LAUSD ADOPTS STRICTER POLLUTION STANDARDS

LAUSD ADOPTS STRICTER POLLUTION STANDARDS

by San Fernando Valley Business Journal Staff

1/28/2008 — The Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education has decided to adopt a more stringent standard than required by California law for building new schools near sources of airborne pollution.

California law prohibits situating new schools within 500 feet of a freeway, with certain exceptions.

The board’s action goes beyond state guidelines and expands the current air quality screening scope from a quarter-mile to a half-mile. The new mandate for air quality analysis will also extend beyond freeways to include oil refineries and rail yards.

“While I know that we have to build more schools, and we are running out of available land, I do not believe it should come at the expense of our children’s ability to breathe. We have a moral obligation to be leaders on this issue,” Board Vice President Flores Aguilar stated.

The board has also directed Superintendent David L. Brewer III to compile a list of existing schools that may pose a health risk due to their proximity to major emission sources. In addition, the Superintendent must develop a plan to reduce exposure for schools that may be at high risk of air pollution, including the identification of public and private funding sources for school site modifications that may be needed, such as improved filtration of indoor air.

▲4LAKid's 10¢ worth: The San Fernando Valley Business Journal points out "California law prohibits situating new schools within 500 feet of a freeway, with certain exceptions.

"The board’s action goes beyond state guidelines and expands the current air quality screening scope from a quarter-mile to a half-mile. The new mandate for air quality analysis will also extend beyond freeways to include oil refineries and rail yards."

I applaud the Board of Education's initiative but worry about the ramifications and unintended consequences of this action. LAUSD's past construction failures are plagued with horror stories of unintended consequences that bit us all - school district, taxpayers, parents and ultimately students - in the proverbial posterior.

As Fred Rogers would've asked: "Can you say Belmont Learning Complex?"

In LAUSD's multi-billion dollar building program the biggest challenge has been and continues to be obtaining land in significant quantity in the areas it is needed to build the schools that are sorely needed. There simply is not enough land where we need it to build the schools we need.

Many compromises have been made in this effort. Waivers from the Ed Code requirements about how much land is needed are routinely obtained as new schools build UP (multi stories) and DOWN (underground parking lots). New LAUSD schools average about 35% of the footprint of Ed Code requirements -- written for suburban and rural school districts.

Similarly waivers have been granted to LAUSD by the Office of the State Architect and the State Allocations Board after exhaustive studies and mitigation plans for locating schools closer than 500 feet from freeways.

• These waivers are legal - in conformity with what your article calls "certain exceptions".
• Previous Boards of Education have all approved applying for the waivers.
• The waiver applications and mitigation plans have been prepared by nationally recognized authorities on indoor and outdoor air quality and pollution control — these are not corner cutting or cost saving measures driven by builders, politicos or bean counters.

Repeating your article: "The board’s action goes beyond state guidelines and expands the current (500 foot) air quality screening scope from a quarter-mile to a half-mile." In creating a higher standard LAUSD risks state funding that matches construction costs up to 50%. At the risk of sounding like the bean counters I have just denigrated I worry that this unilateral action risks the state match greatly needed to complete the voter-approved/taxpayer funded mission of placing every student in LAUSD in a quality school in his or her neighborhood; off the bus and on a traditional two semester calendar by 2012.

However where we build schools is the tip of the iceberg; the real issue is where current schools actually are.

• My daughter attended Walter Reed Middle School in the San Fernando Valley. Reed is next to the Ventura Freeway - which was built and then periodically made larger AFTER the school was built.
• The gymnasium at University High School in Westwood and buildings at Burbank Middle School in Highland Park were built atop earthquake faults that were discovered well after they were built.
• Building codes change all the time. The 2002 Green Oaks Act which requires state of the art fire safety systems in all new and renovated schools - prompted by a near disastrous school fire - was not made retroactive to existing schools.

There is no state mandate - let alone funding - to correct these situations.

Are students who attend Reed, Uni, Burbank MS - or any school whose plans were approved after 2002 - less safe than kids in new schools? In the case of Uni and Burbank the LAUSD board has unilaterally begun the process of demolishing and reconstruction of imperiled structures.

So, why I applaud the Board of Education for putting the health and safety of children first I think the proper venue for this action is in the legislature - and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the board members, educators, parents and students from up and down the state - and hopefully the San Fernando Valley Business Community - to address this need.

There is historical and legal precedent here. The Field Act - California's landmark earthquake safety law passed one month after the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake mandated retrofit and upgrade of all public school buildings in the state And no schoolchild in California has been killed or injured in an earthquake since that law was implemented.