HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/14Planning — November 2011
Why Schools Need Planners
It's time to bring urban planning skills to the public schools.
By Kelley D. Carey, AICP
Public schools would be a lot better off if they hired city planners. Here are the pertinent skills
that planners can offer:
Computer mapping. Computer mapping for planning functions is unknown in many school
districts, even in very large ones. For starters, planners can use computer mapping for transportation analysis, as there are programs available for designing bus routes and stops.
Software vendors see that planning is needed since they try to imitate planning skills by offering
options that "automatically" design the "best" attendance plan. But where is public participation,
and where are the cost comparisons for various construction options and student assignments?
No software brings all that together. An urban planner understands how to do that analysis and how to involve the community in the process.
Demographics analysis. Any graduate planner understands the need to assess birth trends, land-
use changes, utilities, transportation, and housing trends. School district personnel seldom
connect those dots when making long-range plans to add classrooms, build or close or enlarge
schools, design attendance plans, and project the possible impacts of alternatives.
If the planner in the facilities department can project enrollments, map kids and attendance
zones, and show the schools on those maps, then the superintendent will be leaning on that
department for decisions about where to redistrict or where to build schools, or where they
should be expanded or even closed.
Five-year planning. Good demographics and facilities planning can support a rolling five-year capital plan, updated each year, that encompasses student projections by neighborhood and
school; new construction, renovations, closures, and redistricting; public involvement; and
programmatic changes. It is the school district equivalent of a five-year capital plan for a city,
crossing disciplines and departments and requiring coordination and the ability to work with
administrators and groups with different priorities.
Involving the public. In many school districts, public participation consists of holding some
public encounter meetings that consulting "experts" morph into costly construction and
redistricting programs. Broad discussions like this are construed as public signoff on final
recommendations, which can be a planning farce.
Truly involving the public is something planners can do very well. They can apply
interdisciplinary concepts for planning major construction and schools redistricting, engaging the
public in developing and accessing alternative solutions.
School districts need trained planners
Tools used by city planners are applicable to school districts, whose construction programs and
demographics analysis should be underpinned by clear planning processes. But usually they are
not. Only in recent years have graduate city planners been added to school district payrolls. It is
time to change that. After all, planners are found in local, state, and federal agencies and the
military.
Without planners, here is the result of business as usual in public schools:
Disjointed planning and parallel play. Who does planning within the typical school district? The
answer, frankly, is that much of that planning is reactionary, framed by arising issues, and
seldom long range.
Separate departments often focus on separate priorities: curriculum programs, student demographics (assignment to schools, drawing attendance boundaries, and student assignment
concepts), bus transportation, and planning for closing, enlarging, and building schools. The
different entities do not coordinate their efforts when considering impacts.
For example, new instructional programs may be adopted without regard to the impacts on
existing school capacities and attendance zones. Years ago, computer labs became the fad, taking up perhaps 20 percent of all classroom space, which meant very expensive building expansion
programs. Computers later went into the classroom — where they should have been all along.
Another example: Special education programs may assign students with disabilities to an old
school because it has empty classrooms. The facilities department then renovates the building,
when it should have been closed. A trained planner could have developed alternative plans to
house those kids closer to their homes, to avoid concentrating kids with special needs simply because an old school is available.
Controversial school attendance plans. Nothing is more contentious in school districts than
redrawing attendance boundaries. The tools used are primitive by city planning standards, often
including paper maps, estimated student numbers, and poor enrollment projections.
Long-range planning would call for new classrooms well before a yard full of portables brought down public wrath. Instead, in many cases the student assignment plan evolving over the years is
a tangled mess of different grade structures and student transfer schemes that are costly and
confusing. Coordination with local government agencies for community demographics, roads,
utilities, land-use changes, and so on is simply overlooked because most school districts
internalize their planning.
Poor enrollment projections. I have reviewed massive redistricting and construction programs
founded on straight-line projections of historical enrollment data for the whole district — not
even for individual school zones. But even in a growing district there will be declining schools,
along with various distributions of births and migration and cohort survival from grade to grade.
Cohort survival calculations are often reduced to an absurd simplicity: Divide last year's number of fifth graders at School A by their fourth grade enrollment the year before. Use that ratio to
project next year's fifth grade.
Rolling up student numbers like this often results in wasteful hiring and wasteful construction,
with schools built in the wrong locations for long-term needs. In contrast, computer mapping
might have shown that a quarter of the kids attending the school are attending out of their zone, distorting the need for classrooms. Projecting kids by mapping them by home addresses, instead
of just counting kids coming to a school, can show a much different need for classrooms.
Computer mapping can lead to reliable alternative plans for construction and redistricting that
are driven by where the kids live.
Likewise, the school district's transportation department uses mapping software to plan bus routes and create maps locating students by home addresses. But that data is often not used for
enrollment projections to plan for redistricting and construction. A graduate city planner would
feel right at home in pulling this analysis together.
Long-range capital planning.Many states require a five-year capital plan for school districts
while providing little planning support or review, treating this plan largely as a local political matter. The plan report can be a page of enrollment projections, followed by a thick notebook
detailing all the school construction programs.
Such planning is seldom driven by computer-mapped projections of enrollments, land uses, or
examination of alternatives that take curriculum, transportation, and facilities into account. A
trained planner would promote the need to bring these factors — and staff — together to
consider alternative futures. That exercise is seldom done.
Planning processes. Educators are experts in education. Planning to them is about planning a
school layout or curriculum. They are not trained in long-range planning processes or real public involvement. They tend to make decisions and then present them to the public.
Not surprisingly, the lack of defined planning processes leads to public outrage over repeated
redistricting and sometimes to enormous waste resulting from renovating schools that should be
replaced, building schools in wrong places for the long term, and failing to meaningfully involve
the public.
In my view, most school districts have not developed the planning capacity found in local
government. There is little documentation of any planning process, and plans presented to the
public often have the board votes to be adopted, so that public involvement can be a sham.
From decades of work with school districts nationwide, I conclude that most planning is driven
by the latest ideas in educational programs, which are forced into the existing setup of school buildings and attendance plans. Such a disjointed system could be avoided.
Comprehensive long-range planning for programs, demographics, and facilities is badly needed
in public school districts. It crosses traditional territorial boundaries of school district curriculum,
bus transportation, special education, buildings planning, and planning for assignment of
students to schools. Planning must use all the tools in the planner's bag and project long-term consequences from short-range visions.
A planner's place in the school district
Will school districts come searching for city planning graduates to hire? No. Instead, planners
must make the case that they are needed.
