HBCSD Corruption

Proof of the Lie:

HBCSD makes 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.   Part #1. 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.

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.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: 

1.       This is a misleading and incorrect statement. See also Lie #4 There was plenty of information from the City to dispute the school district'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.  Compare this to building a brand-new gymnasium, changing rooms, library and two classrooms at Valley School for $11M  and spending over $1M of district funds to finish the gymnasium that was meant for students and plant operations.  Also compare the cost of $300k to $500k of seismic retrofits to having students and staff experiencing egregious overcrowding from 2010 to 2019 AND spending over $1M on temporary classrooms from 2012 to 2016 which did nothing to relieve overcrowding at district schools.   The school district knows this.

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 are STANDARDS not requirements.

8.       Title 5 Regulations only apply to NEW CONSTRUCTION only, not to current buildings.

9.       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. 

10.   Pier Avenue School Community Center is a designated historic property, but that designation should 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.

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 (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.”

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.  Please see Lie # 3.

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.  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.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: 

1.       This is another shamelessly incorrect statement.

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

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

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

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

6.       The statement: …”the sale of any surplus school grounds would be required to comply with the Naylor Act” does NOT disclose the exact details of the Act which apply to the North School site:

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.

7.       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.

8.       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.

9.       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.”

10. 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…”