HBCSD Corruption

Proof of the Lie:

HBCSD made shamelessly inaccurate, misleading and incorrect statements about the district's use of the Community Center as an alternate to demolishing and rebuilding North School in the Environmental Impact Report.   #1. HBCSD did not disclose the true facts surrounding the seismic safety and condition of Pier Avenue Community Center for use by students. #2. HBCSD did not disclose the true details of the district’s contractual provision to lease classrooms at the Pier Avenue Community Center as an option to tearing down North School. #3. HBCSD did not disclose the true details of the City and District's history regarding the Open Space designation. #4. HBCSD shamelessly incorrectly states the official Naylor Act provisions in Section 17491 of the California Department of Education as a reason North School should not be sold.

From the Environmental Impact Report for North School (renamed Vista School). This report was given to the Coastal Commission in summer 2019.

7.3, page 7-4: Alternatives Considered and Rejected during the Project Planning Process:

7.3.2.3, page 7-8: Alternate 3, Alternative Locations:

Alternate 3d, Community Center, page 7-8, 7-9:

(1) “This property is at 710 Pier Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway.  It is a designated historic property, and improvements to bring it into compliance with current building and historic building codes and to meet seismic requirements per the Division of State Architect, would likely be costly.” From the official Environmental Impact Report for North School: Alternate 3d, Community Center, page 7-8, 7-9.

CORRECT INFORMATION: 

1.       This is a misleading and incorrect statement. See also Lie #4 There was plenty of information from the City to dispute HBCSD's statements about the Community Center.

2.       As with North School, the Community Center was built to seismically safe Field Act specifications and is deemed safe as is for school children. HBCSD attorney (the district's "seismic expert" according to HBCSD) Terry Tao knows this. Superintendent Pat Escalante AND duly elected school board members should have also been aware of this.

3.       The Community Center passed a building conditions assessment by Civil Source and was reported to be in good condition in 2015.  Only $270,558 capital improvements were recommended over the next 10 years.   The school district knows this.

4.       The Community Center had a seismic safety evaluation done by John A. Martin & Associates in 2015.   The seismic safety evaluation stated that the gymnasium and classrooms were designed remarkably well.  No seismic upgrades or retrofit are required for classrooms at the Community Center. 

NOTE:  The gymnasium at the Community Center was identified as only needing $300k to $500k of seismic retrofits by John A. Martin & Associates.  HBCSD had a valid contractural agreement with the City of Hermosa Beach to use of the gymnasium at the Community Center for students 2 hours a day and 10 additional days a year for FREE. Compare this to building a brand-new gymnasium, changing rooms, library and two classrooms at Valley School for $11M and spending almost $1 million of district funds (See The Time Line June 2007-October 2007) to finish the Valley School new construction. The extra $1 million that was taken from district funds to finish the gym at Valley School should have been used to educate students and fund on-going plant operations.

NOTE: Compare the cost of $300k to $500k of seismic retrofits to make Pier Avenue gymnasium safe for students against building a brand new gymnaium at Valley School for $11 million dollars. The 2002 $13.9 Measure J bond was sold to voters to provide future classrooms as was recommended in the 2002 Facility Master Plan. Students and staff experiened egregious overcrowding from 2010 to 2019. The district spent over $1M on temporary classrooms from 2012 to 2016 that did nothing to relieve overcrowding on district campuses.

5.       Policies and Provisions for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings for Public School Use, Appendix M, Division of State Architects 

“Buildings and structures identified to contribute to the culture, community, or heritage of a locality – and qualified historical – are recognized by the state as being eligible for special consideration to retain those attributes that are historic during rehabilitation or subsequent change of use.  The DSA recognizes that strict use of the regular [building] code may create difficulties where rehabilitation attempts to retain the historic characteristics of a building or structure.  The CHBC provides alternatives that 1) allow most of the historic characteristics to be retained while 2) achieving the performance objectives of the regular code.”

6.       The Community Center complies with the American Disabilities Act.  In 2013 the City upgraded all existing ramps to meet ADA standards, and provided wheel chair spaces and companion seats and ADA accessible counters.   The City upgraded Community Center bathrooms in 2006 and 2013.  The City received a $63,054 grant to make ADA improvements to the Civic Center, Community Center and Clark Building in December 2013.  