Here are departments where trained city planners can already be found in some school districts:
Transportation. Planners are trained in computer mapping, which means they would be able to custom-build programs for redistricting or redrawing attendance boundaries. Any planning
graduate would know that "automatic" planning software for those functions might just be
baloney.
Travel time to school is only one factor in routing buses and redistricting schools. So the school district's transportation director may immediately see the value of having a trained planner
manage the computer mapping for transportation and to coordinate his department with the
facilities and student assignment offices.
Clearly, having that departmental capability gives the transportation director a better seat at the
superintendent's table. It also gives the planner a place to start within the district. That role can easily expand, with the potential for using traditional city planning tools in order to cross
departmental lines and provide planning support that is data driven and process oriented.
Facilities construction and administration. The school district facilities director, or director of
operations, manages the operations of buildings — including school construction and
renovations, modifications, and expansions of existing schools. As such, the person in this
position engages architects, engineers, and construction consultants and monitors their work and the resulting construction contracts. Planning is obviously needed in all these activities.
Because most school districts do not have a planning department, educators often turn to the
facilities director for advice on where to build, enlarge, and close schools. That is a disaster in
most cases. The director is trained in maintenance and construction, not urban demographics and
facilities planning.
Horror stories abound about facilities directors selecting school sites that are totally unsuitable to
handle growth or that create nightmares for designing an attendance zone. Attendance zones are
often planned in the spring before a new school opens. A planner would gasp at that idea, for
how was the school site picked without a projected attendance plan?
A trained planner considers keeping neighborhoods intact. That means avoiding repeated redistricting of kids where there is dramatic growth or decline in enrollment. Planners would
project the five-year enrollments by school and grade, using computer mapping and projections
software.
Planners could also factor in land-use changes so that zones do not have to be redrawn each year,
and they could cross disciplines to factor in travel burden, the condition of buildings, and the need to make the best use of schools. The next step would be to project enrollments, mapping
students by home addresses as a basis for trending growth and decline around the district.
In a school district, the planner must work to become the "go-to person" for planning, bringing
together data from mapped bus routes and existing buildings and attendance zones to develop
alternative plans for construction, enlargement, and closure of schools; for reorganization of grade structures; and for finding places for special programs such as magnet and charter schools.
That work naturally should coordinate with local public works and planning departments in
information sharing for long-range planning. It should include mapping demographics and
facilities, working with the curriculum department to find the best places for special programs to
be housed, preparing for and leading public involvement in the process of determining where to build and to redistrict schools, assuring equity in facilities and travel times, and keeping
neighborhoods together.
In sum, the office of the facilities or operations director can be the best place for a planner to
provide computer mapping and demographics studies and to fill the need for expertise in five-
year comprehensive planning.
Once a trained planner is in place, people will quickly recognize the value of planning activities
and training.
In fact, we are now seeing more graduate city planners working in school districts. Patrick
Burke, the director of operations for Fulton County schools (surrounding Atlanta), explains why
his district employs full-time planning staff. "Good planning leads to good execution," he says.
"Planners understand the linkages between community, housing, and public infrastructure, including human services such as education." Burke and his staff recently completed a plan for
$1 billion in school construction.
Planners work in other Georgia districts, including Gwinnett, Cobb, Cherokee, Atlanta City,
DeKalb, and Forsyth. And planners are working in the school districts in Broward, Miami-Dade,
and Orange County, Florida, and in Virginia at Henrico, Prince George, and Chesterfield.
What next?
At this point, educators are not taught about urban planning, and planning schools do not teach
public school district planning. It is past the time to change that situation. Planners need to be
trained to make their place within public education.
City planning schools also should establish ties to school districts, just as they do outreach when placing students in conventional city planning positions. By setting up service workshops and internship programs, and by approaching school board members, superintendents, and their
associates, planning schools can raise a suitable profile in public school districts. A course in
school district planning, including demographics and facilities planning in the context of
educational programs, would have broad application.
As Burke noted, "It is amazing that planning programs miss this opportunity to train and to
market to these areas of public service."
Graduate planners can also approach school officials directly to explain their training and how it
fits district objectives. School systems have annual budgets, just as cities do. But superintendents
and department heads can often find funding for planning assistance and add it to budgets later. They just need help in understanding how planners will make their jobs easier in specific ways.
Schools educate our children to become contributing members of society. City planning
education and career opportunities must encompass public schools planning, just like other
public activities and development efforts.
Kelley D. Carey is a charter member of AICP, a professional engineer, and a licensed attorney with graduate degrees in planning, engineering, and law. For more than 35 years, he has
consulted with school districts and the U.S. Department of Justice on school planning issues. His
book, School District Master Planning — A Practical Guide to Demographics and Facilities
Planning, was published this year. Contact him at careyhhi@juno.com.
Sidebar: Improving Enrollment Planning for LA Schools
Resources
Images: Top — In Fulton, one of several Georgia counties with planners on staff, Scott Stephens
(seated), Brenan Stearns, and executive director of operational planning Yngrid Huff consider
high school redistricting plans. Photo Holly Brown, Bottom — Planners David Barber
(foreground) and Greg Stanfield work for Georgia's Gwinnett County Public Schools, a fast growing district that has added 40 new schools in just eight years. Photo Sloan Roach.
Page | 1
Rev. 10/21/14
Measure Q – Hermosa Beach City School District
Frequently Asked Questions Handout
Although it appears that our schools are in good shape based on achievements by our students, our school
facilities need to be improved. Faced with overcrowding schools, aging classrooms, and the need to bring
school facilities up to current technology, safety, and educational standards, the Hermosa Beach City School
District Board of Trustees unanimously placed a general obligation bond measure on the upcoming November
2014 ballot. If approved, Measure Q funds would be used to modernize and renovate our aging and
overcrowded schools.
The following information is provided to assist voters in understanding the facts behind Measure Q and how its
passage will affect the District and our community.
What is Measure Q?
Measure Q is a $54.0 million general obligation (G.O.) bond program. The measure is intended to address the
needs of the local student population through new construction, modernization and renovation projects at the
District’s schools, including re-opening North School, which is located at the south-west corner of Valley Park.
What is a G.O. bond?
G.O. bonds fund projects such as the renovation of classrooms and school facilities, as well as construction of
new schools and classrooms. Similar to a home loan, G.O. bonds are typically repaid over 30 years. The loan
repayment comes from a tax on all taxable property - residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial -
located within the District’s boundaries.
Why did the District place Measure Q on the ballot?
