HBCSD $13.9M Measure J, Facility Decisions and Misinformation part 1, 2003 to March 2005

January 2003 – November 2005 – HBCSD New Construction Scope vs. Time Illustration by PCM3.

June 27, 2003 – Chatten-Brown & Associates, letter to HBCSD School Board re: Valley School Building Construction Proposal.

“The Committee for Responsible School Expansion is composed of friends and neighbors of the Hermosa Valley School. Some of its members send their children to Valley School, some members volunteer time with the school’s programs, and some members live near the school and all are concerned about existing and future impacts of school growth. Also, the community use of the school facilities in addition to school hours is a major intensification of the use of the school facilities and will have significant impact on the school’s neighbors. All of its members pay taxes that support the school and fund Measure J. The Committee is not opposed to expansion of Valley School if it is done in a responsible way that maximizes the green space for the children rather than reducing it; … and uses Measure J funds to acquire property for classrooms and educational laboratory expansion and not to build a freestanding district administration building*.

*NOTE: Building a new district administration building was NOT listed on either the face of the ballot or in the Measure J Bond Exhibit B Full Text Ballot Proposition list of items. Please see: Measure J Bond Exhibit B Full Text Ballot Proposition.

June 30, 2003 – Hermosa Beach City School District Governing Board

1. Cathy McCurdy, president, term expires 2003

2. Cary Bichlmeier, term expires 2003

3. Linda Beck, term expires 2005

4. Gregory Breen, term expires 2005

5. Lance Widman, term expires 2005

6. M. “Duffy Robert Clark – Superintendent

June 30, 2003 – Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City School District

1. School Board members present: Linda Beck, Greg Breen, Cathy McCurdy, Lance Widman, Gary Bichlmeier

2. Staff present: Superintendent Dr. M. Robert “Duffy” Clark, etc.

3. “Mr. Breen inquired about Pier Avenue School. Dr. Clark told him that the facility is pre 1994 and doesn’t comply with the Field Act AB611 – retrofit lease requirements and that retrofitting would be a considerable cost to the district.”

NOTE: The above statement by Superintendent Dr. Clark seems to be an early example of district and city staff stating “information” that cannot be verified and is found to be wrong or misleading at best.

This is a MISLEADING STATEMENT: Pier Avenue School WAS built to stringent Field Act seismically safe specification in 1934 and is deemed safe for students as is.

NOTE: In summer 2015 Pier Avenue School passed an ASCE 31 Tier 1 Structural Seismic evaluation by John A. Martin and Associates. The findings stated, “Our evaluation of the Classrooms and Gymnasium buildings that were built in 1939, has revealed that these two buildings were designed remarkably well when subject to Tier 1 checks of ASCE 31.”

NOTE: According to Seismic Retrofit Requirements and their Triggers https://thespaceplace.net/seismic-retrofit-requirements-and-their-triggers/ The seismic upgrade triggers included in the CBC are all tied to changes in occupancy or use [Title 24, Section 3408.4]. Therefore, if your building is covered by the CBC without local amendments you will need to determine the approved use of the building (e.g., how it was classified when it was permitted) and confirm that the intended use after the renovation are in the same group.

In the case of Pier Avenue School, it was originally built for school children and it would be used for school children again, so there is no change in its occupancy or use.

CORRECT INFORMATION:

The Field Act was passed by the California legislature in April 1933. It created earthquake safe building codes for all California PUBLIC schools. The Field Act building requirements are based on the stringent dam building regulations put into place in 1929 after the collapse of several dams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field Act. Pier Avenue School DOES INDEED comply with the Field Act. Pier Avenue School was built to Field Act building code specifications in 1934-1939.

NOTE: In researching Dr. Clark’s statement, various annual Assembly Bills 611 were found, none having to do with the Field Act or retrofit. Information concerning “AB 611 – retrofit lease requirements” could not be found.

The only information found on the subject was The Future of the Field Act for Public School, February 11, 1999. This document does not confirm Dr. Clark statement. The statement that Dr. Clark may be referring to is: “In 1976 public schools built before the Field Act were phased out of use or retrofitted to comply with the act.” This statement does not apply to Pier Avenue School because Pier Avenue School WAS reconstructed to Field Act seismically safe specifications in 1934-1939.

NOTE: Did Superintendent Dr. Clark research this “information” on his own? Did someone tell Dr. Clark to present this “information” at a school board meeting?

