HBCSD Corruption

Proof of the lie:

NOTE: The following educations codes were cited by the District and the City multiple times as to why HBCSD could NOT use the Community Center for students. See also: Former City Manager Tom Bakaly Letter to the Editor of 10/09/14, Easy Reader News: (TL-2014Oct09 LTTE Tom Bakaly); and Please see “Existing Data/Facts:” in the Board Highlights of May 2014.

(1) Education Code 17536, Exchange of Properties, states: “The governing board of a school may exchange any of its real property for real property of another person or private business firm.”

Education Code 17537 states: “Before ordering any exchange of real property the board shall adopt, by a two-thirds vote of its members, a resolution declaring its intention to exchange property.”

1. Neither Education Code #17536 nor #17537 affect district usage of the Community Center.  HBCSD does NOT need to exchange property in order to exercise the provisions of the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School to use classrooms, office and storage space at the Community Center when district enrollment exceeds 1,266 students.   See the Memorandum of Understanding that is included as an exhibit in the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School and confirmed by the City Council Meeting minutes of June 14, 1977.

2. There is nothing in Education Codes #17536 and #17537 that would prohibit the school district from leasing classrooms at the Community Center or other city buildings OR possibly exchange North School for the Community Center.

3. See also email from Michael DiVirgilio, Mayor of Hermosa Beach, July 9, 2014.

“The city is not aware of any prohibition that would prevent us

[the city] from entertaining requests about the Community Center

from the District, or from any entity for that matter.  However, as

you saw during our recent joint meeting, neither the City nor the District

are interested in considering the Community Center [as a lower cost

alternative for taxpayers AND immediate relief for HBCSD students and

staff].”

4. According to an email sent between Superintendent Pat Escalante and former school board member Cathy McCurdy and cc’d to City Manager Tom Bakaly, on October 27, 2014, exchanging property between public entities is a “viable” idea if the school board and city council agree to it.  (Exhibit JM-5)

5. Unlike Education Codes 17536 and 17537 cited by the school district and the city as to why HBCSD can not use the Community Center for students, Education Codes 17455 – 17484 actually specify issues surrounding a school district leasing or selling property. Neither Superintendent Pat Escalante nor City Manager Tom Bakaly bring up problems with Education Codes 17455 - 17484 regarding the leasing of the Pier Avenue Community Center for district use.

(2) “Title 5 – California Department of Education Code of Regulations”

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/title5regs.asp

“This is an excerpt of California Code of Regulations, Title 5 that relate to school facilities construction.   Highlighted below are challenges the City faces with currently owned properties that are being considered by the School Board.”  (Exhibit JM-6)

· "The site shall not be located near an above-ground water or fuel

storage tank or within 1500 feet on the easement of an above ground

or underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard as determined

by a risk analysis study, conducted by a competent professional,

which may include certification from a local public utility

commission." *

· "The site shall not be located near an above-ground water or fuel

storage tank or within 1500 feet of the easement of an above ground

or underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard as determined

by a risk analysis study, conducted by a competent professional,

which may include certification from a local public utility

commission." *

· "Existing or proposed zoning of the surrounding properties shall be

compatible with schools in that it would not pose a potential health

or safety risk to students or staff in accordance with Education Code

17213 and Government Code Section 65402 and available studies of

traffic surrounding the site."

*NOTE:  City Manager Tom Bakaly repeats the same Title 5 “challenge”

regarding an above ground water or fuel storage tank twice in this section!

Why? Didn’t whoever typed this recommendation recognize that they were

typing up the exact same paragraph twice?  Didn’t Tom Bakaly proofread

this recommendation before it was released to the public?  Did the city

state the same regulation twice to make it seem as if there were more

“challenges” than they could actually think of to try to discourage use

of the Community Center to the unsuspecting public?

1. None of the listed regulations would prevent the district or the city

from leasing classrooms at the Community Center for use by students.

Instead, the Hermosa Beach City Council members and HBCSD Board

of Trustees used the following “challenges” as simply excuses in

order to disqualify the Community Center in order to build a brand-

new, now unneeded $29M campus at North School.

2.      The “challenges” quoted above are standards described in Division 1,

Chapter 13, Subchapter 1. School Facilities Construction, Article 1,

General Standards. Title 5 standards apply to new site acquisitions

and new construction, including new construction at North School

(aka Vista School).  Using the Community Center is NOT a new

acquisition or new construction.  It is a temporary existing lease by

the school district.  Title 5 standards can be waived when applied to

existing and temporarily leased facilities.  (Exhibit JM-6, page 1)

3.      School board members authorized a California Code Regulation Title 5

Site Evaluation of the Hermosa Beach Community Center (aka Pier

Avenue School) at the December 11, 2013 school board meeting (S-16-

12/14). The Hermosa Beach Community Center was approved for

district use in a letter from the Department of General Services,

Office of Public School Construction to Superintendent Pat Escalante

on March 26, 2014. (Exhibit JM-7)

4. To our knowledge there was no risk analysis done of an “above-

ground water or fuel storage tank” or underground pipeline near the

Community Center by the city or the school district on behalf of the

taxpayers and students of Hermosa Beach.