In the 1950s, the District had annual enrollment of over 1,400 students at six school sites. Today, the District
also educates over 1,400 students but only at two school sites. Overcrowding has become so challenging that
the District currently has to convert multipurpose rooms, a stage, and office space into “classrooms”.
Furthermore, portable classrooms (i.e. temporary trailers) have been added to the campuses, which encroach
on playfield spaces and parking. In addition to overcrowding, Hermosa Beach schools are old with an average
age of over 70 years. North School, our oldest, was first built in 1924. Consequently, our local schools do not
meet 21st century education standards. We must reduce student overcrowding and upgrade, renovate, and
modernize our classrooms and schools.
Why can’t the District meet its facilities needs with its current budget?
Today, the scope of improvements needed at the Hermosa Beach City School District is far more than the
current funding sources available. The per-pupil funding which the District receives from the state is intended
to be used for the day-to-day business of educating children and not for major upgrades, renovations, and
modernization projects or new classrooms and facilities.
How did the District come up with the project list for Measure Q?
Over the last year with input from staff, teachers, parents, community leaders, and an architect, the District has
prepared a School Facilities Needs Analysis. The Needs Analysis identifies the major repairs and upgrades that
need to be made. In addition, a facilities committee comprised of local community members was created to
review the issue of overcrowding and where to place the overflow of students.
Specific priorities from the Needs Analysis include:
Reopening North School to reduce student overcrowding
Repairing/replacing aging roofs
Upgrading inadequate electrical systems
Renovating deteriorating plumbing and sewer systems
Improving student access to modern technology
Page | 2
Rev. 10/21/14
Has the District ever passed a school improvement measure?
Yes. In 1954, 60 years ago, District voters approved a measure to address outdated classrooms and
overcrowded schools. The tax rate from that measure was projected to be $380.00 per $100,000 of assessed
value. It has long been paid off. More recently, nearly 15 years ago, District voters also passed a school
improvement measure with 64.7% voter support. The tax rate for those bonds is much lower at $17.97 per
$100,000 of assessed value (only 5% of the 1954 rate). Funds from that measure were used to make the most
critical upgrades and renovations as well as construct a new gymnasium. Today’s Measure Q would finish the
work we started by upgrading our two existing schools and relieving overcrowding by reopening North School
after much-needed renovation and/or new construction. It is expected that these improvements will last for
the next 60 years.
Have our neighboring school districts
passed any improvement measures?
Yes. All of our neighboring districts have
passed multiple measures to improve
their schools over the years. In fact,
neighboring districts have each passed at
least three measures to upgrade school
facilities. The following table shows the
number of bond measures, bond
amounts, and combined tax rates of these
districts:
What will happen if Measure Q does not pass?
If Measure Q does not pass, our classrooms and campuses will remain overcrowded and our school facilities
will continue to deteriorate. In addition, funds that would otherwise go to classroom instruction and programs
will be needed to purchase and install additional portable classrooms which would encroach on playfields,
parking, or other open space areas. Major renovation projects will need to be postponed and as a result will be
more expensive to make.
What will Measure Q cost?
The tax rate per property owner is estimated to be $29.50 per $100,000 of assessed valuation per year. (Do not
confuse assessed valuation with market value. Assessed valuations are the value placed on property by the
County and are typically lower than market values). You can check your property tax statement for your current
assessed valuation.
How can I be sure that Measure Q funds will be spent on improving our local schools?
By law, all bond funds have to be spent locally and cannot be taken by the state. In addition, a local
independent citizens’ oversight committee will be established to ensure that bond funds are properly spent.
Also by law, there must be annual audits of expenditures and no bond money can be used for teacher or
administrative salaries. The School District is committed to a policy of full transparency and accountability.
If the E&B oil recovery project is approved by the voters in March 2015, will the School District still
need Measure Q bond funds?
Yes. First, if the E&B oil recovery project is approved, the majority of monies received are designated for the
Education Foundation, which provides funds for school programs only, and not brick-and-mortar
improvements. Measure Q would provide funds to be exclusively used for facilities improvements. Second, the
overcrowding issues at our schools represent a serious and immediate need, and the School District cannot
rely on any oil recovery funds, the amounts to be received, or the timing of any receipts, with any certainty.
District Bond Measures Passed
Combined Bond
Amounts
Current Tax
Rate (1)
Hermosa Beach ESD 11/2002 $13,600,000 $17.97
Manhattan Beach USD 11/2008, 11/2000, 11/1995 140,500,000 70.05
Redondo Beach USD 11/2012, 2/2008, 11/2000 260,000,000 92.42
Palos Verdes Peninsula USD(2)11/2005, 11/2005, 6/2000 86,000,000 23.11
El Segundo USD 11/2008, 11/2001, 11/1997 63,000,000 72.97
Wiseburn ESD 11/2010, 6/2007, 6/2000, 3/1997 168,600,000 116.72
Average 3 $143,620,000 $75.06
(1) Per $100,000 of assessed value (2) Two separate bond measures placed on same ballot
To: Hermosa Beach City/School COMPACT Meeting
From: Patricia Escalante, District Superintendent
Tom Bakaly, City Manager
Date: October 16, 2014
Subject: Action Items from COMPACT Meeting Surrounding
After School Program Waitlist
Per the action items from the COMPACT Subcommittee Meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 30th, the
following items have been researched in relation to the After School Program:
Children’s Ages on Waitlist
Children’s ages are not requested when placed on the waitlist
Internal insight that greatest need of children are those that attend Valley School since
the school district’s program is only for children at View School; we do not have a
breakdown of these numbers at this time
“Pop-Up” Temporary Space @ Valley for Afterschool Program
Afterschool program initially started this way about five years ago
In the case of inclement weather, staff was given permission to use the Rotary/Kiwanis
building, but this didn’t work out well because they would have renters in their building
that either didn’t want to share the space or there simply wasn’t enough room
Lack of resources is why the program was brought to the Community Center with its
own dedicated room
Per staff opinion, it’s not recommended to host an outdoor program again, especially
when part of the program participants are afforded an indoor location
Clark Building Background Information
The maximum capacity of the Clark Building is 170 seated. Without tables and chairs in
the room, it’s 240
Rooms at Clark are typically booked with an hour in-between rentals to allow the group
to lead out and provide time for staff to breakdown tables and chairs, take out trash,
and sweep the floor for the next group.
