Fact #13:

(1)       An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required when a project will have one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be either avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the use of mitigation measures or changes to the project. 

(2)       School board members hired Place Works in October 2015 to start the planning process for the redevelopment of North School and create the Environmental Impact Report for North School. 

NOTE: Place Works, along with HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao, hired Pam Daly to create the Historic Resource Assessment of North School and Richard Garland to perform and write the Traffic Assessment of North School.

NOTE: Both the Historical Assessment of North School and the Traffic Assessment were used to help pass the district's $59M bond six months later in June 2016. Both reports had significant errors and suspect data collecting practices. Place Works and HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao did nothing to correct these issues when they were brought to their attention prior to the EIR being approved by HBCSD School Board members in February/March 2019. (See List of Lies: #53. HBCSD's Traffic Assessment of North School by Richard Garland used in the Environmental Impact Report was highly suspect.  #54. HBCSD's Historic Resource Assessment Report of North School used for the Environmental Impact Report for North School and released before the June 2016 Measure S $59M bond vote was riddled with misinformation and outright fabrications of fact. 

NOTE: According to Placeworks Proposal to Conduct Environmental Due Diligence, Propose North School Reconstruction Project, for Hermosa Beach City School District, September 23, 2015.

"Placeworks will review the Traffic Assessment and Historical Resources Technical Assessment to ensure they are defensible* and can be used for later CEQA documentation. Placeworks proposal to HBCSD, dated September 23, 2015, page 3.

*Placeworks did NOT provide true and correct information for HBCSD CEQA documentation for North School, dispite being repeatedly shown the lies and inaccuracies in both the Traffic Assessment and Historical Resources Technical Assessment.

(3)       According to the Notice of Preparation – Initial Study of North School identified 48 items out of 83 total items, or 58% of issues as being Potentially Significant impacts.  School board members knew that the plan to rebuild North School would require an extensive and lengthy Environmental Impact Report. Please see letter to PlaceWorks dated March 13, 2017, by Miyo Prassas, page 6.

(4)       Renovating/modernization of either North School or Pier Avenue Community Center without changing the size and scope of the campus would not have require a lengthy and expensive EIR.

(5)       The Pier Avenue Community Center is NOT located in the Coastal Zone and therefore would NOT have needed a lengthy EIR or approval from the Coastal Commission if it had been used temporarily to house HBCSD students until enrollment dropped below 1,266 students as enrollment did decline in 2020.  

(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.

NOTE: Prior knowlege of the need for an extensive EIR when reconstructing North School versus none if the district decided to use the Community Center or renovate North School, did not stop School Board members from claiming that the EIR "delayed" the rebuilding of North School. In truth, School Board members decision to reconstruct North School "delayed" providing classrooms and reducing overcrowding at district campuses. See List of LIes #56. Claiming that the Environmental Impact Report “delayed” the rebuilding of North School.

NOTE: See List of LIes #57. Claiming that an asbestos coated pipe “delayed” the rebuilding of North School.

(7)       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.” 

(8)       The Board of Education made the determination that demolishing and rebuilding North School and therefore waiting five years and spending $29M was the most cost-effective solution.  The arguments of how the determination was made by school board members are given in the Environmental Impact report.  Please see: Ridiculously Slanted Alternatives to the Proposed Project, Chapter 7, contained in the Environmental Impact Report for the reconstruction of North School.