7.       Title 5 Regulations apply to new construction and are STANDARDS not requirements, for existing, temporary student facilities.

8.       Title 5 standards were adopted in 1993.   The CDE does not force school districts to make all existing schools meet relatively new Title 5 standards.  Making all school districts responsible for bringing all their schools up to current Title 5 standards would cost taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars and is unnecessary. 

9. Despite calling for a Title 5 evaluation during HBCSD school board meetings in fall/winter 2013, HBCSD never had a Title 5 evaluation of the Pier Avenue Community Center. HBCSD had a Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) evaluation of Pier Avenue Community Center and North School which only delt with state matching funds. Please see December 11, 2013 in the Timeline.

December 11, 2013 - California Code Regulation Title 5 Site Evaluation of Hermosa Beach Community Center by Office of Public School Construction representative. (S-16-13/14).  

“RECOMMENDATION:  It is recommended that the Board of Education discuss and take action to request a representative of the Office of Public School Construction perform a site evaluation on the Hermosa Beach Community Center.”

MISLEADING INFORMATION IN THE December 11, 2013 BOARD RECOMMENDATION: 

NOTE: The statement: “The Board expressed an interest in requesting that a representative from the state Office of Public-School Construction conduct a site review of Pier Avenue School.”   The Office of Public-School Construction (OPSC) does NOT do Title 5 evaluations.

NOTE: The OPSC only oversees the administration of state bond funds.  It is only concerned with requirements for districts to obtain supplemental funding from the State Allocation Board.  

NOTE: The School Facility Planning Division (SFPD) reviews and approves school sites and plans.  Since there were no plans for new construction at Pier Avenue School the SFPD had nothing to examine.  Title 5 standards pertain to new construction only. 

NOTE:  Please see: March 26, 2014 – Cover letter and three-page report from the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to Superintendent Pat Escalante regarding state supplemental funding for modernization or new construction for both the Pier Avenue School Community Center and North School.  The report simply lists the OPSC regulations in order to receive possible state funding for modernization or new construction at either site.  This report does NOT make a judgement call as to district use of either property or the safety and appropriateness of either property.   

10.   Although Pier Avenue School Community Center is a designated historic property, that designation would have nothing to do with district usage.  Pier Avenue School is and was a HBCSD school – just like Valley School, View School and North School. Many in-use schools in California are designated historic properties.

11.   Like the Pier Avenue Community Center, North School should have been, and could have been, also designated a historic property but HBCSD, as the owners of the property, refused to allow it to be designated historic with the Office of Historic Preservation:

Email from Debi Howell-Ardila to the May 31, 2016 Joint City and School District meeting.   Debi Howell-Ardila is Senior Architectural Historian/Historic Preservation Specialist with SWCA Environmental Consultants and vice chair of the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) of South Pasadena. 

“In my opinion, and based on the dozens of schools I’ve surveyed throughout SoCal, North Elementary appears eligible for the City of Hermosa Beach Register under local criteria A (“It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history”) C (“It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction”), and D (“It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer or architect,” in this case, renowned architects Samuel Lunden and Marsh, Smith and Powell)."

“In terms of the California Register, it appears eligible under Criteria 1, as a highly representative example of a 1930’s school, as well as Criteria 3, as an outstanding example of WPA-era Art Deco institutional building.”

12.   Pier Avenue Community Center  and the main central building at North School  were both reconstructed in 1934-1935 by the same architect, Samuel E. Lunden, and structural engineer, Paul Jeffers. Whether or not North School had been designated a historic property, estimates to renovate North School ($14,780,000 to renovate vs. $29,000,000 to build new) were one-third the cost of demolishing and rebuilding the property.  .

13.   After the city purchased Pier Avenue School from the school district 40% below far market value (with an enduring leasing provision for district priority use of classrooms), the City of Hermosa Beach reconfigured some interior spaces.  Those spaces should and could be turned back into larger classrooms if necessary.  They are non-structural changes to the buildings.