Availability based on the above referenced protocol, which usually is as follows (I do
have about 5 events scheduled from now throughout 2015 that are not reflected in this
availability):
o Mondays 7am-4:30pm – Jazzercise is in at 5:30pm
o Tuesday 7am-4:45pm – Jazzercise is in at 5:45pm
o Wednesday 7am-4:45pm except the 2nd and 3rd Wednesday each month where
it’s only available 3pm-4:45pm – Woman’s Club or Garden Club is in from 8am-
2pm (2nd and 3rd Wednesdays) and Jazzercise is in at 5:45pm
o Thursday 7am-4:30pm – Jazzercise is in at 5:30pm
o Friday 8am-10pm
Internal discussions have been made to potentially ask Jazzercise to push their time
back after 6pm.
Staff recommends that we need to keep in mind the breakdown and clean-up time
needed after whatever time the Clark Building is reserved till and the fact that Jazzercise
is a longstanding renter and have held their current class times since at least 1999. They
might have been renting longer but this is as far as current documentation goes.
Rates for renting space at Clark are detailed as follows:
o $20 Application Fee
o $250 Damage Deposit
o $30 Hermosa Beach Residents
o $61 Non-Residents
o $25 Non-Profits
Dear Hermosa Beach City School District Board and Staff (HBCSD):
I am requesting that the following letter be added to your next meeting agenda so that the
HBCSD school board can discuss these issues as soon as possible. In light of E&B Natural
Resources (E&B) most recent press release [http://www.hermosaoilrecovery.com/eb-natural-
resources-commits-estimated-36-75-million-hermosa-students/] I believe it is critical for the
school community to get a perspective from HBCSD regarding this project and the promises
E&B is making for your schools. Please respond that you have received this letter and please let
me know at what meeting this will be discussed.
Thank you for your hard work and attention to these critical issues.
1. Who is educating the voting school community regarding the oil project and the potential
royalties and benefits from the oil drilling project?
In about 6 months the community of Hermosa Beach will be voting to either maintain the
current moratorium on oil drilling in Hermosa Beach or to lift that ban and allow E&B to drill for
oil and gas for about 30 years. This industrial project will alter the cultural and physical
landscape of this community. A large percentage of these voters in Hermosa Beach are the
parents of the children in your schools.
If E&B is allowed to drill for oil in Hermosa Beach, the HBCSD will be receiving royalties and
other potential benefits from this project. If the ban is lifted and E&B proceeds with the project,
acceptance of these royalties and benefits, directly or indirectly (through some third party like
the HBEF or some other charitable foundation) equates to acceptance and support of this
project. It is not debatable, the HBCSD, as recipient of royalties and other benefits, will be a
partner of this industrial project.
Currently, there is no public leadership from the HBCSD regarding this very important issue. By
"neutral" on this issue the school community, the voting parents, lack important School-related
information and leadership regarding this issue. It is critical that the HBCSD Staff and Board
members provide this perspective in order to help inform the school community regarding the
benefits and/or potential risks to the School - the students and the school families of Hermosa
Beach. Leadership from the HBCSD on this issue will impart confidence in the community and
aid in the education of the voters, regardless of how they vote on the issue. If the District/Board
feels like this is a good business venture and that a partnership with E&B is beneficial to the
HBCSD, then that fact should be stated clearly. Regardless, if this measure passes and E&B drills
for oil, some amount of money is coming your way - how much is obviously uncertain.
E&B claims in their most recent press release “a new percentage per barrel commitment to the
Hermosa Beach Education Foundation that will bring the total revenue for students to the
equivalent of 1% of the gross revenue from the project.” Assuming this was to be true, the
HBCSD and the HBEF would need to administer these funds in a cooperative manner. The
school community deserves to understand how this would be executed and how it would
benefit the strategic vision, plans and operations of our District. The school community
deserves to know this information before they vote in March 2015.
The most critical piece of information for the school community to know is that any potential
royalties or promised benefits from E&B will not address the most pressing needs of the District
– improving and modernizing facilities improvements.
According to the E&B website here are some examples of the royalties and benefits the school
is being promised.
http://www.hermosaoilrecovery.com/eb-natural-resources-commits-estimated-36-75-million-
hermosa-students/
http://www.hermosaoilrecovery.com/eb-natural-resources-announces-new-revenue-hermosa-
students/
http://www.hermosaoilrecovery.com/community-benefits/revenue-for-hermosa-beach/
2. Who is negotiating with E&B on behalf of the HBCSD regarding royalties and potential
monetary benefits?
According to the HB City Council Status Report on the E&B Oil Project, 22 July 2014, page 4: "b)
Supplemental School Funding: E&B proposed additional funds for the schools to be provided by
way of a separate agreement with the Education Foundation or other non-profit organization
that would cover or offset the revenues from the lease that would go to the State. It is the City
subcommittee's position that it would not be part of the DA [Development Agreement]. The
City subcommittee thought it might be included in the statement of overriding considerations.
E&B would like this item addressed in both the DA and in the statement of overriding
considerations."
If the City is not willing to negotiate benefits or revenues with E&B then who from the HBCSD
staff or board is negotiating this important factors? Is the HBCSD negotiating this agreement of
revenues/benefits/royalties with the Hermosa Beach Educational Foundation or another non-
profit organization? If so, then who is negotiating with E&B regarding this issue? If no one is
negotiating with E&B, then why not? The school community needs to know this information.
These issues are a very critical educational component for the voting families, the school
community of Hermosa Beach. Again, I urge you to demonstrate leadership on this issue.
3. Is E&B campaigning against your bond? What are you going to do about this issue?
This summer HBCSD adopted a resolution to place a $54 million general obligation bond on the
November 2014 ballot. The objective of the bond and the bond campaign is to improve
classroom and school facilities. The resolution
[http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/87377.pdf] claims that many factors and deficiencies
facing the HBCSD are that education facilities need "…to be expanded, renovated, modernized,
repaired…", including the goal to "…reopen North School and modernize, construct and
improve facilities needed… ".
Here are a few issues I recommend you consider regarding your bond campaign:
In my opinion, the E&B press release I referred to previously is the beginning of an active
campaign against your school bond proposal. I believe that E&B may continue to do this
either openly or through a PAC or through a third party group. At some point the voting school
community will ask, “Who needs a bond initiative when we can get oil royalties and benefits
from E&B?” Is the HBCSD ready to answer this question and provide the school community with
the necessary information needed during this campaign?
Last week, on the first day of school the most distinct and explicit voice regarding potential
funding of Hermosa Beach Schools was not the HBCSD, it was E&B. It is obvious why E&B chose
to release their school funding marketing on Wednesday, September 3, 2014, the first day of
school. [http://www.hermosaoilrecovery.com/eb-natural-resources-commits-estimated-36-75-
million-hermosa-students/]
HBSCD needs to have open and public leadership on this issue. I support a facilities bond and
the district needs funds right away not promises of funds over 30 years.