NOTE: Attorney Terry Tao was working with HBCSD at this time and was supposed to be an expert in California earthquake issues as they pertained to school buildings. Terry Tao knew that the Field Act was passed in April 1933. Terry Tao should have also known that Pier Avenue School AND North School were BOTH reconstructed AFTER the 1933 Field Act had become law. Therefore, both schools are considered safe as is. Was HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao lying for HBCSD School Board members as far back as 2003?

4. Page 4., Personnel Services: Employment Transactions – Resignation: M. Robert Clark, Superintendent, Effective: July 31, 2003.

NOTE: Superintendent Dr. Clark was hired in June 2000. Only three years later Dr. Clark gave his resignation. Did Dr. Clark’s resignation have anything to do with school board members’ stance on certain school district facility matters? Did he worry about his reputation if he was dragged into a misleading and short-sighted facility plan that the cabal and certain school board members wanted to disseminate to the public?

July 10, 2003 – Threatening letters typed on Hermosa Beach Education Foundation letterhead and sent in HBEF envelopes are sent to three community members who oppose the district’s prioritization of the gymnasium for HBCSD’s $13.6M Measure J facilities bond.

The letters threaten three community members’ children. The persons who wrote the letters had access to HBEF letterhead. Why would someone want to use HBEF letterhead to threaten three members of the community? What was so important about a gymnasium that someone would feel the need to threaten someone’s children? HBEF disavowed the letters.

One letter read: “If you want Patrick to enjoy middle school, you need to drop your lawsuit. You have misled (sic) everyone.”

Another letter read: “If you want Dani and John to enjoy middle school, you need to drop your lawsuit. Your selfishness is incredible.”

According to an article written by Whitney Youngs of the Beach Reporter on July 17, 2003, Letter rattles gym location opponents:

A. “According to Hermosa Beach Superintendent Duffy Clark, a rumor the School District is facing a lawsuit from a private party is untrue.”

B. One recipient of the threatening letter stated, “I have no idea about dropping a lawsuit. There is no lawsuit. I think that both options ‘A’ and ‘B’ result in a loss of open space and neither is acceptable.”

C. Another recipient of the threatening letter stated, “I just don’t think there’s enough room on that property for a gym.” … “I don’t live near the school, so it won’t affect me, but it doesn’t seem fair to do this to your neighbors. If for some reason the gym is not built on campus, I don’t want my child to be labeled as the anti-gym child.”

NOTE: Several members of the suspected cabal intent on keeping HBCSD out of the Community Center had spouses who served on the HBEF board. Their spouses would have access to HBEF letterhead and envelopes that were used to write and send these letters to members of the community.

July 31, 2003 – City Council Special Meeting Minutes July 31, 2003.

1. Present: City Council members: Cathy Dunbabin, Sam Edgerton, Art Yoon, Michael Keegan. Absent: J.R. Reviczky

2. Present: School Board members: Linda Beck, Grehttps://7d731285-4260-4ae8-9f6f-ee5a7e3115f9.usrfiles.com/ugd/7d7312_c4f588ab8e5242bb99b6bb87341007e4.docxg Breen, Cathy McCurdy, Lance Widman, Gary Bichlmeier

3. Also present: HB City Attorney: Mike Jenkins, School District Attorney: Terry Tao.

4. HB Resident Jack Miller: …”said he voted for Measure J and was concerned to now hear that the School District did not have to build a gym”…

5. HB Resident Sharon Estes: …”agreed with the suggestion to use the Pier Avenue facility as a junior high school.”

6. Dave Brieholtz, seismic engineer: …”said his opinion was included in a letter that Chris Miller distributed; said there was no reason for seismic retrofit of Pier Avenue School, that there was no need to address the seismic issue. See also: Hermosa Beach Building Assessment, ASCE 31-03 Phase 1 Structural Seismic Evaluation Report by John Martin & Associates of the Community Center.

7. “Attorneys [HBCSD attorney Terry Tao] Tao and Brust responded to questions concerning seismic retrofit and CEQA issues (NOTE: The Community Center is not located in the Coastal Zone), noting that the CEQA process could take three months to one year.”

NOTE: An Environmental Impact Report is not necessary if there are no changes to the footprint of the campus. There is such a thing as a Mitigated Negative Declaration which would shorten the CEQUA process and is applicable in this case. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/MND_Publication_2004.pdf This information is conveniently omitted by the HBCSD attorney Terry Tao in this meeting.

