“It

embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or

method of construction”), and D (“It is representative of the

notable work of a builder, designer or architect,” in this case,

renowned architects Samuel Lunden and Marsh, Smith and Powell)."

“In terms of the California Register, it appears eligible under

Criteria 1, as a highly representative example of a 1930’s school,

as well as Criteria 3, as an outstanding example of WPA-era Art Deco

institutional building.”

(5) Cost to renovate North School by independent builders Juge Construction was $6.2M.  Not only was Juge Construction approximately ¼ the cost of demolishing and rebuilding North School, but the district’s other estimates from BCA Architects and GKK Works to renovate/modernize North School were also approximately ½ to 1/3 the cost of demolishing and rebuilding North School. BCA Architects estimated $11.5M to renovate North School in 2013. The 2014 Facilities Master Plan estimated the cost to renovate North School was $14,780,400.

(6) The final cost to demolish and rebuild North School was five years and $29M.

(7) HBCSD outright lied in the Environmental Impact Report for North School when they stated that all recommendations by GKK Works in the 2014 Facilities Master Plan had required the demolition of North School. That was a COMPLETELY untrue statement. NONE of the FMP facility options recommended that North School be demolished. See Lie #51.

(8) The cost to demolish and rebuild North School would also entail:

…”Project implementation would disturb the entire site and

require the demolition and removal of all improvements.

Approximately 28,900 square feet of existing structures would be

demolished, and 57,560 square feet of asphalt and concrete paving

would be removed. The project would require approximately 1,000

cubic yards of soil import to support the extension of the developed

footprint over the vegetated slope.”  The Environmental Impact

Report (2017-2018): Section 4 Project Description: 4.2.6 Construction

[of North School], page 4-12.

(9) The 2019 Environmental Impact section on Hazards Material actually recommended renovating North School versus demolishing the campus, due the fact that asbestos is only hazardous when it is exposed to air.