HBCSD Corruption
Lie #14
The Misinformation:
Recommendations for the Joint Meeting of the Governing Boards of the Hermosa Beach City School District and the Hermosa Beach City Council, May 22, 2014. Created by Pat Escalante, District Superintendent, HBCSD and Tom Bakaly, City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. Hermosa Beach Joint City Council and School Board Meeting Partial Transcript May 28, 2014.
1. Both the City Manager and HBCSD Superintendent ignore the valid contractual provisions of the Agreement for Pier Avenue School and the Memorandum of Understanding, Article 4, for district use of classrooms, office and storage space at the Community Center when district enrollment exceeds 1,266 students in this joint facility recommendation.
2. City Manager Tom Bakaly and Superintendent Pat Escalante should provide and consider all relevant information regarding the use of city buildings to temporarily house HBCSD students. This did not happen with these recommendations meant for city council members and the public. It is obvious that Tom Bakaly and Pat Escalante are trying to find reasons to discourage use of the Community Center by HBCSD. Their objections are not a true consideration of the facts.
3. The joint meeting recommendations seem to use the GKKWorks 2014 Facility Master Plan to distract from the facts of the district’s valid contractual provisions for use of the Community Center. To our knowledge GKKWorks did not consider the district’s use of the Community Center or any other city property in their Master Plan options for the district.
4. HBCSD school board members did not allow the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee members (FPAC 2013 - 2014) to investigate the Community Center for district use. The FPAC members were not given authorization by the school board to consider the Community Center for district use even after asking for permission to do so.
5. FPAC member, Kat Bacallo, without authorization from the school board, took it upon herself to investigate the district and the city’s Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School. Kat Bacallo discovered a missing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) at the County Registrar’s Office in Norwalk, CA. The MOU, Article 4, specified district use of classrooms, office and storage space when enrollment rose above 1,266 students. Please also see Misleading statements contained in article: Document uncovers details about 1978 Pier Avenue School sale by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter, November 20, 2013
6. Why had the MOU been removed from known copies of the Agreement? Why hadn’t Superintendent Pat Escalante or City Manager Tom Bakaly found a copy in the city or district archives prior to a FPAC member finding it? Even after the MOU was discovered, neither the FPAC members nor GKK Works was given authorization to consider use of the Community Center for district use. In 2014 the school board members consisted of: Patti Ackerman (School Board president), Carlene Beste, Lisa Claypoole, Mary Campbell and Maggie Bove-LaMonica.
7. On page (B) of the ATTACHEMENT, city manager Tom Bakaly cites a possible “Education Bond”. The heading of “Education Bond” is misleading. The bond was to be a $54M to $59M Facilities Bond not an Education Bond. By law no portion of a facilities bond is allowed to be used for normal school expenses, such as suggested in using the title “Education Bond” in this section.
8. The “TIMELINE – City & School District Collaboration to Address Issues” on page (C ) is misleading.
a. The HBCSD school board did not have GKK Works consider the
Community Center for district use in their Master Plan.
b. All COMPACT Meetings between the City and School District to
address overcrowding issues either ignored or denied the
provisions contained in the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase
of Pier Avenue School for district use of Community Center
facilities when enrollment exceeds 1,266 students. HBCSD
enrollment exceeded 1,266 students in 2010.
c. The Community Outreach Meetings were attended by community members, but the opinions/concerns of many of the community members seemed to be completely ignored by School Board members and GKK Works. In addition, the use of the Community Center as an option for the district was not discussed in any of the Community Outreach Meetings.
MISLEADING INFORMATION in ATTACHEMENT page (C):
(1) “CHALLENGES”
“There are many misconceptions about easy, cost-effective ways for the City and the School District to provide facilities within currently owned properties.”
Education Codes
· Exchange of Properties: Education Codes 17536
· Education Section 17537
COMPETING INFORMATION #1:
1. Education Codes 17536 and 17537 are not “Challenges” for the school district using city properties for students. Education Code 17536 simply specifies that a school district CAN exchange properties with private persons or businesses. It does not specify that a school district CAN NOT exchange a property with another public agency such as the City of Hermosa Beach.