NOTE: During the 2016 $59M bond campaign, HBCSD attorney Terry Tao gave an approximately one-hour presentation one week before the bond vote at which he gave provably false and misleading information. According to his invoice, Terry Tao spent six hours colluding with Superintendent Pat Escalante and certain school board members to provide curated misinformation to the Hermosa Beach public. See: HBCSD May 31 2016 Joint Meeting Transcript.

August 2003- Superintendent – Sharon L McClain, Ed.D. hired. From the HBCSD website, exact date unsure.

“Sharon McClain has been an educator for over 30 years. She has been a classroom teacher, a school principal, a District Coordinator, Assistant Superintendent, and a Superintendent in two districts. Dr. McClain received her undergraduate degree from San Diego State University with distinction in Spanish. She completed her master’s degree at National University and received her doctorate from the University of La Verne.”

November 12, 2003 – Community Center Theater ADA upgrades. The city paid $197,600 for Community Center Theater ADA upgrades.

November 24, 2003 – City Council members:

1. Michael Keegan

2. Art Yoon

3. Sam Y Edgerton

4. Peter C Tucker

5. J.R. Reviczky

6. Steve Burrell – City Manager

December 17, 2003 – Three years before the final tally for the Valley School new construction (gymnasium, library, two science classrooms) came in at $11,385,950 in January 2006, the 2003 estimate came in at $2,346,013 over available bond funds for a total of $8,991,013. Regardless of whether or not HBCSD had the “wherewithal” to complete the new construction, considering the crazy cost of $8,991,013 in 2003, long before a lawsuit was brought by Jerry Compton (April 2005), why would school board members continue making the gymnasium the focus of $13.6 million of Measure J bond funds? Why would any school board member continue to make building a gymnasium the priority over the Facility Master Plan recommendation to supply 14 more classrooms by 2012?

NOTE: California schools are not required to have a gymnasium.

NOTE: HBCSD had priority rights to use the gymnasium and changing rooms at the Community Center rent free. The Community Center is located two short blocks from Valley School. In addition, there are crossing guards stationed at Pier Avenue and Valley/Ardmore intersection between Valley School and the Community Center.

NOTE: HBCSD also has priority rights to rent classrooms, office space and storage space at the Community Center when district enrollment exceeds 1,266 students. There is no expiration to this provision. Did school board members and city council members push for a $59 million bond in 2016 to build an unneeded brand-new campus at North School to keep the school district out of the Community Center permanently?

In 2006, two classrooms were estimated to cost $700,000. According to the cost of two classrooms in 2006, it would have cost HBCSD approximately $4.9 million to build 14 classrooms by 2012 as recommended by the 2002 Facility Master Plan.

North School could have been renovated with Measure J funds if there had been forethought by school board members as to the district’s actual future needs. In the early 2000s Robinson School in Manhattan Beach cost about $3M to renovate. Richmond Street Elementary School in El Segundo, circa 1935, cost about $5.3M to renovate in the early 2000s. Newport Elementary School in Newport Beach, CA, circa 1936, cost to renovate $4.1M (hard costs) in 2002. A full renovation of North School was estimated to cost only $6.2 million in a written offer provided by Juge Construction Company in 2017. Juge Construction company also renovated Valley School in 1987.

Why would school board members, led by Lance Widman, Greg Breen and Cathy McCurdy, decide to spend $11 million dollars on a gymnasium complex at Valley School in 2006? Why were they seemingly irrationally compelled to build a gymnasium at Valley School? Hermosa Beach has nearly perfect year-round weather and HBCSD had valid contractual agreement to use the gymnasium and changing rooms at the Community Center only two blocks away from Valley School? The gymnasium at the Community Center could have been used for middle school team practice and tournaments. (TL-1978Feb28 Exhibit K)

From 2008 to 2022, HBCSD would experience severe overcrowding. The 2002 Facilities Master Plan had recommended that school board members provide 14 classrooms by 2012. No net, new classrooms were built with the $13.9 million dollars Measure J facilities bond, despite the description on the face of the bond promising classrooms.

Did building a gymnasium and changing rooms at Valley School become the priority because of a plan to keep the school district out of the Community Center? Was the quid pro quo for the district not exercising their contractual agreement to use the gym and changing rooms at the Community Center building a brand-new gymnasium at Valley School?

