HBCSD Corruption

Proof of the lie:

Misinformation and Misleading Statements contained in the History of the Sale of Pier Avenue School to the City of Hermosa Beach.

Pat Escalante, Superintendent, Hermosa Beach City School District

Dated 11/08/13, uploaded to the HBCSD.org website:

See also the complete discussion of Pat Escalante: her lack of qualifications to be a superintendent and her hiring by HBCSD school board members in June 2011 to be principal at Valley School then her promotion by school board members to be superintendent in May 2012.

“During the 2012-2013 school year, the Board of Education convened the District Facilities Committee.” (#1) Please see the entire write up in the Misinformation section for Lie#36.

#1. This is a CORRECT Statement:

School Board members convened the Facilities Planning and Advisory Committee (FPAC) in December 2012.  The FPAC was given a very narrow mandate to investigate whether the school district should renovate or completely rebuild North School.  FPAC members had very little information or experience with district facility options past and present. Please see information regarding the FPAC committee in the timeline (December 2012 to September 2013).

(1) …”address the issues of the increased enrollment and the lack of available classrooms for future growth.” (#2) Please see the entire write up in the Misinformation section for Lie#36.

#2. COMPETING INFORMATION:

The facts surrounding possible “future growth” were up for debate.   Please see Enrollment Facts and Decision Insite Information.

Since 2012, school board members must have recognized that Valley and View schools were severely overcrowded.   The 2002 Facilities Master Plan had recommended that the district provide 16 additional classrooms by 2012.  Those classrooms were not supplied by the district with the $13.9M bond passed in 2002.  In the meantime, many other school districts renovated previously unused or underused campuses at a fraction of the cost of building new.  For example, neighboring school district MBUSD spent approximately $3 million dollars in the early 2000s to renovate and reopen Robinson School which had previously been rented out to a private preschool operation just like North School. 

At any time since 2002, school board members could have taken immediate steps to reopen the grandfathered-in, seismically safe North School or exercised the district’s contractual provisions (specified in Article 4 of the Memorandum of Understanding) to use classrooms, office and storage space at the seismically safe Community Center to relieve overcrowding.

The egregious overcrowding that took place at Valley and View schools because school board members did not take steps to use either North School or the Community Center would act to compel the community to pass an unnecessarily expensive $59M facility bond to build a brand-new campus.

NOTE: From 2013 to 2016 HBCSD kept available reserves as high as 25.9% or $3,384,821.   HBCSD is only required to hold 3% of their undesignated fund balances in reserve.  Some of the $3.4M reserves could have immediately been spent to improve North School or the Community Center for student use.  (Exhibit DI-0)

(2) “During the discussions, the issue of using Pier Ave School was presented as a possible option.  However, there was not enough data regarding the school and if it was a viable option for the District.”  (#3) Please see the entire write up in the Misinformation section for Lie#36.

#3. This is a MISLEADING statement.

#3. COMPETING INFORMATION:

The FPAC members were not told about the Community Center and were NEVER given the authorization to investigate the Community Center for district use.  The FPAC members were not given copies of the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School and the Memorandum of Understanding that specified the district's lease agreement with the City of Hermosa Beach for classrooms when enrollment exceeded 1,266 students.

A community member brought up the Community Center in the 3 minute comment period prior to a regular FPAC meeting, not Superintendent Pat Escalante or any other district employee.

FPAC member, Kat Bacallao also learned of the district’s Sale and Purchase Agreement with the City through historian and former resident Chris Miller.    Kat Bacallao took it upon herself to investigate the Agreement for the use of the Community Center.  After Kat found a complete copy of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, school board members did not authorize the FPAC to investigate the possibility of using the Community Center.  See email from Monique Ehsan to Patti Ackerman and Pat Escalante in October 19, 2014.

Why hadn’t the school district already investigated the Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School?  Since 2004, school board members Lance Widman and Greg Breen were insisting that they knew all the facts about the Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Pier of Pier Avenue School and that were no provisions for district use of classrooms at the Community Center which was incorrect information given to the public.