A. The only fuel storage tank within 1500 feet of the Community

Center is located UNDERGROUND at the nearby Arco gas station.

Is having a gas station actually dangerous to have near the

Community Center?  According to available information, gas

contained at gas stations does NOT explode, it simply burns.

(Exhibit Title 5 Gasoline station explosion) The underground

fuel storage tank could be mitigated by the installation of a

cement block “blast” wall between the Arco station on PCH and

the Community Center.  

B.      There are no indications of an underground pipeline that is

within 1500 feet of the Community Center that could pose a

safety hazard. There are no posted warnings of dangerous

underground pipelines on Pier Avenue or Pacific Coast Highway

as there are on Rosecrans Blvd (Photo Pipeline warning) and

190th Street. (TL-Photo Gas Pipeline sign)

NOTE: The City and the School District routinely cite "reasons" why

they can't do something, but they do not give proof that would actually

back-up their assertions.

5.      The Community Center is zoned as open space. The zoning around

the Community Center is designated General Commercial Use and

Residential. The same zoning areas surround Valley School. How

would these zoning designation endanger or prohibit use of the

Community Center by students?  (Exhibit JM-8)

6. The average daily traffic on PCH at Pier was 50,000 vehicles in 2014.

The CDE Title 5 requirements for NEW Construction sites specify:

“… access to traffic, buses, pedestrian and emergency vehicles

emission if average daily traffic over 100,000 vehicles.”  Please

see: 2014 Traffic Volume on California State Highways by Caltrans,

State of CA, CA State Transportation Agency, Department of

Transportation, p2.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/docs/2014_aadt_volumes.pdf

NOTE: Did Tom Bakaly or Pat Escalante check the facts surrounding

their supposed “challenges” before making these recommendation?

NOTE: See also HBCSD attorney Terry Tao statements at the May 31,

2016 presentation made ONE WEEK before the June 4, 2016 $59M bond

vote. Terry Tao made the same assertions without proof of an

actual problem. Hermosa Beach Joint City Council and School Board

Meeting Partial Transcript, May 31, 2016. Time Stamp 02:14:30

7.      Title 5 standards allow exemptions. See item ‘u’: “At the request

of the governing board of a school district, the State Superintendent

of Public Instruction may grant exemptions to any of the standards in

this section if the district can demonstrate that mitigation of

specific circumstances overrides a standard without compromising a

safe and supportive school environment.”  (Exhibit JM-6, page 4) 

(3) “OPSC Report – Relation to Hermosa Beach City School District”

Office of Public School Construction letter to Pat Escalante, March 26, 2014.  (Exhibit JM-9)

“SFP Regulation 1859.22 requires that if a school district is to

receive modernization or new construction funding, a district must be

located on real property leased or owned by the district.”

1. HBCSD already has a lease option for classrooms that is specified in

the Sale and Purchased Agreement for Pier Avenue School (aka the

Community Center).  The valid classroom lease criteria are described

in the Memorandum of Understanding, Article 4.  There is NO

EXPIRATION date to HBCSD’s lease option for classroom usage at the

Community Center.

2.      According to the provisions of the MOU, the district’s lease is

dependent on district enrollment above 1,266 students. (Exhibit PA-4a)

  There is no expiration to the provisions for district use of classrooms,

office space and storage facilities at the Community Center when

enrollment surpasses 1,266 students.  This fact should satisfy the OPCS

Report SFP Regulation 1859.22 (a)(b)(2)(3)(A)(B)(4) referenced in Tom

Bakaly’s statement.

3. It is HIGHLY unlikely that the district would need to use classrooms at

the Community Center for the entire 30 year lease period, but on

paper the lease could specify 30 years to satisfy the Office of Public

School Construction requirements in order to be eligible for $215,784.00

in Modernization funding by the State.

4.     According to OPSC School Facility Program Summary (page 1) Existing

Modernization Eligibility, the district would possibly only receive

$215,784 from a Modernization Base Grant if they leased classrooms.

From 2016 to 2021 North School (aka Vista School) cost $29M to

demolish and build new.  (Exhibit JM-11)  Did it make more sense for

the community to possibly (but not definitively) miss out in $215,784

of modernization funding grants by using the Community Center

without a lease or did it make more sense for the community to spend

$29,000,000 and five years to build a brand-new campus at North

School?

5.      NOTE: Enrollment at HBCSD dropped to 1,200-students in 2021 and 2022

(not including students using interdistrict permits brought in from other

school districts to increase HBCSD enrollment numbers). According to

the MOU, Article 4, use of the Community Center by HBCSD is

dependent on district enrollment above 1,266 students. HBCSD

permanently added approximately 600 more student capacity to the

district than is needed by rebuilding and expanding the North School

campus and expanding View School in 2021 and 2022 for $59M. See

also information on Decision Insite, HBCSD demographic consultants.

6. NOTE: HBCSD does NOT have to follow the OPSC report if it does NOT

intend to receive funding from the State. Improvements to the

Community Center could be totally self-funded by a community-wide

bond, which would still be likely to be much less than the cost of

building a brand-new campus. Any improvements to the Community

Center would result in an increase to the value of a lasting

community asset.