The royalties and benefits that E&B will "promise" will not be enough or even close to enough
to meet the costs/funds needed for facilities improvements. I predict that E&B will continue to
confuse voters with their advertisements and their press releases and it will work against your
bond initiative. Unless you provide leadership on your bond initiative and unless you provide a
voice regarding the proposed oil royalties and benefits, E&B will continue to speak on the issue,
on their behalf not yours.
Lastly, I bring to attention excerpts from your Mission: "Fundamental to our Mission are...Staff
participation in decision making, a competent and caring staff, active partnerships with
students, parents and community, and a safe, orderly and attractive
environment." [http://www.hbcsd.org/]
On the HBCSD website you claim to participate "in decision making", I challenge you to
participate. On the HBCSD website you claim to be "an active partner with students, parents
and community", I challenge you to be that active partner. On the HBCSD website you claim for
"a safe, orderly and attractive environment", the children and the families of our community
need you leadership and your voice. I urge you to take public and vocal leadership on this oil
drilling issue and be a leader and partner to the school community - the voting families and the
children that attend your Schools.
I appreciate all the challenges the HBCSD is currently facing. I understand and appreciate the
dedication,the hard work and the commitment of the District Staff, the Board and Teachers.
These issue are not simple.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing a response regarding my letter.
Sincerely
Jose Bacallao
Hermosa Beach, CA
cc: HBCSD Superintendent Pat Escalante, HB City Council, City Manager
From: Jim Prassas <jwprassas@yahoo.com>
To: Carolyn Petty <cpetty@hermosabch.org>
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2014 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Response to inaccurate statements made in Beach Reporter article of Sept. 4, 2014,
"HBCSD calls for support of upcoming bond measure..."
Hi Carolyn,
I went to every FPAC meeting and GKK meeting (but one or two) and spoke numerous times at school board
meetings and wrote countless emails to Pat Escalante, SB members and City Council members. I have done
research and read articles and considered all aspects of our facility options. I went to all those meetings and spoke at
so many of them precisely because I DO CARE about our kids and this community! I am committed to our school
district creating a plan and a bond that make sense, based on facts not spin and that is data driven with a clear plan. I
am committed to the community knowing the true facts and not just the spin that the school board and
superintendent put out. More than anyone, I wish the school board members and superintendent had listened to the
public. I can think of a lot of other things I'd rather be doing right now and over the last 21 months than attending
all those meetings and writing letters to you and to the newspapers about the inaccuracies of district statements and
the shortcomings of their facilities decision making process!
You are definitely entitled to your opinion of me and my efforts and to vote however you see fit; that's what
democracy is all about.
Sincerely,
Miyo
On Monday, September 8, 2014 1:49 PM, Carolyn Petty <cpetty@hermosabch.org> wrote:
Miyo
I understand that you consider yourself to be a watchdog. But at any point in time do you ever
consider that supporting education is vital to our future?
Your animosity towards the school is staggering to me. My kids are in school and I directly see
the effects of overcrowding. Kids are stuffed into rooms not intended for the capacity. They are
educated in trailers. Rooms are converted into classrooms because we don't have enough
space. There are literally too many kids for the Valley campus. I bet if we analyzed how many
bathrooms are required for the number of kids we would find we don't have enough of those
either.
Lunch lines are so long if kids don't get in there fast enough they don't get lunch in time to eat.
They can't run around enough in the yard and act like kids because there are so many kids there
are space issues so the monitors control their activities.
Your vitriol towards the children goes way beyond what is reasonable and could be considered
"watchdog."
I wonder if you would have the same position if your kids were younger and were directly
experiencing what is going on. I know your kids are grown so it doesn't affect you. You even
told us that - that you already got your benefit from the schools so it doesn't matter to you
anymore. But there are thousands of kids that are currently or will be affected. How do you care
so little for others. It is disappointing.
You could and should do good for our community and be constructive and work towards
solutions. Not berate, badger and criticize everyone associated with the school.
Carolyn
From: Jim Prassas <jwprassas@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 1:33 PM
Subject: Response to inaccurate statements made in Beach Reporter article of Sept. 4, 2014, "HBCSD
calls for support of upcoming bond measure..."
Hello all,
Below is a response to the inaccurate statements attributed to Superintendent Pat Escalante and comments
attributed to FPAC chairperson Monique Eshan in the article in The Beach Reporter last week, September 4,
2014 "HBCSD calls for support of upcoming bond measure...". I have attached several documents which support
my claims. The portions that are highlighted in yellow below are direct quotes taken from the attached documents.
Sincerely,
Miyo Prassas
1. “She [Pat Escalante] added that with City Council support and a citizen’s oversight
committee, this bond [compared to Measure J] would have additional checks and balances.”
That is an incorrect statement. The last bond, Measure J, had City Council support and a
citizen’s oversight committee. THOSE are not additional checks and balances with this
bond. To my knowledge there are NO additional checks and balances with this bond.
2. “A middle school is required to have a gym…”
That is incorrect. Please see attached: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/standardsrdtable.asp
“Some school components contained in Title 5 (e.g., gym, multipurpose room) are not
mandated.”
3. “The bond would give our schools everything they need to make our campuses secure, to
bring them into the 21st century, make them safe, get the space we need.”
There is no guarantee of this. Funds can be wasted or poorly allocated. All bond money
could go to tearing down and rebuilding North School, North School furnishings, building
a new district administration building, extensive technology expenditures (Please see
attached Voter Pamphlet Full Text Ballot, Exhibit B) with little left over to improve Valley
or View schools.
“Based on the final costs of each project, certain projects described above may be delayed or may not be
undertaken.”
4. “However, Escalante said that protections are built into the measure, including a citizen’s
oversight committee to track how money is spent.”
The citizen’s oversight committee has NO power to control spending. The committee only
assures that bond funds are expended in the fashion outlined in the district’s bond
resolution, it does not prevent overspending, wasted dollars, and costly mistakes.
There are no other “protections” built into the measure only disclaimers (See #3).
5. “Long-term facilities plans project a 20-year trend of rising or consistent enrollment
numbers…”
That is an incorrect statement. There were two demographic studies presented. The first,
Decision Instie Executive Report, showed data from 2000 to 2022. That does not
PROJECT 20-years, it PROJECTS 10-years from 2013 to 2022.
See attached Decision Insite Executive Report of Jan 2013. This report was given to
Facility Planning Advisory Committee members at their first meeting. The original
handouts can be found on the district website, http://www.hbcsd.org/.