It is believed that from 2012 to 2016 was there another unspoken quid pro quo between the school district and the City of Hermosa Beach that if HBCSD did not exercise their rights to use classrooms, office and storage space at the Community Center, city staff and city council members would assist them in passing an overly expensive $59 million dollar facilities bond to build a brand-new, now unneeded, $29 million campus, at North School. By the time the new 510-student campus at North School was completed in 2021, HBCSD enrollment had dropped by 270 students.

See also:

Lie #24: The district’s demographic report given to the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee members in January 2013 made no sense and was later proved to be substantially incorrect.

Lie #25: The district’s enrollment projections supplied by Decision Insite seemingly ignored evidence of declining K-12 enrollment from the California Department of Finance, Demographics Unit and the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Lie #26: HBCSD enrollment consultants inflated Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and Kindergarten (K) enrollment and seemingly did not take into account the full-time to half-time change in TK and K classes even as their May 2015 report was titled “Conservative 5-year Projections, Assuming Return to Half-Day Kindergarten.

Lie #27: Less than six months after the district won it’s $59M Measure S bond vote, HBCSD’s enrollment consultants changed their projections from future large increase in enrollment to one of markedly lower overall enrollment at HBCSD.

NOTE: Shortly after the district’s $59 million facilities bond passed in June 2016 to rebuild North School, and after years of claiming that the Community Center was not safe for students, was not ADA compliant or that the school district did not have contractual rights to use classrooms, office space and storage space at the Community Center, city officials sent out a request for proposal (RFP) for a management firm to turn the Community Center into a performing arts destination.

City Council member Jeff Duclos was quoted as saying: “The city’s vision of theatre when they took over in 1978 was that it would become a performing arts center.” In 1978 the city was George Schmeltzer and Lance Widman. They had both signed the Agreement for Pier Avenue School. They also, even after repeated opportunities, did not disclosed to the wider community that HBCSD had priority contractual rights to use classrooms, office and storage space at the Community Center. City considers private management for Hermosa Beach Community Theatre, November 1, 2016 by Michael Hixon.

January 2003 – November 2005 – HBCSD New Construction Scope vs. Time Illustration by PCM3. Original scope for the new construction at Valley School was $13 million dollars. Original budget for the original scope was $4.9 million dollars. According to this document the difference between the original scope of the new construction at Valley School and the original budget at 1st Qtr. 2003 was $8.1 million.

1. School board members spent from 1st Qtr. 2003 to 2nd Qtr. 2005 developing the district’s new construction plan while construction costs rose.

2. From 4th Qtr. 2004 to May 2005 cost per square foot increased by $105/sq ft.

3. According to this document the cost per square foot only increased by $10 from May 2005 to November 2005. This was also the time frame in which school board members blamed the CRSE lawsuit for the increase in construction costs. School board members claimed that the cost increase of $10/sq ft between the May 2005 bids and October 2005 bids forced the school board to eliminate two classrooms from the final new construction plans.

4. Was the elimination of two more classrooms from the new construction final bids actually a result of the $105/sq ft price increase from 4th Qtr 2004 to May 2005 and not the lawsuit brought in April 2005 by Hermosa Valley residents? Afterall the May 2005 bids had already come in $2.6M over budget, even though school board members did not announce the elimination of two more classrooms until they received the October 26, 2005 bids. Did school board members delay announcing the elimination of two more classrooms, even though based on the May 2005 bids the ‘writing was on the wall’ that the district would need to eliminate two more classrooms? Did the lawsuit just give school board members ‘cover’ when the time came to admit they needed to eliminate two classrooms from plans to save the gymnasium?

5. See also: June 9, 2005 – Oversight chairman: gym is in jeopardy, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader News.

…“His [Sam Abrams, chairman of the Measure J Citizens’ Oversight Committee] committee learned last week that revenues from voter-approved construction bond fall $2.6 million short of funding the $7.6 million building [ultimately $11 million dollar complex]. A previous estimate by a consultant had the project at $1.3 million short, but the new figure is based on written bids submitted by construction contractors who want to do the job.”

May 6, 2004 – Valley and View improvements approved by David Rosenfeld, Easy Reader Newspaper:

1. “The Hermosa Beach School District approved $7.8 million in modernization costs at both Valley and View elementary schools last week.”

