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.

HBCSD Superintendent Pat Escalante, write up: History of the sale of Pier Avenue School to the City of Hermosa Beach, dated 11/08/13, posted to the HBCSD 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.

See List of Lies: #15, #17, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #29, #37, #38, #39, #43, #44.

“During the 2012-2013 school year, the Board of Education convened the District Facilities Committee.” (#1)

(#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 or present. Please see information regarding the FPAC committee in the timeline from December 2012 to September 2013.

Please see Other Facts:

Fact #2: The Facility Planning Advisory Committee members (2013 -2014) were given very limited information regarding HBCSD facilities, issues, and options. They were also given demographic projections that were later found to be substantially incorrect.

Fact #7: Several Facility Planning Advisory Committee members (2013 to 2014) were unhappy with how the FPAC process worked.

…”address the issues of the increased enrollment and the lack of available classrooms for future growth.” (#2)

(#2) COMPETING INFORMATION:

The facts surrounding possible “future growth” were up for debate.   Demographic data from the State of California Department of Finance projected declining K-12 enrollment in all coastal communities. There were no new housing developments planned for Hermosa Beach that would permanently bring more children into the school district.

NOTE: 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. Was the cabal (made up of some School Board members, some City Council members (past and present) and some City staff and HBCSD Superintendent Pat Escalante and HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao.) holding out for a brand new school as part of a Quid Pro Quo to keep the Pier Avenue Community Center out of the hands of the District.

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. 

Please see List of Lies:

Lie #19: Superintendent Pat Escalante and school board members claiming that HBCSD was over capacity by 500 students prior to the District's 2016 $59M bond vote.

Lie #24: The District's demographic report given to the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee members in January 2013 made no sense and was later proved to be substantially wrong.

Lie#25: The District's demographic projections supplied by Decision Insite for HBCSD seemingly ignored evidence of declining K-12 enrollment from the California Department of Finance Demographics Unit and the Los Angeles Unified School District. 

Lie #26: Enrollment consultants for HBCSD inflated Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and Kindergarten (K) enrollment and seemingly did not take into account the full-time to half-time change in TK and K classes even as their May 2015 report was titled "Conservative 5-Year Projections, Assuming Return to Half Day Kindergarten".

Lie #27: Less than six months after the District won it's $59M Measure S bond vote, HBCSD enrollment consultants changed their enrollment projections from future large increases in enrollment to one of markedly lower overall enrollment at HBCSD.

Lie #28: Needlessly moving all 3rd grade students from Valley School to View School starting in the 2015-2016 school year – severely overcrowding View School 10 months before the district's next $59M dollar facilities bond vote. 

“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)

(#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.

Please see List of Lies: 

Lie #1: Misleading the public regarding HBCSD’s contractual provisions for use of classrooms, office and storage space at the Pier Avenue School / Community Center.

Lie #2: Claiming that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not valid because it was not signed by the HB City Council members.

Lie #3: Claiming that the Community Center needs to be purchased by HBCSD in order for it to be used by the district.

Lie #4: Claiming that the Community Center does not meet CDE Title 5 Regulations.

Lie #5: Misinforming the public that the Community Center can only be used for recreation purposes.

Lie #6: Misleading the public as to the condition and safety of the Community Center [or the grandfathered-in North School] for students.

Lie #7: Claiming that the Community Center AND North School are not ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible.

Lie #8: Claiming that renovating historical schools such as Pier Avenue School or North School are very expensive and cost prohibitive.

Lie #14: Misleading information and misinformation in the Recommendations for the May 2014 Joint Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City School District and the Hermosa Beach City Council.

Lie #15: Misleading information and misinformation regarding district use of the Community Center contained in the May 2014 School Board Highlights sent to school parents.

“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)  

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

(#4) CORRECT INFORMATION:

Proposition 13 was passed in June 1978.  However, 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?

The “Land Use Committee” had been meeting since 1975.  It was refered to as the City-District Land Use Committee. 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”.  

Please see List of Lies: 

Lie #1: Misleading the public regarding HBCSD’s contractual provisions for use of classrooms, office and storage space at the Pier Avenue School / Community Center.

Lie #11:  Claiming that the City purchased the Community Center from the school district because Proposition 13 had decimated district funding in the 1970s.

