HBCSD Corruption

Proof of the lie:

HBCSD's stated "project objectives" listed in the Environmental Impact Report do NOT match the facts or the district's plan to rebuild North School. Several "project objectives" seem to be arbitrary and unnecessary.

North School Reconstruction Draft EIR

Hermosa City School District

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

Alternate 3d, Community Center. pages 7-8, 7-9 From the Environmental Impact Report for North School (renamed Vista School). This report was given to the Coastal Commission in summer 2019.

“Alternates 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d also fail to meet the following project objectives:” 

(1)  “Relieve existing overcrowding at Hermosa Valley School and Hermosa View School.”

COMPETING INFORMATION:

1. HBCSD highest recent enrollment was 1,472 students in 2014.

2. HBCSD enrollment reports from 2002 to 2022. At September 2019, HBCSD's prepandemic enrollment was 1,349 students.

3. At September 2024, HBCSD enrollment was 1,165 students. Including 174 students brought in from other school districts on inter-district permits.

NOTE: Since rebuilding North School and expanding View School, HBCSD has stopped providing detailed enrollment data reports.

4. Prior to North School being demolished, enrollment at HBCSD was projected to substantially decline by 2019. The district's (prepandemic) 2018 enrollment projections predicted 1,319 students by 2019.   HBCSD enrollment projections did NOT support building a brand-new 510 student campus at North School. (See List of Lies: #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36)

5. There weren't any new housing developments planned for Hermosa Beach which would bring in additional K-12 students to HBCSD.

6. According to the CA Department of Finance, which tracks California demographic data and makes projections for the future, K-12 enrollment was projected to decrease through 2060.

7. HBCSD enrollment consultants, Decision Insight, had stated that they only knew of ONE school district in all of California that was projecting increased enrollment. There was ample evidence that HBCSD overcrowding was only a temporary issue and did NOT necessitate building a brand new campus.

8.       Renovating and using (years ago) the Community Center or North School for HBCSD students would have immediately relieved existing overcrowding at Hermosa Valley School and Hermosa View School at minimal cost to taxpayers.

9. HBCSD school board members (Lance Widman, Greg Breen, Cathy McCurdy) ignored the district's 2002 Facility Master Plan recommendations to supply 13 more classrooms by 2012. Instead they spent $11M to build a gymnasium, library and two science classrooms that did not add any new classrooms to the district.

10.       HBCSD has had valid contractual provisions to use the Community Center since enrollment exceeded 1,266 students in 2010.  School board members chose to ignore their lease agreement for the Community Center. 

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

11.       North School is a grandfathered in campus, like View School and Valley School, and therefore is considered code compliant as is.

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

12.        The City and the School District could have created a plan to both fund a renovation of the Community Center for Hermosa students and residents with exsisting funds OR pass a small bond to renovate either the Community Center or North School for students and residents. This would increase a city and district asset versus wasting district funds on short-term temporary classroom "solutions".

a. The City of Hermosa Beach allowed HBCSD to use four classrooms at South School for district offices from 2014 until 2020 for $1 dollar. HBCSD then used approximately $132,000 of District and taxpayer funds to renovate the City's four classrooms at South Park. HBCSD only used the renovated classrooms for six years from 2014 to 2020. HBCSD never used the City's classrooms at either South Park or the Pier Avenue Community Center to house students and reduce overcrowding at View School.

b. HBCSD spent more than $1M dollars on temporary classrooms at View School and Valley School while it also withheld up to 26% of funds (more than $2M) from being spent on students and plant services.  The $1M spent on temporary classrooms did NOTHING to solve the overcrowding issues at Valley and View schools.  The seven additional temporary classrooms only added to the overcrowding on both Valley School and View School campuses.

c. The $1M spent on temporary classrooms and more than $2M in available reserves could have instead been spent years ago to renovate North School or the Community Center for students.  Renovating either North School or the Community Center for HBCSD students would have been a lasting improvement to community assets rather than short-term overcrowding solutions.

(2)  "Eliminate temporary, portable classrooms buildings at Hermosa Valley School and Hermosa View School."

COMPETING INFORMATION:

1.       Renovating the Community Center or North School for HBCSD students would have immediately relieve existing overcrowding at Hermosa Valley School and Hermosa View School which would allow the removal of temporary, portable classroom buildings at Hermosa Valley School and Hermosa View School.

2.       HBCSD has had valid contractual provisions to use the Community Center since enrollment exceeded 1,266 students 2010.  School board members chose to ignore their lease agreement for the Community Center.

