EIR
Home ] Up ]

 

Beverly Vista EIR Analysis.

Below is a portion of my analysis as to why the Board made the correct decision in keeping at least part of Building B, as well as demolishing Buildings A and D.

Unweighted Analysis (giving benefit of all

doubts to preservation).

Demolish

Renovate All

Hybrid

A, B and D

(keep A, B and D)

(keep key parts of B)

Program issues

9

3

8

(classroom size & layout, &
segregation of middle school students)
Economic prudence

9

3

6

(avoid cost overruns -- we have no taxing authority)

(could be 1)

(could be 8)

Aesthetic/environmental issues

3

9

7

(assuming we mitigate)

(could be 10)

Speed/timeliness

3

9

7

(BV has already suffered severly &

(could be 5)

for far too long)
Totals

24

24

28

 

Weighted Analysis

Demo A, B, D

Renovate All

Hybrid

(keep A, B and D)

(keep key parts of B)

Program issues

9

3

8

(classroom size & layout, &

times 5

times 5

times 5

segregation of middle school students)

45

15

40

Economic prudence

9

3

6

(avoid cost overruns -- we have no taxing authority)

times 3

times 3

times 3

27

9

18

Aesthetic/environmental issues

3

9

7

(assuming we mitigate)

times 3

times 3

times 3

9

27

21

Speed/timeliness

3

9

7

(BV has already suffered severly &

times 2

times 2

times 2

for far too long)

6

18

14

Weighted Totals

87

69

93

 

More BV EIR Analysis — below is the first part of my presentation to the public regarding my analysis of the best course of action as to the buildings at BV.

First, I would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to give us their views,
both previously and tonight. I have read all of your letters and spoken
with many of you personally. I am proud to live in a community where so many
people care so passionately about our schools.
I can also understand the anger that many people on both sides feel about the debacle
that has unfolded since Buildings A, B and D were closed almost 4 years ago.
It is inexcusable that this has taken so long!
The EIR process should have begun in the fall of 1995,
construction should have commenced in June of 1996,
and the kids should have been back in state of the art buildings when school started this year.
Instead, we still have not even completed the EIR process.
Tonight, the time has come to resolve what the District is going to do about BV and I
believe that we owe it to the public to give them a complete answer tonight.
I believe that this is the most important decision that this Board will ever make. What we decide
tonight will affect children for a long time. Over the next 50 years or more,
children, parents, teachers, staff, and the community will either benefit or suffer from
the decisions that we make tonight and as the process proceeds after tonight.
I also believe that this is a situation where a carefully considered intermediate
solution will provide the best long term outcome for our schools and our community.
The staff has provided a solution that provudes what I believe to be best
After elected, I asked the Superintendent about the feasibility of rehabbing the old buildings.
I was told that not feasible to save ANY of the 3 buildings that were closed,
i.e. Blds. A, B or D --
large outside pillars that would destroy the historic look of the buildings &
loss of >20% of space.
The EIR was a BIG surprise for me, because it was directly
contrary to what I had been told.
I now believe that rehabbing the
existing buildings is feasible, based on the EIR and on my discussions
with the architects and engineer.
However, we are not required to rehab the buildings merely because this is feasible.
Our duty as a Board is to take all relevant factors into account in deciding what will
be best for the district and the community in the long run.
There is room for reasonable people to differ in weighing these factors.
All that each member of this Board can do is try to weigh the factors as best we can,
on a building by building basis and taking into account the relationships among the
buildings.
I am not an architect, but I have spent hours just looking at the facades of buildings A, B and D,
trying to quantify what makes each fašade interesting and trying to appreciate the beauty of
each building, and how each building relates to the other buildings and to the neighborhood.
I have also spent some time studying the history of Romanesque Revival architecture,
so that I can most fully appreciate the historical significance of each building.
My subjective impression is that the most interesting and beautiful facades are as follows, in
the following order:
Bld. B facades facing Charleville and Rexford (including bell tower)
Bld. A facade facing Elm
Bld. D limited fašade facing Elm
Bld. B fašade facing Elm
The staff's plan saves the 2 most interesting and beautiful facades (in my subjective opinion)
I agree that these are all beautiful buildings. I also believe that they are all
historically significant.
I would vote to restore and preserve all three of these buildings IF we could substantially
meet the key program needs of the school. However, for reasons that I will outline in a
moment, I have concluded that we cannot meet such needs without almost completely gutting
such buildings at a cost exceeding $22 million and even then, I have doubts as to whether
we could meet the program needs as optimally as with $18 million or so of new construction.
We have four other schools in this district and I think that it would be folly to spend this much
extra money on gutting the buildings, even if I did not have serious doubts as to whether
we would adequately meet our program needs after spending such extra money.
To summarize, I love and appreciate the old buildings, but I believe that the educational
needs of our children must take precedence and that gutting is not a prudent
alternative.
Key program issues -- class size and configuration = #1 by far -- we need to
assume that whatever we do should be functional for 50 years or more and
need to provide for both our current program and future programs that we
cannot predict because technology may, in the future, result in larger class size,
as educators rely on ultrasophisticated computers or some other futureistic
strategy that this Board cannot predict.
Also, I am not that impressed by the state standards for classroom size --
I think that we can and should usually try to exceed any state standard by at
least 10% and believe that we would be foolish and hypocritical not to seriously
study this issue and not leave this decision solely to our architects.
After EIR adopted, need to have serious discussion with architects and
educators about this.
4b. Question -- can meet program needs? -- must analyze on bld by bld basis

Home ] Up ] [ EIR ] Renovation ] Bungalow Safety ] Demo ceremony ]