2. According to an email sent between Superintendent Pat Escalante and former school board member Cathy McCurdy and cc’d to City Manager Tom Bakaly, on October 27, 2014, exchanging property between public entities is a “viable” idea if the school board and city council agree to it. (Exhibit JM-5)
3. Education Codes 17455 – 17484 specify a school district leasing or selling property.
4. There is nothing in Education Codes 17536 & 17537 that would prohibit the school district from leasing classrooms at the Community Center or other city buildings OR possibly exchange North School with the Community Center for district use.
NOTE: How did HB City Manager Tom Bakaly and HBCSD Superintendent Pat Escalante come up with this supposed “challenge”? It seems like they were searching for, or inventing “challenges” as to why the District cannot temporarily use city properties for students without actual proof.
NOTE: Were HB City Manager Tom Bakaly and HBCSD Superintendent Pat Escalante following instructions from cabal members to just come up with reasons why the Community Center could be disqualified for district use?
MISLEADING INFORMATION in ATTACHEMENT page (D):
(2) “Title 5 – California Department of Education Code of Regulations”
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/title5regs.asp
“This is an excerpt of California Code of Regulations, Title 5 that relate to school facilities construction. Highlighted below are challenges the City faces with currently owned properties that are being considered by the School Board.”
· The site shall not be located near an above-ground water or fuel storage tank or within 1500 feet on the easement of an above ground or underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard as determined by a risk analysis study, conducted by a competent professional, which may include certification from a local public utility commission.*
· The site shall not be located near an above-ground water or fuel storage tank or within 1500 feet of the easement of an above ground or underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard as determined by a risk analysis study, conducted by a competent professional, which may include certification from a local public utility commission.*
· Existing or proposed zoning of the surrounding properties shall be compatible with schools in that it would not pose a potential health or safety risk to students or staff in accordance with Education Code 17213 and Government Code Section 65402 and available studies of traffic surrounding the site.
COMPETING INFORMATION #2:
None of the listed regulations would prevent the district or the city from leasing classrooms at the Community Center for use by students. Instead, the Hermosa Beach City Council members and HBCSD Board of Trustees used the following “challenges” as simply excuses in order to disqualify the Community Center in order to build a brand-new $29M campus at North School.
*NOTE: City Manager Tom Bakaly repeats the same Title 5 “challenge” regarding an above ground water or fuel storage tank twice in this section! Why? Didn’t whoever type this recommendation recognize that they were typing up the exact same paragraph twice? Didn’t Tom Bakaly proofread this recommendation before it was released to the public? Did the city state the same regulation twice to make it seem as if there were more “challenges” than they could actually think of to try to discourage use of the Community Center to the unsuspecting public?
1. The “challenges” quoted above are standards described in Division 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1. School Facilities Construction, Article 1, General Standards. Title 5 standards apply to new site acquisitions and new construction, including new construction at North School (aka Vista School). Using the Community Center is NOT a new acquisition or new construction. It is a temporary existing lease by the school district. Title 5 standards can be waived when applied to existing and temporarily leased facilities.
2. School board members authorized a California Code Regulation Title 5 Site Evaluation of the Hermosa Beach Community Center (aka Pier Avenue School) at the December 11, 2013 school board meeting (S-16-12/14). The Hermosa Beach Community Center was approved for district use in a letter from the Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction to Superintendent Pat Escalante on March 26, 2014.
3. To our knowledge there was no risk analysis done of an “above-ground water or fuel storage tank” or underground pipeline near the Community Center by the city or the school district on behalf of the taxpayers and students of Hermosa Beach to prove these statements as actual concerns for using the Community Center.
CORRECT INFORMATION FOR #2:
A. The only fuel storage tank within 1500 feet of the Community
Center is located UNDERGROUND at the nearby Arco gas station.
Is having a gas station actually dangerous to have near the
Community Center? According to available information, gas
contained at gas stations does NOT explode, it simply burns.
The underground fuel storage tank could be mitigated by the installation of a cement block “blast” wall between the Arco station on PCH and the Community Center.
