Subsequent to a flurry of public input on various issues surrounding the construction of new facilities on Hermosa Valley campus, the Hermosa Beach School Board June 9 voted to move forward with its newly revised construction plan, the bulk of it encompassing a new gym, two classrooms and a library. The School Board also voted to direct the district’s architecture firm Dougherty & Dougherty to devise a proposal for the construction of three additional classrooms as a bid alternate to the plan.

According to the plan, architects rotated the gym about 90 degrees just right up against the hillside with a dance room and a weight machine room erected on the first level directly adjacent yet connected to the structure of the gym on the east side wall. Architects also earmarked space for three new classrooms if the School District chooses to build them in the future when funds become available. On the first level of the gym, the plan design calls for several structures that include boys and girls dressing rooms, offices for coaches, a storage room and restrooms (both student and staff), which is located along the north side of the gym’s wall. The second level will hold two new science classrooms. The new campus library, a separate structure, will stand north of the new weight and dance rooms.

“We’ve done a few things with the plan, we reduced the square footage of the buildings as directed,” said Brian Dougherty of Dougherty & Dougherty. “We maintained the size of the gym since we were asked to accommodate two volleyball courts and a high school-size basketball court. On the ground floor we have two P.E. classrooms which are designed to be basically regular classrooms so that in the future they can be reprogrammed for non-P.E. activities as well. The library was reduced by about 500 square feet, but in doing that what we essentially did was take out conference space that we had in this case before so net affected space for the library use as truly library use is essentially the same. It’s about 2,000 square feet, which is a bit larger than the existing library space we have now.”

Last month, the School Board voted to reduce the scope of Hermosa Valley School’s new construction plan (including the loss of two new classrooms) in the hopes of staying within budget. The main issue raised in mid-May was how to maintain the essence of the original project promised to voters with the approval of Measure “J” while remaining in budget.

In November 2002, voters approved the $13.6 million local general obligation bond subject to safeguards and guidelines of the state’s Proposition 39.

The bond funds, comprising an estimated 85 percent of improvement projects, will upgrade some buildings dating back to the 1950s, but it also provided the School District with added funds (approximately $3 million) to negotiate for property acquisition.

The district received $9.6 million up front. It will receive $1.9 million in 2008 and $2.1 million in 2013.

Since late April, the district has approved a budget of about $8.9 million with $2 million in new construction soft costs (testing, architecture fees, bond counsel, legal fees, etc.), and $6.9 million in total new construction costs at Hermosa Valley School. The district has already spent about $1.7 million in soft costs at Valley. District officials have also awarded about $4.1 million in bid packages for Valley’s modernization projects. Among Valley’s modernization soft costs the district awarded about $1.1 million in contracts. At Hermosa View School, the district has budgeted about $1.6 million in total construction costs in the form of bid packages with a budgeted forecast amount of roughly $1.7 million. Some of this funding for such projects will come through state revenue sources rather than Measure “J.”

At Monday’s meeting, former School Board member Mary Lou Weiss voiced her concern on the loss of two new classrooms with the new plan.

“We are short two classrooms, and I think P.E. can run outside and it can go on; I truly feel you’re missing the boat by not building these two classrooms,” she said. “You’ve got funds to do it and I say delay the gym. Part of Proposition “J” was the purchase of property and it hasn’t happened and people bought into that. All I’m saying is build the classrooms and delay the gym.”

School Board member Cathy McCurdy responded to her former colleague’s comments by addressing the unforeseen issues related to the purchase of adjacent land.

“We were supposed to buy land, it was our intent to buy but if you can’t buy it does that mean we stop and do nothing?” said McCurdy. “We bought into it as well.”

In order to come in under budget by roughly $3 million, the School Board had to shave off around $800,000 to $1 million and did so by reducing the size of the plan by about 2,500 square feet. The architects presented the School Board with a formula of each square foot costing about $275. The price of one square foot is estimated to be between $253 and $275, and the School Board worked with the higher of the two ends. A reduction in the plan by 2,500 square feet at $275 per square foot totals about $687,000. Dougherty recommended the School Board choose alternatives that didn’t have to immediately absorb the estimated $800,000 to $1 million exactly but that it just come within striking distance of the total amount. In actuality, the School Board had to absorb a smaller amount ($800,000 to $1 million) of the $3 million over budget. The Dougherty architects resolved the remaining amount in-house and estimated $2 million remaining by shifting around aspects of the plan that could be eliminated or altered such as moving the gym out of the hillside, which does reduce the area of open space but saved the district $1 million.

“I went to school here years ago and we didn’t have a gym but amazing P.E. teachers,” said nearby resident, Valley alumnus and parent of a future Valley student Jani Lange. “Since then, athletes from this very school have gone to high school and respective colleges to win countless athletic titles and that’s without a gym. So I’m eagerly waiting to see what kind of Olympic athletes we’ll have once the gym is built. Aside from parking, other areas of concern that we have are: (several among the list) the late-night usage of the gym, the number of people who will be using it, the weekend use of it, the kind of nonschool-related events, the lack of control over unsanctioned usage. A temporary solution I came up with is a noise Conditional Use Permit drafted by the School Board, the community and the city. The CUP can either make or break a project and I think this is the Band-Aid that will bring the whole plan together.”

According to Robert Stewart of PCM3, the district’s construction management firm, the School District has anticipated contingency estimates with 5 percent on new construction and 10 percent on modernization projects, which is higher due to more unforeseeable situations common in renovation efforts.

School Board President Linda Beck voted against the new plan at last month’s meeting, expressing concern about losing new classrooms by a total net that dropped from four to two.

