The clarification came during a special May 19 presentation listed on the meeting agenda as “PUSD — Eliot School,” with Superintendent Dr. Elizabeth Blanco and district Director of Facilities, Maintenance, Operations & Transportation Michael Dunning as presenters. It followed an earlier land use meeting where district comments about structural reports raised concerns among attendees, including concerns later raised publicly about a possible tear-down of the Eliot tower.
Blanco apologized for “any grief” caused by the earlier discussion, saying district officials had been working from information available at the time from structural engineers.
She said she learned new information the next day that changed the district’s understanding of the review required for the tower.
Blanco said the tower is not registered as a historical landmark in the places architects would normally search, but historians working through DLR on Pasadena Unified’s facilities master plan had identified it as a potential historical landmark. She said that finding changed the types of assessments the district could do and was required to do.
“There is the main difference between something that is currently safe and something that can be made safe,” Blanco said. “And that is what the EIR … will be investigating.”
Blanco said the Pasadena Unified board committed Jan. 30, through Resolution 2800, to rebuilding Eliot.
She said “there hasn’t been any final redevelopment decisions made by the board,” while also acknowledging the community’s attachment to the tower and the school.
Blanco said that if the tower cannot be saved, district discussions and insurance negotiations have included rebuilding it in a replica form and making it safer for people to go up and see the community. She said that decision has not been made.
Dunning said the Army Corps first assessed the building after the fire. He said the major structure of the auditorium and what he called the science wing had to be removed, and that work had already happened.
Dunning said the district challenged the Army Corps’ initial report because it did not include anything shoring up the tower. A revised version left a hallway section of the A building in place, he said, and that section was structurally reinforced and is helping hold up the tower, at least for seismic reasons.
After that process, Dunning said, the district hired engineers and an architect to assess the remaining building. He said the district received findings from the state architect, engineers and architects that “right now that campus is very unsafe.”
Dunning said the remaining tower portions of the building are interconnected and that a hallway section to the east was encapsulated with steel and concrete to help stabilize the hallway and keep the tower standing.
Dunning said structural assessments by the district and state architect, as well as engineers working with the district’s insurance company, were taken together in reaching the safety findings discussed at the earlier meeting.
The environmental review is required because the districtwide historical report listed the site as a potential historic resource, Dunning said. He said the process will include scoping, a draft environmental review, additional assessments, engineer certification, public comments, responses to comments and state review before the district moves toward a final determination.
Council Member Justin Mahramas questioned how the environmental review would function, saying an EIR is typically not used to determine whether something is historic or structurally sound. He said those determinations are generally made by consultants and then included in the environmental review to determine whether there is an impact under CEQA.
Dunning said the district was just starting the CEQA process and had asked PlaceWorks for a proposal. He said PlaceWorks could come before the council and community to explain the process, and that the district was stepping up communications with monthly and weekly updates on construction and facilities work.
Dunning said the district is working with PlaceWorks as its environmental consultant, JHM as a Pasadena architect familiar with the campus, and RSSC for master planning and community engagement. He said the environmental review process and the RSSC community engagement process will move forward in parallel.
Blanco said the district will conduct two tracks of community engagement: one tied to the environmental review and another tied to the facilities master planning process. She said the district has already begun conversations with the Eliot principal and school community, with broader community outreach planned.
The timeline remains uncertain, but Dunning said the process could take about 12 months before something goes to the board. He estimated the rebuild, whatever form it takes, could take about three years after the review process, making the overall timeline about four years.
A resident and council members pressed district officials for more information about the reports behind the earlier safety conclusions.
Council Chair Nic Arnzen said he had signed on to a public records request seeking the reports. He said the key points he heard Tuesday were that no decision had been made and that the district remained committed to Eliot continuing as a school.
In response to a question from Council Member Reginald Wilkins, Blanco said the district had discussed whether releasing the reports would affect insurance negotiations and believed the reports could be shared. She said the district was not trying to hide information, adding that insurance negotiations and litigation with Edison have complicated public discussions about the campus.
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