Page 5 of the Decision Insite Executive Report shows that in 2022 there will be 3,750
students in the district. At June 11, 2014 our enrollment was 1,433 students. Therefore
this report predicts that the number of students will more than double in 8 years which
seems VERY UNLIKELY. In addition page 6 reports that in 2012 there were 1,763
children ages 5 to 14 in the district however the actual enrollment count that year as of
September 11, 2012 was 1,398 students attending Hermosa schools, a difference of 365
students, the size of a small school.
A new, updated 10-year demographic study by Decision Insite was presented to the school
board in the fall of 2013. See attached power point slides. It projected a slight
DECREASE in student enrollment through 2023.
6. “… and the California legislature is considering mandatory transitional kindergarten for
4-year olds which would also increase the HBCSD enrollment.”
This is an incorrect statement. The transitional kindergarten is NOT mandatory and may
not increase HBCSD enrollment. See attached SB 837 FAQs and Summer Update
highlighted areas.
Must children attend TK under SB 837?
No. TK is a voluntary program for all four-year-old children. As with kindergarten, parents can choose whether to
enroll their children in TK.
School districts are encouraged to contract with existing preschool providers to expand high-quality TK for all 4
year olds.
Must school districts find space on all existing elementary school campuses for TK?
Not necessarily. SB 837 allows local districts and charters to contract with non-profits and private providers to
provide TK, so long as the program meets required quality standards. Private providers would have to provide the
program in facilities that meet existing standards for serving 4-year-olds.
The Summer Update to SB 837 states that in June 2014 the California legislature decided to
ONLY allocate additional funds for professional development among other things, it did
NOT increase the requirements TK education for school districts.
SB 837, which was amended to implement the $25 million in professional development
allocated in the 2014-15 budget bill, has been incorporated into the budget clean-up
legislation. The budget clean-up bills, AB 1480 and SB 876, include the details that were in
SB 837, including $25 million in professional development support for transitional
kindergarten and state preschool teachers, $10 million for facilities, an increase in the
regional market rate (RMR) and new transitional kindergarten teacher requirements.
Committee to Restore Hermosa Schools
2629 Manhattan Ave., #104
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
October 13, 2014
Dear neighbor,
Measure Q, on the November 4th ballot, is a $54 million dollar tax on Hermosa Beach property
owners by our school district - the largest tax increase in Hermosa Beach history.
The Committee to Restore Hermosa Schools is a grassroots organization. Our goal is to
provide you with the facts about Measure Q so that you can make an informed decision on
November 4th.
While we agree that Hermosa students deserve uncrowded classrooms and that it is
necessary to pass a bond, Measure Q doesn’t add up.
• This $54 million bond is the maximum allowable district debt; it is not the cost of building
classrooms. According to the Facilities Master Plan, the estimated cost to renovate three
schools is a much lower amount.
• Measure Q is a laundry list of all possible expenditures the school board can make
with no guarantee of how bond funds will be spent or what will actually be accomplished.
• The school board’s oversight committee has no power to prioritize projects or control
spending.
• The proposed demolition and reconstruction of North School includes the probable use of
Valley Park open space for new buildings, drop off and pick up lanes, and a large
parking lot.
We have enclosed more detailed information on Measure Q. Please go to our website,
www.restorehermosaschools.com, for information regarding actual ballot language, mapping of
proposed buildings/parking lot in Valley Park, videos of Board meetings, and the history of our
facilities.
Your vote on November 4th will send a message to our school board. This $54 million
dollar tax will have an enormous impact on our community for decades to come. We believe
that Hermosa Beach taxpayers deserve a thorough and transparent investigation of all
facilities options, and a bond with specific and prioritized plans.
Sincerely,
Marie Rice
Chairperson
Committee to Restore Hermosa Schools
HBCSD Bond Measure Q - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Presented by the Committee to Restore Hermosa Schools
What is Measure Q?
Measure Q is a $54 million dollar tax by the Hermosa Beach City School District. It is the maximum amount that the
district can legally ask from voters. There is no itemized list of projects that equals $54 million dollars in the Facilities
Master Plan. In fact, the district is not legally bound by the Facilities Master Plan, only the intentionally vague bond
language.
How did the district come up with the project list for Measure Q?
The project list is not associated with any particular plan, nor is it prioritized. Per the bond underwriter’s suggestion, it is
a laundry list of all possible expenditures so that the district will have the legal authority to do ANY of the items listed.
The potential expenditures include a new district administration building, the possibility of completely demolishing and
rebuilding North School, and paving over a large portion of Valley Park to build a parking lot.
What will the community get if the $54 million dollar bond passes?
We won’t know until all the money is spent. The bond was written in purposefully vague language. No specific plan has
yet been identified. In the district’s own words, they want us to “trust them” with the “option to have options.” The voter
pamphlet merely offers a laundry list of all possible expenditures with no assigned priorities and no guarantee on how
funds will be used. As the bond disclaimer states, “Based on the final costs of each project, certain projects described
above may be delayed or may not be undertaken.”
What are the powers of Measure Q’s Citizens’ Oversight Committee?
A citizen’s oversight committee only has NO power to control spending or prioritize the projects undertaken with bond
funds. It only verifies that bond funds are spent on the items listed in the bond resolution. It has no oversight to prevent
wasted dollars, over spending or costly mistakes.
Can Measure Q funds be used to pay for teacher salaries and educational supplies?
No. It can only be used for construction of new buildings or repairs to existing buildings and furnishings.
Does the Hermosa Beach City School District have a track record of completing their projects within budget?
No. The original amount of $13.6 million dollars for Measure J projects went over budget by approximately $5 million
dollars while many other promised improvements such as additional classrooms and reconfigured parking lots and pick
up and drop off lanes were eliminated. Moreover, the gymnasium was built without a fire suppressant system which cost
the district thousands of additional dollars to fix.
What are the impacts to our community of the proposed plan for North School?
The district’s Facilities Master Plan contains three options for rebuilding North School to house 500 students. The North
School site was never intended to house 500 students; it is sized for less than 300 students. The twice-daily impact of
500 students and 25+ staff on streets in the area will be significant. No studies have been done to ascertain the impact
of the additional traffic at the intersection of Gould Avenue and Morningside Street or at the intersection of Gould, Valley
Drive and Ardmore. The decision to rebuild North School was made despite the district’s demographic study which
projects the majority of our population lives in South Hermosa.
