Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board leans toward voluntary seismic upgrades for five buildings to balance safety and budget
Loading...
Summary
District consultants presented seismic eligibility findings for five buildings and estimated a voluntary seismic strengthening at roughly $1.7 million versus a full upgrade near $10 million (with possible state funding). The board directed staff toward the voluntary (risk‑management) approach to preserve bond resources for broader needs.
District consultants told the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified board that structural surveys have identified five buildings as potentially seismically vulnerable (MiraLeste library and locker room; Peninsula High library and lunch shelter; Palos Verdes High multipurpose building). The consultants outlined three options: do nothing, a voluntary seismic strengthening, or a full seismic upgrade that meets current code and would be substantially more intrusive.
Alan Reising and program staff said a voluntary seismic upgrade is estimated at a rough order of magnitude of about $1.7 million (for the multipurpose building example), a level that improves performance without triggering full-code obligations. By contrast, a full seismic upgrade could cost about $10 million on that building; staff estimated roughly $6 million of state support might be available under the seismic program, leaving several million in additional local costs.
Consultants explained the multi‑step state process for securing seismic funding—site assessments, Division of State Architect concurrence, design and cost-estimate review with the Office of Public School Construction, and phased release of funds—and cautioned that state dollars only cover work directly related to seismic repairs.
Board members and members of the district’s operations advisory committee generally favored the voluntary option to improve building performance while preserving bond dollars for a broader set of repairs across the district. "Doing nothing is not an option," one OAC member said, but OAC feedback and board discussion emphasized risk prioritization and the need to avoid spending so much on a few buildings that other promised projects would be cut.
Next steps: Staff requested direction to proceed with designs consistent with the voluntary seismic approach and to bring back refined cost estimates and state-application analysis.