(3) “In June 1978, Prop 13 was approved by California voters which dramatically changed the funding of school districts from local property revenues to state funding based on caps of local revenue.  Wealthier districts such as HBCSD were negatively impacted by this Proposition as income to the district began to decline.”

Sale of Pier Avenue School to the City:

“In June 1978, a conversation was initiated by the District “Land Use Committee” to discuss the property options.”  (#4)  Please see the entire write up in the Misinformation section for Lie#36.

#4. This is a MISLEADING statement and contains INCORRECT information:

#4. CORRECT INFORMATION:

Proposition 13 was passed in June 1978.  The Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School was signed on February 28, 1978, three months BEFORE Prop. 13 was passed.  In addition, the negotiations for the Agreement started a year earlier in June 1977 when HBCSD sent the Resolution of Intention to Sell to the City.   Prior to June 1977, HBCSD had been in discussion since October 1975 to sell or trade Pier Avenue School to the city.  When the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School was initiated and negotiations started in 1975, nobody knew about a future Prop. 13.   It is obvious that Proposition 13 had NOTHING to do with the sale of Pier Avenue School to the City.   Why would the district and Pat Escalante lie about this?  How would lying about a connection between Prop 13 and the sale of Pier Avenue School benefit the school district or the city?   Didn’t anyone fact check Pat Escalante’s write up before it was posted on the district’s website?

#4. MORE CORRECT INFORMATION:

The “Land Use Committee” had been meeting since 1975.  Proposition 13 DID NOT initiate a Land Use Committee discussion in June 1978.   The Land Use Committee (LUC) was comprised of representatives from both the city and the school district.   It was a joint district and city undertaking.   It was NOT a "DISTRICT Land Use Committee”.  

The LUC spent months hashing out the terms of the MOU and the escrow instructions that would ultimately be sent to the City.  The city accepted the terms of the MOU the same day that they received it, at the City Council Meeting of June 14, 1977.  Obviously, the city was aware of the district’s lease provisions in the MOU and the escrow instructions before they decided to approve it at their June 14, 1977 meeting.  The following week, June 22, 1977, the city took out an escrow for Pier Avenue School following the escrow instructions spelled out in Article 3 of the MOU, thus executing the agreement and making the signing of it unnecessary.

“Because the City purchased the property for under fair market value, a lease agreement was included as an integral part of the sale transaction” (#5)  Please see the entire write up in the Misinformation section for Lie#36.

#5. This is a CORRECT statement:

This statement is correct, except that the district OFFERED Pier Avenue School to the City below fair market value explicitly so that the district could retain use of classrooms, office and storage space when enrollment exceeded 1,266 students in the future.  Please see Exhibit G, The Resolution of Intention to Sell and Prescribing the Terms Thereof.  The lease agreement for future district use of the Community Center was spelled out in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Article 4, that was included in the Resolution of Intention to Sell and Prescribing the Terms Thereof.

NOTE: Page 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding, Article 4, Section 4.02 states: “The nature of this memorandum of understanding shall be construed as being analogous to a lease in that a part of the consideration for the District selling the subject property to the City for less than fair market value is the District’s right to use the subject property facilities without cost as more particularly set forth below; and, conversely, a part of the consideration the City is giving to the District, is allowing the District use of the facilities at the subject property as more particularly set forth below.”  (TL-1977Jun13 MOU Sec 4.02)

(5) “The lease provides for limited usage by the district of certain portions of the Pier Avenue School.  The lease agreement is for a period of 50 years (in 3 year increments) and will expire in 2028.” (#6)  Please see the entire write up in the Misinformation section for Lie#36.

#6. This is a (PURPOSELY?) INCOMPLETE and MISLEADING statement.