2. “The board had yet to sign off on about $7 million in new construction planned at Hermosa Valley School, which includes a gymnasium and eight new classrooms.”

NOTE: One year before the lawsuit by CRSE, two classrooms were eliminated in May 2004. Two more classrooms were eliminated in October/January 2005/2006. Altogether six classrooms were deleted from the final bid packages to save the gymnasium.

3. “Consultants PCM3 handled the contractor’s bidding package that came in last week, in total nearly 25 percent over budget.”

4. “Representatives said the bids came in higher than expected because the project did not receive many applicants due to an abundance of school construction contracts funded by bond money throughout the state."

5. “The consultant company also cited the inflated price of steel and other building materials.”

6. “School Board President Linda Beck confronted the consultants with raised eyebrows. She questioned the estimates for soft costs, money spent on logistics other than construction, which PCM3 had stated would not exceed 30 percent of the total. The current budget figures put the school district’s soft costs as 34 percent.”

May 10, 2004 – Hermosa Valley New Construction [gymnasium complex] Space Comparisons.

This report shows eight different versions of the gymnasium complex that were considered by school board members in 2004.

May 20, 2004 – District cuts back on expansion by David Rosenfeld, Easy Reader Newspaper:

1. “After costly delays, the board votes to cut two classrooms and scale back the library to meet $800,000 shortfall.”

2. “The board decided 4-1 Wednesday to maintain plans for a large gymnasium while scaling back a proposed library and eliminate two proposed classrooms.”

3. “The gym will hold two courts for either volleyball or basketball and seat about 100 spectators around the main court.”

NOTE: California schools are not required to have a gymnasium.

4. “The Civil Center Act, under the California Education Code, requires the district to provide its space to qualified youth groups.”

NOTE: Youth groups and up to 100 of their families and friends from out-of-town, with very limited Valley School parking, could rent the gymnasium in the late evenings and all weekend. Note: It seems that the gymnasium was actually being thought of as a business venture by HBCSD which would be located in a residential neighborhood.

5. “Board member Greg Breen said he supported the large gym but would not support additional parking at the school because “Less parking gives incentives to walk. We’ve got a car problem in our culture and a lack of physical exercise.”

6. “Linda Beck, the only ‘nay’ vote on the board, said she would have supported downsizing the gymnasium to fit a single basketball court and saving, perhaps, a classroom and library space, even if that meant the gym could not be rented.”

7. “After the most recent design changes, the school will net an added two classrooms campus wide.”

NOTE: The only NET two classrooms would be eliminated in October 2005 to February 2006 after school board members received the final payout for their refunding bonds that had been authorized in early May 2005. The refinancing of bonds was not finalized until February 2006 and resulted in the district waiting until February 2006 to accept construction bids. Even with refinancing the district’s existing bonds to net more funding, bond funds still came up short requiring school board members to take an additional $700,000 to $990,000 from district coffers in order to finish the new construction while also eliminating two classrooms.

NOTE: Instead of truthfully admitting that the February 2006 shortfall in funds was due to a variety of reasons including the Division of State Architects mandated additional excavations and reshoring changes to the new construction project in July 2005 AND the lack of Coastal Commission permit AND the lack of finalized refunding bond proceeds, the loss of the only NET two classrooms would be blamed on the CRSE lawsuit and residents.

June 17, 2004 – School district finalizes construction plans by David Rosenfeld, Easy Reader Newspaper:

1. “The School Board of Trustees has finalized its plans for a new gym on Hermosa Valley School campus in the midst of repeated complaints from local residents about expected parking congestion and claims that the district hadn’t adequately prepared for expansion.”

2. “The revised plans, which cut out two proposed classrooms, a conference room and 500 square feet off the library brought the project down to its scheduled $6.6 million budget.”

NOTE: In 2002 the portion of the $13.9 million facilities bond Meas J allocated for a gymnasium was $2.2 million. School board members would go on to spend $19.5 million total with $11 million being spent on the gymnasium complex. School board members would ultimately use almost $1M from district funding to finish the gymnasium.

3. “Under the city’s guidelines, a building used for assemblies would require one parking spot per 50 square feet. The gym, a 7,400 square feet, would require an additional 80 spots. However, the school district is not subject to city building codes. Neither the state board of education or the Coastal Commission… has any guidelines for parking other than requiring two spots per teaching station. A gym counts only as two teaching stations” [therefore only requiring four parking spaces instead of the normal 80 parking spaces.].