“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)  

(#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.” 

“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)

NOTE: Superintendent Pat Escalante sent a letter to City Manager Tom Bakaly in 2014 to formally extend the District's lease for the gymnasium, locker rooms, tennis courts and auditorium contained in Exhibit K.

There are two separate lease agreements contained in the Sale and Purchase Agreement of Pier Avenue School. There is Exhibit K, aka the Lease Agreement for Future Use of Pier Avenue School that Pat Escalante refers to above. There is also the Memorandum of Understanding which is attached to Exhibit G, The Resolution of Intention to Sell and Prescribing the Terms Thereof. The MOU lease agreement for classrooms, office space, etc. was agreed to before Exhibit K lease agreement for the gymnasium, auditorium, etc. Exhibit K was the last agreement hashed out and added to the entire Agreement (Exhibits A through K).  Exhibit G, the MOU, was the first lease agreement agreed to by the School District and the City in the very begining of negotiations. The City of Hermosa Beach accepted the MOU at their City Council meeting of June 14, 1977.   The MOU outlines the provisions for District use of classrooms, office and storage space at the Pier Avenue Community Center when HBCSD enrollment exceeds 1,266 students. HBCSD enrollment exceeded 1,266 students in 2010.  The MOU does NOT expire. There is NO expiration date contained in the MOU.

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

(#6) CORRECT INFORMATION:

Although Superintendent Escalante starts out this section by referring to the lease agreement in the Memorandum of Understanding attached to Exhibit G, the lease agreement that Superintendent Pat Escalante is refering to here are the provisions contained is Exhibit K, the District's use of the gymnasium, changing rooms, tennis courts and auditorium at the Pier Avenue Community Center for free for 50 years.

Pat Escalante starts to muddle the facts regarding the two separate Lease Agreements contained in Purchase and Sales Agreement for Pier Avenue School.  Confusing the provisions of both lease agreements became a common trope by HBCSD before the District's 2016 $59M Measure S bond vote.  

Please see List of Lies: 

Lie #19:  Confusing the separate provisions for district use of the gymnasium, changing rooms and auditorium in Exhibit K with the provisions for district use of classrooms, office and storage space that has no expiration date contained in the Memorandum of Understanding in Exhibit G.

“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:

After first refering to the provisions of the MOU ("integral part of the sale transaction” ), Pat Escalante then switches to the provisions of Exhibit K and it's 50 year lease, and then switches back to describing the provisions of the MOU (classrooms, office space, storage) AND muddles them with the provisions of Exhibit K (showers and lockers).

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 is obligated by the Sale and Purchase Agreement to provide classrooms, office and storage space to HBCSD when enrollment exceeds 1,266 students.   

*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).

“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 date.  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). 

NOTE: Superintendent Pat Escalante sent a letter to City Manager Tom Bakaly in 2014 to formally extend the District's lease for the gymnasium, locker rooms, tennis courts and auditorium contained in Exhibit K.

"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 provisions 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.

"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 - five years (2016 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 Paul Bunton 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.   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. 

NOTE: BCA Architects have since rebranded themselves as Studio W Architects.  https://studiow-architects.com/about/. In 2024, HBCSD school board members used Studio W Architects to create plans to renovate Valley School for $27.8M. See 2024 Measure HV.

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 List of Lies: 

Lie #4: Claiming that the Community Center does not meet CDE Title 5 Regulations.

Lie #5: Misinforming the public that the Community Center can only be used for recreation purposes.

Lie #6: Misleading the public as to the condition and safety of the Community Center [or the grandfathered-in North School] for students.

Lie #7: Claiming that the Community Center AND North School are not ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible.

Lie #8: Claiming that renovating historical schools such as Pier Avenue School or North School are very expensive and cost prohibitive.

Lie #14: Misleading information and misinformation in the Recommendations for the May 2014 Joint Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City School District and the Hermosa Beach City Council.

Lie #15: Misleading information and misinformation regarding district use of the Community Center contained in the May 2014 School Board Highlights sent to school parents.

"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. 

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 provisions of the lease agreement would absolutely continue to address overcrowding within the district over the long term.

NOTE: 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.

NOTE: 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.