(2) “The District does not own any of the locations considered.  Additionally, since there is limited funding, purchase of a new property * would require District to sell the North School site to pay for its purchase.” From the Environmental Impact Report for North School: Alternate 3d, Community Center, page 7-8, 7-9.

THIS IS A PURPOSELY MISLEADING STATEMENT!  HBCSD did not disclose the true details of the district’s contractual provision to lease classrooms at the Pier Avenue Community Center as an option to tearing down North School.

CORRECT INFORMATION: 

1.       This is a shamelessly misleading statement by HBCSD.   HBCSD is purposely misleading the Coastal Committee by not disclosing the district’s valid contractual provisions to use classrooms at the Community Center.  (See Lies #1, #2.)

a. *HBCSD does NOT need to purchase the Community Center in order to use classrooms there. (See Lie #3: Claiming that the Community Center needs to be purchased by HBCSD in order for it to be used by the district.)

b. The above statement ignores the district’s contractual leasing rights for classrooms usage at the Community Center contained in the Memorandum of Understanding, Article 4, and Exhibit K in the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School.

c. There is an existing and valid lease agreement specified in the Memorandum of Understanding that gives HBCSD priority rights to use the Community Center when enrollment exceeds 1,266 students. 

d. There is no expiration to this provision, it is based solely on district enrollment above 1,266 students.

e. HBCSD enrollment surpassed 1,266 students from 2010 to 2019. The district’s high enrollment between 2010 and 2019 was a temporary spike that was NOT predicted to continue or increase – therefore, there was NEVER a need for a permanent new 510 student campus.  It is believed that the district’s push for a brand-new campus was part of a quid pro quo between certain members of the school board and certain city council members past and present.  Please see THE MOTIVE.

f. HBCSD sold the Community Center to the City of Hermosa Beach for 40% below fair market value so that it would retain rights to use the campus in the future if district enrollment rose past 1,266 students. Exhibit G Resolution of intention to sell real property to the City of Hermosa Beach and prescribing the terms thereof, Section 4.02 (page5):

“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…”

g. Letter from former City Councilmember George Barks and signer of the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School in 1978. 

h. Email from former City Councilmember Michael DiVirgilio to Miyo Prassas, 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 most 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].”

(3) “Because the large area of Open Space (OS) zone on the North School site restricts most development except for institutional uses, and because a citizen’s initiative adopted in 1986 prohibits modification and elimination of Open-Space-designated areas (see Section 5.9 Land Use and Planning, redevelopment of the North School site would be limited."

From the Environmental Impact Report for North School: Alternate 3d, Community Center, page 7-8, 7-9.

COMPETING INFORMATION: 

1.       This paragraph is a red herring in that it has NOTHING to do with the district using the Community Center for students. 

2.       HBCSD does NOT need to sell North School in order to use the Community Center for students.

3. North School is owned by HBCSD. The use of Open Space (OS) designation was disputed by the school district shortly after the 1986 Proposition O passed.

"In a suit filed against the city late last month, the district contends that the proposition conflicts with a state law that allows unused school sites to be developed to the same extent as adjacent properties unless the site has been leased or purchased for park or recreactional purposes. The suit also says that state law requires cities, at a school district's request, to rezone school land to use compatible with surrounding properties." from Hermosa Beach Sued by School District over Propostion O Rezoning Restrictions by Karen Roebuck, Los Angeles Times, December 21, 1986.

4. The City of Hermosa Beach does not always follow their own rules about not rezoning Open Space without a vote of the people.

a. In 1989 City Council members rezoned the City Maintenance Yard site from Open Space designation to Industrial zoning to allow Machperson Oil Company to possibly drill for oil in Hermosa Beach. Apparently there was no vote of the people of Hermosa Beach to allow this change of Open Space.

b. In 1995 the Hermosa Beach City Council (including former School Board member Lance Widman, who was also signer of the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School) voted to change the Open Space zoning of the Alano Club (702 11th Place - behind the Pier Avenue Community Center) to General Commercial (C-3). This move was contrary to the provisions of the Sale and Purchase Agreement Grant Deed. Pier Avenue School was sold to the city in February 1978. Apparently there was no vote of the people involved in this rezoning.