4. “Some residents at the latest school board meeting again raised the issue of buying back the property just as the board finally appeared to conclude it’s plans. Some who accused the district of never considering the idea plan to ask officials to undertake an official study of the Community Center and determine the cost of re-converting it to school use. School board trustee Lance Widman, who was mayor at the time of the 1978 sale, said it’s an idea that’s time has passed.”

5. “…the idea to buy and remodel the Community Center was considered fully and found not to be economically sound.”

COMPETING INFORMATION:

A. The Community Center DOES NOT NEED TO BE PURCHASED by HBCSD to be used for students. Lance Widman knows this. He does not disclose this information to the public. Because Lance Widman is withholding information, it is likely that he is also misinforming the public about the Community Center being “considered fully” by the school board.

B. There is NO evidence, report or school district minutes that show the Community Center was “considered fully” as Lance Widman claims. In fact, there is no information in any meeting or report about HBCSD leasing the Community Center for student use. According to the article Architects look at new gym, classrooms by Robb Fulcher Easy Reader News, December 6, 2001, only Valley School, View School and North School were looked at by architects. There is no mention of the Community Center.

C. HBCSD has priority contractual use of the Community Center classrooms, office and storage space AND in a separate set of provisions, use of the gymnasium, changing rooms, tennis courts and auditorium. Neither of the district’s leasing options requires that HBCSD purchase the Community Center. These provisions were agreed to by Lance Widman (current school board member) when he and other city council members accepted the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) at their city council meetings of June 14 and 28, 1977 and through Exhibit K signed by city council members in 1978. Why would Lance Widman and former city council member George Schmeltzer NOT disclose this information to the public?

D. Why would any school board member ignore HBCSD’s leasing options for use of the gymnasium and classrooms at the Community Center versus spending $11 million on a brand-new gymnasium and two classrooms at Valley School?

6. “No formal study has been done, though Dougherty said he looked at the possibility closely*. Dougherty said classrooms would have to be enlarged according to code, asbestos removed, an elevator installed, and a handicap ramp created in the back.”

A. *NOTE: Dougherty and Dougherty are NOT engineers and are NOT qualified to make statements about the structural integrity of Pier Avenue School.

B. *NOTE: Why didn’t Dougherty and Dougherty make a formal report on the Community Center issues so that they could be investigated and considered along with the district’s other plans? As we have learned from fact checking other consultants HBCSD has hired, it seems that district hired consultants will often tailor their reports and information to conform to what the district wants, not to the actual facts of the matter. See information regarding Decision Insite enrollment consultant’s reports, Pam Daly’s North School historical assessment, Richard Garland’s traffic study.

C. Architects Dougherty and Dougherty are not impartial purveyors of information. They are architects who would most likely rather be paid to design and build new structures at Valley School instead of saving Hermosa Beach taxpayers’ money by using existing facilities.

COMPETING INFORMATION:

A. Classrooms can be enlarged by removing interior walls installed by the city, but they do not have to be sized according to “code”. Title 5 Code of Regulations applies to new construction only. Otherwise, taxpayers would be on the hook to update countless older school buildings throughout California to conform to current Title 5 codes. This would not prevent HBCSD from using the Community Center classrooms for students.

B. Where is the study that confirms asbestos at the Community Center? Why hasn’t it already been removed by the city if it’s a problem? Asbestos is only a problem if it is released into the air.

NOTE: The North School asbestos study contained in the 2017-2019 Environmental Impact Report recommended that the district NOT tear down North School. According to David Lucero an Environmental Assessor for Terra Petra Environmental Engineering everything that appears to have asbestos could be removed during renovations. All the additions of asbestos were added in the late 50’s which are easy to remove. Nothing about the North School buildings themselves have any issues. The same architects and engineers who built North School also built the Community Center, therefore it is likely that asbestos is not a problem at the Community Center either.

C. An elevator was planned for the new construction at Valley School that would only service TWO classrooms. An elevator installed at the Community Center would service six classrooms. Why would installation of an elevator be a problem at the Community Center? All public buildings are required by law to be ADA accessible, the same is true for the Community Center. The City of Hermosa Beach has already made many ADA improvements to the Community Center over the years at minimal cost. See also Community Center improvements 2006 to 2013 and Community Center improvements December 2013.