#6. CORRECT INFORMATION:

At this point in the telling of the History of the Sale of Pier Avenue School, Pat Escalante starts muddling the facts regarding the Purchase and Sales Agreement for Pier Avenue School.  She purposely confuses (because the facts are clear when you read the two exhibits) the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding for district use of classrooms, office and storage space contained in Exhibit G with the provisions for district use of the gymnasium, auditorium, tennis courts, lockers and showers as described in Exhibit K.  This became a common theme with how HBCSD approached the district’s provisions for facility use at the Community Center in public statements.  Please see information and discussion regarding misleading statements contained in article: Document uncovers details about 1978 Pier Avenue School sale, by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter, November 20, 2013.

Exhibit K specifies a different lease provision than the provisions for classroom and office space use in the MOU.  Exhibit K specifies a 50-year term in three-year increments for district use of the auditorium, gymnasium, changing rooms and tennis courts at the Community Center.  The provisions for use of classrooms in the MOU are dependent on district enrollment above 1,266 students.  There is no expiration to the provisions for classrooms, office and storage space in the MOU, it is based solely on district enrollment above 1,266 students.

Exhibit K was the last exhibit to be added to the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School on February 28, 1978.  It supplemented the district’s classroom and office provisions in the Agreement, it did not replace it.  Exhibit K was signed by the city and the school district on February 28, 1978 because it had NOT yet been executed like the MOU was by the city in June 1977.

Please see FACTUAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF PIER AVENUE SCHOOL AND THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT USE OF FACILITIES AT PIER AVENUE SCHOOL

(6) “The MOU states that at the close of the 10-year period (1988) the district shall have the continued right to use the school for the purposes above at a “reasonable rent” in accordance with what comparable facilities are used such as classrooms, office space, storage, showers and lockers.”  (#7) 

#7. This is, again, a misleading statement.

#7. THE CORRECT INFORMATION:

Pat Escalante continues to muddle the facts of the MOU contained in Exhibit G and Exhibit K.  The provisions for classrooms, office and storage space contained in the MOU are separate from the provisions for use of “showers and lockers” contained in Exhibit K*.   Here she lumps together the provisions of the MOU (article 4) and the provisions of Exhibit K which are clearly two separate exhibits governing future lease agreements.

Below is the exact wording from the MOU (article 4) that Pat is quoting in her statement above:

Section 4.04: “After the ten-year period, the District shall have the continued right to use the school for purposes set forth above.  However, the City shall have the right to charge a reasonable rental for the use of the school facilities by the District.  Said rental shall be in accordance with what comparable facilities, zoned open space, educational or recreation purposes charge for like facilities.”

NOTE: The City of Hermosa Beach currently provides several areas in the Community Center to other Hermosa organizations for free.  The City of Hermosa Beach CAN provide classrooms, office and storage space to the HBCSD for free if they so desired.   

*NOTE: Exhibit K, Lease Agreement for Future Use of Pier Avenue School, was originally referred to as the Recreation Agreement.  See Minutes from the 12/14/77 Regular Meeting of the City Council (aka Workshop #6 for negotiations for the Purchase and Sale Agreement for Pier Avenue School).

(7)“In essence, the City owns Pier Avenue School (Community Center), the District has a 15 year lease agreement.” (#8) 

#8. This is (PURPOSELY?) misleading information.

This is a completely misleading statement.  AGAIN, Pat Escalante (purposely?) confuses the provisions in the MOU with the provisions in Exhibit K (aka the Recreation Agreement – see the Note above).  The provisions for classrooms, office space and storage space in the MOU are dependent on enrollment over 1,266 students, there is no expiration term.  The provisions for district use of the auditorium, gymnasium, tennis courts, changing rooms and showers contained in Exhibit K are for a fifty-year term that ends in 15 years (2028). 

In April 2014 Pat Escalante sent a letter on behalf of HBCSD to City Manager Tom Bakaly requesting that the term of Exhibit K be extended.  In this letter she again confuses the two exhibits which specify the terms for district use of the Community Center.   