The School Board had to cut square footage to a plan that once encompassed a new gym (with changing rooms and an office), a new library, four classrooms (including a weight room and dance room, both located on the bottom floor next to the gym), a newly modified parking lot, student and staff restrooms, and a storage area.

With such a formula, the School Board voted to alter the plan by eliminating two classrooms. The School Board also voted to maintain the gym’s original size, a dimension that accommodates two volleyball courts and one full-length high school-size basketball court and a new library smaller in size – from about 2,500 to roughly 2,000 square feet.

“When I first came here as a superintendent and saw what goes on, on the campus on a daily basis,” said Superintendent Sharon McClain, “we have three physical education programs during the day and I can’t tell which kids are in P.E. and which kids are out on recess. It did not look like a conducive place for teaching P.E. Physical education is the only required course of study in the state of California. It’s required and so we must teach according to standards.”

With this new plan, Dougherty designed spaces for the future addition of the two new classrooms that were incorporated into the original plan along with an additional one.

“Our thought is for future expansion, we’ve allowed for space for the addition of three classrooms,” said Dougherty. “We actually took two classrooms off the previous design and we were asked to try and plan those two classrooms back into the future growth. We actually managed to plan such a space to accommodate three.”

A few members of the meeting rehashed the notion of buying the city’s community center back from the city – once called Pier Avenue School – and relocating the district’s middle school students there. Dougherty addressed the issue and mentioned that based on his own observational assessment, renovating the school would cost more than the district intended on spending in both construction costs and annual operations.

“There are some very significant issues with that school,” said Dougherty, “least of which is buying the school back, which is a whole other issue. From a physical standpoint, and a design standpoint, much of the school is not access-compliant and so there would be a huge investment for that. There are also fair amounts of asbestos-based materials that would have to be taken care of as well. Over time, the standard for the size of a classroom has also changed. Most of the classroom sizes at the school are about 700 square feet and because of how they are configured there is no way to get usable current classroom spaces without essentially demolishing portions of the building.”

The School Board also opted to abandon this scenario due to the annual costs to operate a school at a separate site in the form of salaries in the hiring of a new administration that would run the new campus.

“This has come up a number of times over the last year and a half,” added McCurdy. “We were given a copy of the contract with the city on what our rights are to get that property back. We had discussions with the City Council, the city manager, and we looked at the site. The predominating factor that affected us in our decision-making process to not spend formal dollars to do asbestos testing is that our out-of-pocket General Fund costs to run the gym and the whole campus – and I’m not just talking to maintain – would have far exceeded our budget. We would have wound up doing a lot of program cutting. We were looking at least a $200,000 General Fund hit to reopen that site.”

Based on the square footage formula, PCM3 provided the School Board with very conceptual figures as to what the district might save by either eliminating or changing aspects of the plan. By abridging the student and staff bathrooms, the district saved about $33,000. The School Board also voted to shrink the soon-to-be new library in size from about 2,500 square feet to about 2,000 for possible savings of about $460,000.

By cutting two classrooms (one science room and one standard room) – about 1,900 square feet – the district is expected to reduce the cost by $550,000. Another change to the plan is the reconfiguration of Valley’s parking lot, which by minimizing the changes, the district will cut out $150,000.

Unfortunately, there is always the possibility that even with a scaled-down plan, the architects from Dougherty & Dougherty and representatives from PCM3 might return with project costs that are still over budget. If so, the district might be forced to reduce the gym’s size in the end. The issue of reducing the size of the gym was either don’t reduce it at all or reduce it by 1,300 square feet. The School Board initially thought of a 600-square-foot reduction but Dougherty said such a reduction wouldn’t have made any difference in terms of what it holds as it relates to the standard size of courts. The current size will hold two volleyball courts and a basketball court, but by cutting it down to 600 square feet it will hold just as much as cutting it by 1,300 square feet – one volleyball court and a basketball court similar to a school gym Dougherty designed in Lawndale.

The School Board also discussed its parameters of use for the gym in terms of renting out the space to various nonprofit and recreational groups, a topic it agreed to table for its June 23 meeting that will begin at an earlier time (6 p.m.).

Several residents living on Valley Park Avenue and 18th, 19th and 20th streets located along the westerly portion of campus talked about their concerns in regard to the potential and future use of the gym.

“In the end, you have a fundamental issue, today you have a parking problem with this campus,” said one resident and parent of three kids who lives in the adjacent neighborhood. “You are going to have a real problem with parking with this new proposal. How do you resolve that? Well, you need parking and I don’t know how you get around it, but you have a lot more use of this space. You have limited parking and that’s going to be a part of the Environmental Impact Report. I think the way you get past that is by talking with the neighbors. So I think the answer has to be parking or some negotiation on use so that parking isn’t as big of an issue.”

The School District will generate revenue from renting out gym space to various recreational groups based on the discretion of the School Board with the exception of nonprofit recreation groups that fall under the purview of the Civic Community Act.

According to the California Department of Education, “Every public school facility is considered a civic center where citizens, school-community councils, and clubs as well as senior, recreation, education, political, artistic and other organizations may meet,” states the department’s fact book on public access. “The school district may grant the use of the school facilities and grounds upon certain terms and conditions deemed proper by the governing board, subject to specified limitations, requirements, and restrictions set forth within the law.”

A district policy is already in place for the district open green fields, multipurpose room, classrooms, et al., that are rented out to groups like AYSO soccer. The School Board has complete discretion on whether it wishes to rent out the future gym to other groups precluded from the act’s guidelines.

Modernization projects for Valley began last month and workers have already erected a set of portable classrooms.