Fact #21:

HBCSD told a blatant lie and made misleading statements in the North School Environmental Impact Report regarding the options proposed in the 2014 Facilities Master Plan.

7.: Alternatives to the Proposed Project:

7.3.3, page 7-10: 2014 Long Range Facilities Master Plan:

“Based on FPAC’s recommendation and feedback from additional community outreach, the District completed a Long Range Facilities Master Plan (FMP) in June 2014 that identified four redevelopment scenarios of the North School site.  All four options proposed demolition of the existing facilities and construction of a new school.” *

CORRECT INFORMATION: 

1.       The FPAC was given a very narrow mandate. They were NOT given authorization to consider district use of the Community Center despite the district's existing lease agreement for use of classrooms, office space and storage space at the Community Center. The FPAC was NOT given the history of the school district, nor were they given the 2002 Facility Master Plan nor the 2009 Facility Master Plan update. The FPAC members had no knowledge of district facility facts. Their recommendations were based on one architect, who had been hired by the school district and who appears to have given the FPAC unreliable information. The architect who advised the FPAC had complaints filed against him in San Diego county. The Architects Board department of Consumer Affairs found him guilty for bribery, failing to notify the board of his civil settlement in the case and not disclosing the information when renewing his architectural license.

2. There was NO "feedback from additional community outreach" . In fact, the FPAC meetings were held typically from 7pm to 9pm in a small interior conference room with the doors kept closed. The one or two community members who attended FPAC meetings were not allowed to ask questions or make comments during meetings nor were they given any way to contact FPAC members after meetings with questions or comments.

3. The Long Range Facilities Master Plan (FMP) made NO recommendations and was NOT based on the FPAC's recommendations. The LRFMP was simply an inventory of current district facilities and gave estimates for five scenarios:

Option A: Two school approach. Using Valley and View schools only. Estimated cost in 2016: $22,948,275

Option B: Three school approach. This option would consider mitigating overcrowding at Valley School without any new construction. Estimated cost in 2016: $38,806,200

Option C: Three school approach. Using a combination of modernization and new construction at View School and North School. View School would be used for 2nd through 4th grade. North School would be used for universal/tk thru first grade. Estimated cost in 2016: $73,611,460

Option C1: Three school approach. Using a combination of modernization and new construction at View and North School. View School and North School would both be used for universal/tk through 4th grade. Estimated cost in 2016: $66,447,678

Option D: Three school approach. View School and North School would both be used for universal/tk through 4th grade. North School would be completely rebuilt for $39,029,252. Estimated cost in 2016 for all three campuses was: $71,427,345.

4. "All four options proposed demolition of the existing facilities and construction of a new school.”   *This is a BLATANTLY untrue statement. Only Option D included completely rebuilding North School.

5. This is a misleading statement in that it infers that the Long Range Facilities Master Plan ONLY identified plans to demolish and rebuild North School or that the FMP made a judgement call that the district should demolish the existing North School campus.