The La Cañada Unified School District Board of Education heard an update about modernizations and improvements at each elementary site, including a project at Paradise Canyon Elementary School, during its Nov. 14 meeting regarding an update on the renovation of a few buildings.
Linik Corp, a consultant who manages various projects, updated the Board on a few changes that were needed to continue the project at PCY, since the estimated cost of renovation exceeds 50% of the cost to replace the building.
Phase I of the project has been completed, according to Linik Corp Program Director Harold Pierre, where the consultants have bought temporary portables for students to use during the construction. Phase II started in the summer with the demolition of buildings P and N to then start construction on new buildings consisting of 20 classrooms.
Phase III, which originally included the renovation of classroom buildings J, H, D, E and F, is now due to change because of increasing costs.
Currently at the design development stage, and during each stage, the consultants do a cost estimate.
“The estimate for the renovation of each of these buildings currently exceeds 50% replacement value of the building,” said Pierre.
According to a California Administrative Code, a complete rehabilitation of the building is required to bring the building into conformance with current seismic safety standards and if the project exceeds 50% of the replacement value of the building, “that does create a lot of complication, especially for buildings over 50 years old, which is what we have now at PCY.”
Now, the consultants are required to consider a replacement for those buildings, and gave the Board options on what that might entail for PCY.
The three options that were presented would continue the renovation of building J and H, but replace building F, D and E.
Pierre presented option 1 with a price tag of $16.3 million. This option would include the lowest carbon footprint compared to the others, however, energy use is the same among all options. Option 1 entails single-story buildings arranged in a horseshoe fashion for fire access. Each building would hold about five classrooms, a restroom and storage, with a total of 15 classrooms.
Meanwhile, option 2 includes two two-story buildings and one single-story, which would also hold 15 classrooms total and cost $18.2 million.
Lastly, option 3 would be very similar to option two but would move a portion of the classrooms to the west side and would cost $18.5 million.
Pierre said that the two-story options would provide a more efficient way of stacking the classrooms but does limit the school site because only third graders and older are allowed to go on the second floor.
Solar panels will also be integrated on the roofs of the buildings, regardless of what option is picked.
Board member Dan Jeffries jumped in to offer what officials might provide feedback on, including whether the district wanted to continue to renovate the building or build a new one, and what option would best support the school.
“If we look at the difference between the price of renovating an old building and building a new building and see that they are close enough, we get all the benefits by building a new building,” Jeffries said.
Board President Joe Radabaugh asked for the estimated costs for renovation versus the construction of new buildings.
The original estimate for renovation of F, D and E plus the construction on building Q is about $13 million, while option one is $16.3 million and option two and three sit around $18 million.
The Board agreed that construction of brand-new buildings would be best since Pierre informed them that it would be more energy efficient, and they could be built to current code.
“Why did the renovations make sense at Palm Crest and they’re not really making as much sense at Paradise Canyon?” asked Jeffries.
Pierre said that Palm Crest Elementary faced a different issue. Though the cost was getting closer to the 50% replacement value, the school had a previous seismic upgrade done back in 1996.
Radabaugh asked about the timeline for completion, and if constructing new buildings would affect that significantly.
“The new construction will take a little bit longer,” said Pierre. “I would say at least six months longer for the construction period.”
Radabaugh clarified that while enough funding has been authorized for the project, the money might not be available on time.
“With the current bond, we can pay for this, but we have to still make some choices,” he said.
After some discussion from the Board, they agreed that option 1 would be the best when thinking about cost and outcome for the students, unless the PCY staff or committee stakeholders think otherwise.
“One of the things I don’t like about a two-story building is that the kids on the upper floor can’t get right out, you can’t sit outside the classroom or have your stuff outside the classroom,” said Jeffries.
After getting Board direction, staff is scheduled to meet with PCY staff and the committee of stakeholders to get feedback. Staff will then return to the Board with updates at the December meeting, Superintendent Wendy Sinnette said.
First published in the November 23 print issue of the Outlook Valley Sun.