5. History of Open Space (OS) designation in Hermosa Beach, CA

6.       According to an email between Superintendent Pat Escalante and former School Board member Cathy McCurdy, HBCSD and the City of Hermosa Beach can swap properties is they so choose. 

7.       HBCSD and the City of Hermosa Beach have exchanged property in Valley Park and at Valley School in the past.

(4) "Additionally, the sale of any surplus school grounds would be required to comply with the Naylor Act, which requires school districts to first offer the property to other government agencies for 25 percent of fair market value.***  Therefore, with the restricted redevelopment potential and reduced value of the property, FPAC determined that if the property did sell, the District would not be able to obtain market value and therefore would not make enough money for purchase of another site.” From the Environmental Impact Report for North School: Alternate 3d, Community Center, page 7-8, 7-9.

CORRECT INFORMATION: 

1. Again, this statement is a 'red-herring' and has NO bearing on the district use of the Community Center as opposed to rebuilding North School.

2. HBCSD incorrectly states the Naylor Act in the official Environmental Impact Report that was given to the Coastal Commission.

1. The Naylor Act Section #17486 states: 

“This article shall apply to any school site owned by a school district, which the governing board determines to sell or lease, and with respect to which the following conditions exist:”

(c) “No other available publicly owned land in the vicinity of the school site is adequate to meet the existing and foreseeable needs of the community playground, playing field or other outdoor recreational and open-space purposes, as determined by the governing body of the public agency which proposes to purchase or lease land from the school district, pursuant to Section 17492.” *

*NOTE: Valley Park is located just to the east of North School and is adequate for a community playground, playing field and other open-space purposes. Therefore, it is believed that HBCSD does NOT need to follow the Naylor Act if they decided to sell or swap North School’s 2.35 acres located above Valley Park.

2.       The statement:  …“which requires school districts to first offer the property to other government agencies” is misleading in that it doesn’t say the “City of Hermosa Beach”, it states “government agencies”.   Using “government agencies” rather than “City of Hermosa Beach” makes it seem as if North School would no longer be used by Hermosa Beach citizens and would no longer belong to Hermosa Beach.  

NOTE: The actual wording of the Naylor Act Section #17489 states: 

(a)(1) "Other than as specified in paragraph (2), and notwithstanding Section 54222 of the Government Code, the governing board of a school district, before selling or leasing a school site containing land described in Section 17486, excluding that portion of a school site retained by the governing board of the school district pursuant to Section 17490, shall, if a charter school has not accepted an offer to purchase or lease the school site pursuant to Section 17457.5, first offer to sell or lease that portion of the school site consisting of land described in Section 17486, excluding that portion retained by the governing board of the school district pursuant to Section 17490, to the following public agencies in accordance with the following priorities:”

(A) ”First, to any city within which the land may be situated.” **  

**NOTE: i.e.: The City of Hermosa Beach.

3.       The statement made in the Environmental Impact Report refers to “other government agencies” as if North School could NOT be sold or swapped to the City of Hermosa Beach in exchange for the Pier Avenue Community Center for students.

4.       The Environmental Impact Report states: “Additionally, the sale of any surplus school grounds would be required to comply with the Naylor Act, which requires school districts to first offer the property to other government agencies for 25 percent of fair market value.”

5. The statement:  …”which requires school districts to first offer the property to other government agencies for 25 percent of fair market value” is a SHAMELESSLY incorrect statement by HBCSD and their consultants.

***NOTE:  The actual wording of the Naylor Act Section 17491 states: 

…”the price at which land described in Section 17486… is sold pursuant to this article shall not exceed the school district’s cost of acquisition, calculated as a pro rata cost of acquiring the entire parcel comprising of the school site, adjusted by a factor equivalent to the percentage increase or decrease in the cost of living from the date of purchase to the year in which the offer of sale is made, plus the cost of any improvement to the recreational and open-space portion of the land which the school district has made since its acquisition of the land.  In no event shall the price be less than 25% of the fair market value of the land described in Section 17486…”