(8) "Points of Consideration:"

·         "Will the term of the lease agreement address the overcrowding issue to the District’s satisfaction over the long term?"  (#9)

#9. CORRECT INFORMATION:

Again, the provisions for district use of classrooms, office space and storage space at the Community Center is dependent on district enrollment above 1,266 students, there is no expiration date to the provisions outlined in the MOU.  Therefore, IF the district’s enrollment continued beyond 1,266 students, the term of the lease agreement would absolutely continue to address overcrowding within the district over the long term.

The fact is, however, that there was plenty of information that pointed to a future DECREASE in HBCSD enrollment.   The district also owns North School.   North School could be rehabilitated for HBCSD student use in addition to using the Community Center to relieve district overcrowding. 

NOTE: It is believed that the quid pro quo for the district NOT exercising their contractual rights to the Community Center was for the cabal to assist them in passing a large bond to rebuild North School, whether the district needed a brand-new campus or not.  Renovating North School for students would have surely taken much less time than tearing down the old campus and rebuilding it.

(9)      "How long would it take to make the appropriate repairs and upgrades to make the building habitable for students? (need to modernize and upgrade to current state standards)"  (#10)

#10. CORRECT INFORMATION:

HBCSD never allowed the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee to do a full evaluation of the Community Center for use by students.  North School took four years (2017 to 2021) to rebuild and cost $29 million dollars.   In 2013 the FPAC was given a time estimate of 2-1/2 years and an estimated cost of $14.9 million dollars to rebuild North School from the district’s hired consultant from BCA Architects out of San Jose.  BCA Architect's information to the FPAC about the cost to rebuild North School was clearly incorrect.

NOTE: The district's hired consultant to "advise" the FPAC members was charged in San Diego County Superior Court for lying and bribing school officials. NOTE:  Legal Complaint against Paul Bunton of BCA Architects by San Diegans for Open Government, Case #37-2012-00101391-CU-MC-CTL in San Diego Superior Court.  (TL-2012Jul30 BCA Accusation)

NOTE: BCA Architects have since rebranded themselves as Studio W Architects.  https://studiow-architects.com/about/. HBCSD school board members used Studio W Architects in 2024 to create plans to renovate Valley School for $25M.

 The Community Center passed a Facilities Condition Assessment by CivilSource and was deemed to be in very good condition in the summer of 2015.  In addition, the Community Center passed a seismic assessment by John Martin & Associates in the summer of 2015.

Please see Information and Discussion: Using the Community Center or North School for HBCSD Students.

(10) "Points of Consideration:"

·         "Is it better to spend money on a facility/property that you own or better to spend money on a property with 15 years remaining on the lease? " (#11)

#11. This is (PURPOSELY?) misleading information. 

#11. CORRECT INFORMATION:

This is a MISLEADING STATEMENT:  The “15 years remaining on the lease” refers to the usage of the auditorium, gymnasium, tennis courts, changing rooms and showers in Exhibit K.   The MOU has no term limit for use of classrooms, office and storage space. 

Between 2013 and 2015 HBCSD spent more than $1,149,000.00 on temporary classroom facilities at Valley and View Schools that did nothing to relieve overcrowding on the two campuses.  The $1,149,000.00 spent on temporary facilities is just that; TEMPORARY.   Could that money been better used on permanent structures such as North School or the Community Center to actually relieve district overcrowding at Valley and View schools?

The Community Center should be thought of as a community asset, not as a school district or a city asset.  Any improvements made to the Community Center would benefit all Hermosa residents.   A true evaluation of the benefits of immediately renovating the Community Center and renovating North School should have been given to taxpayers.   Instead HBCSD refused to truthfully evaluate using the Community Center, keeping the information from taxpayers.

In 1977-1978 people were angry that their taxpayer funds were being used to purchase Pier Avenue School for the City of Hermosa Beach.  Taxpayers felt that they had already paid for Pier Avenue School for HBCSD and now were being forced to pay for it again, this time for the city.