There are four options in the Facility Master Plan to rebuild North School that include a large parking lot with pick-up and
drop-off lanes located in the North West area of Valley Park. The proposed parking lot would destroy a huge portion of
Valley Park which is now zoned as open space, and would require the removal of more than 20 mature trees. The
soccer field at Valley Park would also be fenced off to secure it for campus use.
Lastly, the district is a completely separate entity from the city. HBCSD can build whatever it wants on its own property
which includes a large portion of Valley Park. HBCSD is NOT bound by city building ordinances such as building height
limits and set-back requirements.
How did our current enrollment surpass our facilities capacity?
Since 1973 HBCSD has sold off or leased out 20.4 acres of school property (40% of its land holdings) and 70,000
square feet of school buildings for only $824,000. In 1978, the district sold the 4.7 acre Pier Avenue School, which
includes 14+ classrooms, auditorium, gym, drop off/pick up area, parking, tennis courts with access to the baseball field
and basketball courts to the city for $650,000 with a 50 year lease back option through 2028. In 2005, the district chose
to use Measure J tax dollars to build the gymnasium rather than the additional classrooms at Valley and View campuses,
reopen Pier Avenue School or renovate and reopen North School. What other options are available that have not been investigated?
School board members created the Facilities Planning Advisory Committee (FPAC) in January 2013 and gave members
a restricted mandate to only consider rebuilding, swapping or selling North School. The FPAC was prohibited from
investigating any other facility options. Some of the options that require further investigation and consideration include:
South School, Prospect Heights, and leasing back the 14+ classroom Pier Avenue School. How long will it take to open North School?
It could take up to five years before students can sit in classrooms at North School. Creating a set of plans with
architects could easily take up to one year as they did for the new construction at Valley in 2004. The plans are then
sent to the Division of State Architects (DSA) for approval which could take 6 months to a year. There could be multiple
revisions considering the complexity of the project and the site constraints. For example, each of the three plans to
rebuild North School show an 11 to 14 classroom building built over and straddling the sand dune at Valley Park. Next a
Coastal Commission Environmental Impact Report is required. The use of opens space at Valley Park to build a parking
lot could encounter community objections which could delay the project. Lastly plans would be sent out to bid,
necessary approvals made and another year or more spent for construction. What did the district do with the last school improvement bond, $13.6M Bond Measure J, passed in 2002?
The bond language on the face of Measure J stated that it would “ … finance classroom modernization, upgrade
electrical systems to improve access to technology; make health, safety and security improvements; upgrade plumbing,
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; construct classrooms and science labs; acquire property... “. Measure
J was sold as a bond to build 12 additional classrooms at Valley and View school. After extensive community
involvement and countless meetings the district moved forward to build a gymnasium, replace the library and build two
new science labs. The new science labs replaced two existing portable classrooms (of three) that were removed for the
gymnasium. No new, additional classrooms were constructed. What if Measure Q does not pass?
Defeating Measure Q will convince the district to hire facility planning professionals who would examine our future
demographic trends, community land use, traffic patterns, etc. in depth and examine all facility options in a fair and
balanced manner to create a meaningful public process and discussion. The end result would be a full examination
comparing the pros and cons of all our facility options. A bond with specific project items - listed by priority with cost
estimates could then be created with a realistic total for the project. A new bond that is transparent and accountable will
have the support and confidence of Hermosa voters and could be put on the ballot in the next major election.
How much will Measure Q cost a property owner in Hermosa Beach?
Interest can more than double the final cost of a bond, so that a $54 million bond can easily cost $120 million dollars or
more by the time we finish paying it off in 25 to 40 years. In addition, taxpayers are still paying for the $13.6 million
dollar bond, Measure J, which with interest is projected to total $29 million when finally paid off in 2031. When Measure
J is paid off in 2031 it will have cost a property owner with a $1 million assessed value (not the appraised amount)
approximately $5,012.00. Measure Q, if paid off in 35 years, will cost a property owner with a $1 million assessed value
approximately $10,500.00 in additional property tax.
For more information please visit www.restorehermosaschools.com
Hermosa Beach City School District
Facilities Needs Presentation
Measure Q
Hermosa Beach City SD
District Overview
Over 100 years of educating Hermosa Beach Children
2
Hermosa Beach City School District has a 104 long history
Approximately 1,470 students, K – 8, using two of the
three District school sites (Hermosa Valley and Hermosa
View)
72 dedicated teachers and 40 staff
Both schools have been recognized as a
California Distinguished Schools in 2014 and
Hermosa View School was a National Blue
Ribbon School in 2005.
Hermosa Beach schools have served the
community well, but today are severely
overcrowded and showing their age.
3
While Our
Academic
Performance
Shows a Quality
Education…
4
…Our Schools are
Severely
Overcrowded
Without
Classroom Space
to Place Students
Hermosa Beach City SD Six schools down to two schools
The school’s stage at Valley has been
converted into a makeshift classroom
In the 1950s, the District had annual
enrollment of 1,430 students at six school
sites. Today, the District educates 1,470
students but only at two schools
5
Overcrowding
The multipurpose room at View has been divided in
half; one side into two classrooms with no wall to
separate classes, the other side a computer lab
Hermosa Beach City SD Overcrowding is at a critical point in the District
6
Single classrooms are split in two to
accommodate overcrowding
Portable trailer classrooms
have taken over parking lots
Overcrowding
Hermosa Beach City SD
Overcrowding
Students and staff have nowhere else to go
7
Temporary portable classrooms
need to be replaced
District Office staff are
currently in the
maintenance yard building
A closet is the new
therapy room, which
had to make way for
instructional space
8
And While Our
Schools Look
Good on the
Outside…
9
…the Average
Age of our
Schools is over 70
Years Old.
Hermosa Beach City SD
Antiques Road Show
Antique fixtures show just how old the site is.
Fire alarms show the
age of the facilities Antiquated
electrical systems
10
Outdated lighting while
neat, is not energy efficient
Hermosa Beach City SD
Antiques Road Show
Antique fixtures show just how old the site is.
Plumbing systems from
another era
Antiquated facilities
and fixtures
Outdated electrical
systems
11
12
Like our
fixtures and
equipment, our
infrastructure is
also old and
outdated.