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

3.       North School is a grandfathered in campus, like View School and Valley School, and therefore is considered code compliant as is.  Please see: Lie #8:  Claiming that renovating historical schools such as Pier Avenue School or North School are very expensive and cost prohibitive.

4.       The City and the School District could have combined funds to renovate the Community Center or North School for Hermosa residents OR a small bond could have been passed by citizens to renovate either the Community Center or North School for students.

a. The City of Hermosa Beach allowed HBCSD to use four classrooms at South School for district offices from 2014 until 2020 for $1 dollar. HBCSD then used approximately $10,000 to update the four classrooms, then gave the classrooms back to the city in 2020.

b. HBCSD spent more than $1M dollars on temporary classrooms  while it also withheld up to 26% of funds (more than $2M) from being spent on students and plant services.  The $1M spent on temporary classrooms did NOTHING to solve the overcrowding issues at Valley and View schools.  The seven additional temporary classrooms only added to the overcrowding on both Valley School and View School campuses.

c. The $1M spent on temporary classrooms and more than $2M in available reserves  could have instead been spent years ago to renovate North School or the Community Center for students.  Renovating either North School or the Community Center for HBCSD students would have been a lasting improvement to community assets rather than short-term overcrowding solutions.

(3) "Maximize the use of limited District funds."

COMPETING ARGUMENT:

1. HBCSD school board members did NOT NEED to ask for a $59M dollar bond so that they would NEED to rebuild North School in order to use all the bond funds. School board members could have passed a smaller bond to renovate North School which would also relieved district overcrowding. HBCSD was using the fact that they had $59M of taxpayer funds to justify rebuilding North School.

2. Is the only way school board members could think of using $59M was to rebuild North School? Why then did school board members ask for Measure HV $28.7M bond in November 2024 to continue to improve HBCSD campuses? School board members could have renovated North School for 1/3 the cost of tearing down the campus and rebuilding it. The remaining funds from the $59M bond, NOT USED to rebuild North School, could have been used to make the improvements called for in the 2024 Measure HV.

(4) "Maximize the use of District-owned property."

1. Renovating North School would have also "maximize the use of District-owned property".

2. Why would "maximizing the use of District-owned property" be a priority? Shouldn't District facilities needs be the priority not MAXIMIZING the use of District-owned property be the priority? If HBCSD did NOT NEED to rebuild North School, why would that be made the priority in the Environmental Impact Report?

(5) "Construct 21st Century educational facilities with flexible indoor and outdoor learning spaces."

1. North School could have easily been renovated with "flexible indoor and outdoor learning spaces". How much learning is actually done in "flexible outdoor" learning spaces? Which classrooms at the rebuilt North School would actually provide "flexible indoor and outdoor learning spaces"? All the classrooms depicted on plans have interior hallway doors. None of the classrooms have doors that open out to "flexible outdoor learning spaces". None of the classroom have doors that open into another classroom to create "flexible indoor learning spaces".

2. There are two areas identified as "outdoor learning" outside of the 1st story classroom building. What makes these "learning spaces"? The fact that they are benches located outside the building?

3. What IS a "flexible outdoor learning space"? Are they the lunch benches? Are they some benches in the outdoor corridors/walkways? Were so-called outdoor learning spaces actually a reason for HBCSD to demolish and rebuild North School versus saving time and money by renovating North School?

4. It appears that the only "flexible indoor learning space" is the second story larger learning lab/library room. Why couldn't a larger lab/library room have been created during a renovation of North School? Why did HBCSD have to spend $29M to demolish and rebuild North School to create a larger room that could be identified as a "flexible learning space"?

(6) "Construct new educational facilities and/or a new school that is safe and secure for students".

1. Are the only safe and secure schools new schools? Can't a renovated campus be made safe and secure for students?

(7) "Construct new educational facilities and/or a new school that uses energy efficiently and cost effectively."

1. Are the only energy efficient buildings NEW buildings? Can't older buildings be renovated for energy efficiency? Can't an older building that was built to stringent earthquake safe specifications also have solar panels installed on it's roof?

2. Is tearing down a perfectly good grand-fathered-in campus more energy efficient and cost effective than renovating that campus? HBCSD demolished the old North School and hauled truckload after truckload of debris to a dump. Is that cost effective or energy efficient?

3. The original North School was built with it's interior corridors running from west to east to allow ocean breezes to cheaply cool classrooms. All original North School classrooms had large windows that allowed plenty of light and air to circulate to save on electricity costs.