More Geo Testing for Lexington School

Not only is the projected cost of building a new but now a state geological review can't guarantee the land the campus will be built on is stable without further testing, district officials learned Tuesday evening.

The latter finding was revealed during a Board of Trustees meeting at where education officials realized that the school site's California Geological Survey can't guarantee findings by an independent district consultant that the land is firm.

After an emotionally charged meeting in the school's gymnasium, attended by more than 250 people, trustees unanimously voted to spend $300,000 in additional geotechnical work.

Trustees also voted to begin updating the district's long-range facilities master plan, stay informed on any changes to the school's construction schedule— projected shovel-ready in June of 2012—or cost increases and to review the matter again no later than April 10, 2012.

Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Leslie Paulides, along with engineering consultants from the Berkeley geotechnical consulting firm Alan Kropp & Associates and Pacific Engineers, spoke about the report's implications.

The possibility of landslides on the site due to earthquakes has been studied by the geotechnical and environmental engineering firm Pacific Crest Engineering Inc.

Alan Kropp & Associates is the designated "peer reviewer" on behalf of the school, which means that the company independently reviews the findings of Pacific Crest to ensure they are reasonable.

Depending on further test results, remedial costs could escalate, but there's no way of predicting how much the costs could rise to, Paulides said.

The district is required to have CGS approval before the Division of the State Architect—the chief regulator of construction standards for public schools—can approve plans to begin building the new school.

More than 55 comment cards were submitted to trustees before the meeting started. A large number of current and former Lexington parents, teachers and administrators stepped up to the podium to talk about the importance of funding and building a new Lexington School.  

“Lexington School is the thread that holds the mountain community together,” said one emotional parent.

A former Lexington principal reminded the trustees that “in 2001 the district promised to build a school on even par with the other schools in the district.” 

A local real estate agent and several homeowners suggested that if trustees decided against building a new Lexington campus, there would be a devastating impact on home prices in an area which is already depressed. 

Another community member said that “when a bond measure comes up, I always vote ‘yes’ and I believe that everybody in this room does because it's for our schools and its for our children.” He added that Measure E was sold as a bond that in part would build a new Lexington school.

A smaller, but equally charged group, was opposed to spending more money on additional geological testing for Lexington.

“How much is enough?” asked one parent.

Another parent who has children at Fisher and Blossom Hill Elementary School, said that he “appreciates the emotion and intensity in the voices of the Lexington parents, but that the district needs to take a look at the capacity and overcrowding issues in the broader community.”

He went on to say that the approximately 200 students enrolled at Lexington only account for 6 percent of the more than 3,000 students in the district and that $21 million is a lot of money.

Another parent added that things have changed substantially [with respect to the cost of building a new Lexington] and that trustees needed to use remaining funds responsibly for the benefit of the whole district.

District geologists felt that the CGS was approaching the issue in a conservative manner and that, in light of all of the current seismic studies, there should not be much more remediation, but they stopped short of giving any assurances.   

In other news, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction Bitsey Stark, along with Santa Clara County Office of Education administrator Bill Conrad, provided an overview on how schools are ranked on the Similar Schools Ranking reports.

Conrad compared Blossom Hill Elementary School statistically to North Hillsborough Elementary. He said that Blossom Hill is doing extremely well when compared to a similar school and that Los Gatos leads the way and should celebrate its academic success.

He also said that all LGUSD schools have received the highest possible ranking of 10 and that Los Gatos should “find those highest performing classrooms and amplify that work to all classrooms in the district.”

The district's current enrollment is 3,107. The largest classes districtwide are currently in third, fourth and fifth grade with 347, 366 and 365 students, respectively. Kindergarten, first and second grade currently have 295, 316 and 331 students. Fisher Middle School grades six, seven and eight have 358, 368 and 338, respectively. The average class size is 24.7 in the district. Blossom Hill has 655 students, Louise Van Meter has 618 students, Daves has 576 students and Lexington has 171.