![[UPDATED] Arcadia Mayor Charged With Acting as Illegal Agent for China](https://www.coloradoboulevard.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Eileen-Wang-Colorado-Boulevard-Newspaper-150x150.jpg)
San Rafael Elementary School, July 1935 (Photo courtesy of Pasadena Museum of History, S29-3)
At its April 14, 2026 meeting, the Pasadena Unified School District Facilities Committee advanced a staff recommendation to demolish and reconstruct San Rafael Elementary School, a project estimated at $128 million, following a discussion that highlighted both technical considerations and broader policy concerns.
By News Desk
Three community members opened public comment by raising objections to demolishing the existing campus, citing issues including historic preservation and the replacement of current portable classrooms with new construction. Committee members then questioned staff on whether adaptive reuse had been seriously evaluated, what outreach had been conducted, and whether partial expansion—such as adding a new wing—could address facility needs. Additional questions focused on enrollment assumptions, including whether designing the campus for more than 500 students would draw enrollment away from other schools, and on the feasibility of beginning demolition in summer 2027.
District leadership reiterated that adaptive reuse had been studied but ultimately not recommended. Superintendent Elizabeth Blanco noted that the site, which features a mix of Tudor and Mid-Century Modern design, was not historically significant, citing a prior districtwide assessment that concluded the school, constructed in 1918, renovated in 1935 with Public Works Administration funding, and expanded in 1951, did not meet the criteria for preservation. Facilities staff described the project as a rare opportunity to deliver a modernized campus, citing outdated classrooms that fall short of current educational specifications and accessibility challenges posed by the split-level design as primary motivators. While a new wing had been considered, district staff concluded it would not deliver comprehensive modernization. Plans currently assume a 500-student campus, though that figure could be revisited by the Board.
Committee discussion grew contentious over the timing of the investment. Board Member Kim Kenne emphasized that a full rebuild represents the strongest long-term solution but questioned whether committing more than 10% of the district’s Measure R bond funds before completing a districtwide facilities master plan was prudent. Board Member Yarma Velazquez argued that delaying action would unfairly single out San Rafael for inaction compared to other projects already moving forward.
The debate extended to how the item should be presented to the full Board on April 23, either as a Consent Calendar or discussion item, reflecting differing views on the appropriate level of public engagement given the project’s visibility.
Ultimately, the committee advanced the item to the full Board for consideration on April 23, where members are expected to cast a final vote on potential pathways for the campus, including renovation, enhanced renovation, or full reconstruction.
A complete rebuild is the only way forward. It’s a hodgepodge building from bygone eras. For example, the heating system runs on an ancient boiler that routinely breaks down and requires extremely specialized parts and skills to fix. Meanwhile, students shiver away in their classrooms.
The neighborhood would likely get on-board if the rebuild included a comprehensive plan for onsite staff parking (moving them off narrow neighborhood streets) and eased traffic flow for drop-off and pick-up.
A district that is debating which schools to close because of its budget shortfalls is considering a building project?
They’re different pots of money. That said, I can foresee a lot of opposition to this plan from the neighborhood.