D. The cost for upgrading the Community Center for district use should have been compared against building a brand-new gymnasium, changing rooms, library and classrooms at Valley School of more than $11 million and taking approximately $1M from district coffers in order to finish the job. In addition the fourteen classrooms recommended by the 2002 Facilities Master Plan could have been renovated and made ready for students if enrollment continued to rise.

January 6, 2005 – Academic gymnastics by Jackie Tagliaferro, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader. (Exhibit TL-2005,Jan6)

“A gym would be a bonus, but the school needs many basics first. The school is at capacity. Classrooms are crammed with 33 students.” … “Plain and simple… don’t build the gym. Give the school back their library, give the students the extra classrooms they so desperately need and the education they deserve. Give me every student excelling at their grade level in reading, writing and arithmetic first.”

January 27, 2005 – School district may be short $1 million for construction by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader Newspaper:

1. “Because of soaring construction costs, the school district may be about $1 million short of realizing its plans for a complex that includes a new gymnasium, science lab, library and classrooms at Hermosa Valley School.”

2. “The upgrades [at Valley and View schools] cost nearly $10 million, leaving the district with $5.8 remaining for the new buildings at Valley [school].”

3. …”construction cost have risen because of a glut of school bonds and rising costs of cement and other construction materials.”

February 3, 2005 – Gym-nauseam, by Jackie Friedman, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader.

“We have a perfectly good gym at Pier Avenue that, with some upgrades, could serve quite well for all those concerned about renting out the facility. It would be perfect for our children too. It has all the parking needed. Hermosa Valley has maybe 40-50 spaces. I know that we have use of Pier Ave. building for free since it was written into the agreement when it was turned from a school to a community building years ago. Why aren’t the people of Hermosa being made aware of what is really happening? Why not put the gymnasium to a vote?”

February 10, 2005 – Do the right thing, by John Miller, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader.

“It is time for the Hermosa Beach School Board (HBSB) to give the classrooms needs of the students top priority and to not further downsize the already marginal open space that now exists on the school grounds.” … “Most of us citizens were originally receptive to the need for the proposed school upgrade, including the marginal need for a new gymnasium, on the premise that there would be additional space on the south-side of the school property for a gymnasium. On retrospect, it is obvious that the school board knew the likelihood of that happening was marginal at best. It is time for the school board to stop misleading the public and do the right thing for students.”

February 17, 2005 – New school gym: traffic, parking, noise, By Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader News.

1. “Residents once again urged the city school board to take steps to ease traffic congestion, parking problems and possible excessive noise from a gymnasium planned for Hermosa Valley School. The residents’ written comments were submitted as the school board seeks state approval for the gym project.”

2. “The Keegans wrote that the school board should consider: Building a smaller gym for student use only; building a second parking deck atop a faculty parking lot at the south edge of the school; providing extra parking near the gym; relocating the gym to the faculty parking lot, with parking on a level below…”

3. “The Keegans urged the board to reconsider the ideas of improving the nearby Hermosa Beach Community Center gymnasium and using it for “gym class”, and buying land occupied by school neighbors Adelphia Communications and the Marineland mobile home park.”

4. “The Keegans complained that the environmental impact report does not analyze after-school security, possible loss of school open space, and impacts from additional auto trips to drop people off and pick them up at the gym.”

5. “Local resident Chris Miller also reiterated her view that the school board should scrap its plans for a new gym and instead use the one at the Community Center.”

6. “Beth Cross, a supporter of the 2002 bond issue, also urged the school board to consider scrapping the gym. She pointed out that officials have reduced the number of new classrooms to be built with the bonds and wrote that eliminating the gym might be “a prudent financial consideration.”

7. “Marcei Brubaker expressed concern about excessive noise and greater parking problems and suggest that the gym should be scrapped in favor of building more classrooms.”

8. “Jackie Flaherty also opposed the gym and wrote that such a facility is not necessary for students younger than high school age.”

9. “Gretchen Corbell complained that the school district considers additional parking problems from the gym “unavoidable” ….

10. “Fred Huebscher urged the school board to reconsider expanding its northern parking lot along Valley Drive, as well as restricting the number of gym users, and complained that noise and parking issues were not adequately addressed in the environmental impact report.”

Keep Reading