HBCSD Corruption
Fact 17
Fact #17:
HBCSD SPUN information and omitted relevant information regarding renovation of North School in Chapter 7, page 7-5 of the Environmental Impact Report for the reconstruction of North School:
7.3, page 7-4: Alternatives Considered and Rejected during the Project Planning Process:
7.3.2.1, page 7-5: Alternate 1, Modernization of Existing North School Facilities:
(1) “FPAC considered modernizing the existing facilities at the North School site. This alternative assumed modify the buildings’ interiors to construct classrooms and laboratories and making the exterior look refreshed. None of the buildings would be demolished. All improvements would be seismically retrofitted and modernized to current-day building code and education code standards and to comply with the American with Disability Act.”
COMPETING INFORMATION:
1. Enrollment was NOT rising; it was dropping back down to 2010 levels. Only a temporary overcrowding solution was needed, not a brand-new campus. Please see: Lies #16, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #32.
2. North School was intended to house 3rd and 4th grade students. 3rd and 4th grade students do not need laboratories. Their science classes do not deal with extensive laboratory equipment and caustic materials. A normal classroom with a sink and a small refrigerator would most likely suffice.
(2) “All improvements would be seismically retrofitted and modernized to current-day building code and education code standards and to comply with the American with Disability Act.”
3. This statement is a no-brainer. Of course any improvements to North School would use the current-day building code and education code and comply with ADA. In addition, North School is a grandfathered-in campus. All buildings were built to stringent earthquake safe specifications. Grandfathered-in schools are deemed to be code compliant as is by the CDE.
4. Please see: Lie #8: Claiming that renovating historical schools such as Pier Avenue School or North School are very expensive and cost prohibitive.
“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.”
6. 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.”
7. Cost to renovate North School by independent builders Juge Construction $6.2M. Juge Construction also did the renovations at Valley School in the 1980s. Not only was Juge Construction approximately ¼ the cost of demolishing and rebuilding North School, but the district’s other estimates to renovate/modernize North School were also approximately ½ to 1/3 ($14.8M vs. $29M) the cost of demolishing and rebuilding North School.
8. Per the Environmental Impact Report 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.
CORRECT INFORMATION:
1. North School is ALREADY seismically safe and CDE Education Code compliant. North School is a grandfathered-in campus which means it is considered safe and code-compliant as is.
2. North School was built to seismically safe Field Act specifications.
3. North School does currently comply with the American Disabilities Act.
4. Title 5 Regulations are STANDARDS not requirements.
5. Title 5 Regulations apply to NEW CONSTRUCTION only, not to current buildings.
6. Title 5 standards were adopted in 1993. The CDE does not force school districts to make all existing schools meet relatively new Title 5 standards. Making all school districts responsible for bringing all their schools up to current Title 5 standards would cost taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars.
(4) “This alternative would result in the loss of 2 classrooms (from 17 existing to 15 classrooms) due to the need to increase classroom size and construct laboratories to meet educational program standards and because usable space would likely be lost to accommodate structural improvement to bring the facility to building code standards. This option could limit education programming as programs would be constrained by the developed building envelopes.”
CORRECT INFORMATION:
1. North School was being built to accommodate 510 3rd and 4th grade students. View School was also being expanded with many new classrooms that could accommodate third grade. Valley school had room for all 4th grade students. Enrollment had been declining since 2014.
2. HBCSD normally has about 250 - 300 3rd and 4th grade students. That would equate to the need for only 12 classrooms if 3rd grade students were kept at 24 students per classroom. HBCSD could easily accommodate all 3rd and 4th grade students with only 12 classrooms at North School. HBCSD did not need 17 classrooms at North School.
3. What educational programming would be “constrained by the developed building envelopes” in a renovated/modernized North School? North School was being built to house elementary school students who have less educational requirements than middle school or high school students. This is a highly slanted statement.
(5) “A new cafeteria and library would be constructed under this alternative; they would likely be in the northwest portion of the site and occupy limited playground space.”
CORRECT INFORMATION:
1. North School already has a cafeteria. A new cafeteria and kitchen did not need to be built. The cafeteria doubles as a multipurpose room which is sufficient and common for small elementary schools.
2. Any extra classroom can be used as a library. There is no need to build a new dedicated library building for 3rd and 4th graders.
3. No playground space needs to be lost to build a new cafeteria or library at North School.
4. Again, North School should have been considered a temporary, overflow campus. During the Measure S campaign Superintendent Pat Escalante had referred to North School as an “overflow” campus. There was no legitimate demographic information that indicated a future increase in students in Hermosa Beach.
(6) “Under this alternative, the grassy portion of the District’s property below the eastern slope, adjacent to Valley Park, (approximately 1.6 acres) would be used for physical education. ADA-compliant access would be constructed on the eastern slope to connect the upper campus to the grass field. Parking would remain at the existing lot, near the intersection of 26th Street at Morningside Drive. According to the FPAC presentation, the cost to construct this alternative would be roughly $10.9 million in 2013 dollars ($11.5 million in 2017 dollars [US Inflation calculator 2015]), and construct was assumed to take approximately 20 months to complete.”
CORRECT INFORMATION:
1. HBCSD does NOT need a new 510 student campus. The district’s demographics do NOT support the ongoing need for another campus. North School could be modernized for only 350 – 400 students instead of 510 students.
2. There is no reason why the playground could not remain above the sand dune. The existing North School parking lot could be relocated from its current location along 26th street at Morningside Drive to adjacent to Myrtle Street, as the demolition and reconstruction plan specifies.
3. As it is, the newly rebuilt North School footprint is only 27% of the CDE recommended size for a campus for 425 students.
4. If in the future, HBCSD really used/needed North School to accommodate 510 students (instead of approximately 250 students who currently use North School) it is believed that the district would be forced to use the 1.6 acres in Valley Park for the North School playfields regardless of community ire. Although current school board members promised not to use Valley Park for the North School playfields, a future school board could do whatever they want in Valley Park. If HBCSD used Valley Park for North School playfields they would need to erect an 8-foot fence around the 1.6 acres in Valley Park that the district owns.