Hermosa Beach City SD 50-70 year old infrastructure needs to be renovated
Deteriorating plumbing
systems must be renovated Old HVAC units need to
be replaced with energy
efficient models
13
Site Facility Needs
Hermosa Beach City SD 50-70 year old infrastructure needs to be renovated
Dry rot and wood damage
needs replacing
Energy inefficient
lighting should be
upgraded
14
Site Facility Needs
Roofing needs to be
replaced or repaired
Hermosa Beach City SD
Site Facility Needs
Health and safety improvements must be made
15
Inadequate electrical systems don’t
meet today’s technological needs Electrical systems must
be upgraded
Hermosa Beach City SD
Site Facility Needs
Aging facilities need to modernized
16
Restrooms need to
be modernized
Inadequate electrical
systems need to be
upgraded
Old and energy
inefficient windows
need to be replaced
Hermosa Beach City SD
Site Facility Needs
Health and safety improvements must be made
17
Student security/safety
must be improved Deteriorating surfaces and
floors at North School need
to be repaired or replaced
Hermosa Beach City SD
Site Facility Needs
New, renovated facilities to benefit the school and community
18
Improve student access to
computers and modern
technology
Construct/Renovate the
library for school and
community use
Upgrade science and technology
labs for 21st century learning
Hermosa Beach City SD
Process to Measure Q
District can generate $54 million in G.O. bond proceeds
Over the last two years and with over 40 public meetings, with input from staff,
teachers, parents, community leaders, an education facilities architect, and City
Planner and Community Development Director, the District has prepared a 118-
page Long Range Facilities Master Plan that memorializes the process, and
contains a needs and cost analysis.
A Facilities Planning Advisory Committee was created to review the issue of
overcrowding and where to place the overflow of students.
Specific projects from the Needs Analysis include:
•Reopen North School as an elementary school (current use lease by preschool)
•Repairing/replacing aging roofs
•Upgrading inadequate electrical systems
•Renovating deteriorating plumbing and sewer systems
•Improving student access to modern technology
19
Hermosa Beach City SD
Needs Assessment Summary - Valley
Reopen North School and Upgrade View and Valley Schools
20
$11,231,971 2014 average
Hermosa Beach City SD
Needs Assessment Summary - View
21
Reopen North School and Upgrade View and Valley Schools
$ 18,612,935 - $23,037,500 2014
Hermosa Beach City SD
Needs Assessment Summary - North
22
Reopen North School and Upgrade View and Valley Schools
$ 25,600,099 – $30,271,237 2014
Hermosa Beach City SD
Measure Q
District can generate $54 million in G.O. bond proceeds
G.O. bonds fund projects such as the renovation of existing classrooms
and school facilities, as well as construction of new schools and
classrooms. Similar to a home loan, G.O. bonds are typically repaid over
30 years.
The loan repayment comes from a tax on all taxable property -
residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial - located within the
District’s boundaries.
The tax rate per property owner is estimated to be $29.50 per $100,000
of assessed valuation per year. (Do not confuse assessed valuation with
market value. Assessed valuations are the value placed on property by
the County and are typically lower than market values). You can check
your property tax statement for your current assessed valuation.
23
Hermosa Beach City SD
Hermosa Beach School Measure History
A History of Supporting Hermosa Beach Schools
24
Has the District ever passed a school improvement measure?
Yes. In 1954, 60 years ago, District voters approved a measure to address
outdated classrooms and overcrowded schools. The tax rate from that
measure was projected to be $380.00 per $100,000 of assessed value. It has
long been paid off.
In 2002, District voters passed Measure J with 64.7% voter support. The tax
rate for those bonds is much lower at $17.97 per $100,000 of assessed value
(only 5% of the 1954 rate). Funds from that measure were used to make the
most critical upgrades and renovations as well as construct a new
gymnasium and science specialty lab classrooms.
Today’s Measure Q would finish the work started by upgrading our two
existing schools and relieving overcrowding by reopening North School
after much-needed renovation and/or new construction. It is expected that
the majority of the improvements will last for the next 40-60 years.
Hermosa Beach City SD
Neighboring District’s Passing Measures
South Bay districts have been supportive of schools
Hermosa Beach City
School District has passed
one bond measure while
our neighboring districts
have each passed at least
three over the last 20 years
The average tax rate
among South Bay districts
is $75.06 per $100,000 of
assessed value
25
Add table
in 2005
26
Questions on
Measure Q?
HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
LONG RANGE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
JUNE 16, 2014
EMPOWERING STUDENTS FOR SUCCESS
PROGRAM COSTS
Hermosa Beach City School District Facilities Master Plan 2014 108
HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTPROGRAM COSTSHermosa Beach City
School District (HBCSD)
1645 Valley DriveHermosa Beach, CA
90254
PROJECT
Hermosa Beach City
School District
Facilities Master Plan
06 16 2014
PREPARED BY
gkkworks
155 South Fair Oaks Ave
Pasadena CA 91105
626 666 6906
109
PROGRAM COSTS
Hermosa Beach City School District Facilities Master Plan 2014 110
7.3 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTPROGRAM COSTSHermosa Beach City
School District (HBCSD)
1645 Valley DriveHermosa Beach, CA
90254
PROJECT
Hermosa Beach City
School District
Facilities Master Plan
06 16 2014
PREPARED BY
gkkworks
155 South Fair Oaks Ave
Pasadena CA 91105
626 666 6906
111
PROGRAM COSTS
Hermosa Beach City School District Facilities Master Plan 2014 116
Valley School
District Office
View School
HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTPROGRAM COSTSHermosa Beach City
School District (HBCSD)
1645 Valley DriveHermosa Beach, CA
90254
PROJECT
Hermosa Beach City
School District
Facilities Master Plan
06 16 2014
PREPARED BY
gkkworks
155 South Fair Oaks Ave
Pasadena CA 91105
626 666 6906
117
North School
Add 2ND Floor to Classroom Building
PROGRAM COSTS
Hermosa Beach City School District Facilities Master Plan 2014 118
Valley School
District Office
View School
HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTPROGRAM COSTSHermosa Beach City
School District (HBCSD)
1645 Valley DriveHermosa Beach, CA
90254
PROJECT
Hermosa Beach City
School District
Facilities Master Plan
06 16 2014
PREPARED BY
gkkworks
155 South Fair Oaks Ave
Pasadena CA 91105
626 666 6906
119
North School
Add 2ND Floor to Classroom Building
PROGRAM COSTS
Hermosa Beach City School District Facilities Master Plan 2014 120
Valley School
District Office
View School
HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTPROGRAM COSTSHermosa Beach City
School District (HBCSD)
1645 Valley DriveHermosa Beach, CA
90254
PROJECT
Hermosa Beach City
School District
Facilities Master Plan
06 16 2014
PREPARED BY
gkkworks
155 South Fair Oaks Ave
Pasadena CA 91105
626 666 6906
121
North School
Add 2ND Floor to Classroom Building