B. There are no indications of an underground pipeline that is
within 1500 feet of the Community Center that could pose a
safety hazard. There are no posted warnings of dangerous
underground pipelines on Pier Avenue or Pacific Coast Highway
as there are on Rosecrans Blvd and 190th Street.
4. “Existing or proposed zoning of the surrounding properties shall be compatible with schools in that it would not pose a potential health or safety risk to students or staff…” The Community Center is zoned as open space. The zoning around the Community Center is designated General Commercial Use and Residential. The same zoning areas surround Valley School. How would these zoning designation endanger or prohibit use of the Community Center by students?
5. “… and available studies of traffic surrounding the site” The average daily traffic on PCH at Pier was 50,000 vehicles in 2014. The CDE Title 5 requirements for NEW Construction sites specify: “… access to traffic, buses, pedestrian and emergency vehicles emission if average daily traffic over 100,000 vehicles.” Please see: 2014 Traffic Volume on California State Highways by Caltrans, State of CA, CA State Transportation Agency, Department of Transportation, p2. http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/docs/2014_aadt_volumes.pdf
Did Tom Bakaly or Pat Escalante check the facts surrounding their supposed “challenges” before making this recommendation?
6. Title 5 standards allow exemptions. See item ‘u’: “At the request of the governing board of a school district, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction may grant exemptions to any of the standards in this section if the district can demonstrate that mitigation of specific circumstances overrides a standard without compromising a safe and supportive school environment.”
7. In the May 2014 School Board Highlights, Superintendent Pat Escalante ALSO uses Title 5 standards and other misleading or misinformation to try to disqualify the use of the Community Center for HBCSD students.
8. In his May 31, 2016 presentation, Terry Tao, HBCSD’s attorney, ALSO uses Title 5 standards to try to disqualify the use of the Community Center for HBCSD students. See correct information provided in fact checking Terry Tao’s presentation from May 31, 2016. (Time stamp 02:13:23 to 02:15:20.)
(3) “OPSC Report – Relation to Hermosa Beach City School District (attached)” Office of Public School Construction letter to Pat Escalante, March 26, 2014.
“SFP Regulation 1859.22 requires that if a school district
is to receive modernization or new construction funding, a district must be located on real property leased or owned by the district.”
COMPETING INFORMATION #3:
1. HBCSD already has a lease option for classrooms that is specified in
the Sale and Purchased Agreement for Pier Avenue School (aka the
Community Center). The valid classroom lease criteria are described
in the Memorandum of Understanding, Article 4. There is NO
EXPIRATION date to HBCSD’s lease option for classroom usage at the
Community Center.
2. According to the provisions of the MOU, the district’s lease is dependent on district enrollment above 1,266 students. There is no expiration to the provisions for district use of classrooms, office space
and storage facilities at the Community Center when enrollment
surpasses 1,266 students. This fact should satisfy the OPCS Report SFP
Regulation 1859.22 (a)(b)(2)(3)(A)(B)(4) referenced in Tom Bakaly’s
statement.
3. It is HIGHLY unlikely that the district would need to use classrooms at
the Community Center for the entire 30 year lease period, but on
paper the lease could specify 30 years to satisfy the Office of Public
School Construction requirements in order to be eligible for $215,784.00 in Modernization funding by the State.
4. According to OPSC School Facility Program Summary (page 1) Existing Modernization Eligibility, the district would possibly only
receive $215,784 from a Modernization Base Grant if they leased classrooms. From 2015 to 2021 North School (aka Vista School) cost $29M to demolish and build new. Did it make more sense for the community to possibly (but not definitively) miss out in $215,784 of modernization funding grants by using the Community Center without a lease or did it make more sense for the community to spend $29,000,000 and five years to build a brand-new campus at North School?
5. NOTE: Enrollment at HBCSD dropped to 1,200-students in 2021 and
2022 (not including students using inter-district permits brought in
from other school districts to increase HBCSD enrollment numbers).
According to the MOU, Article 4, use of the Community Center by
HBCSD is dependent on district enrollment above 1,266 students.
HBCSD permanently added approximately 600 more student capacity to the district than is needed by rebuilding and expanding the North School campus (aka Vista School) and expanding View School in 2021 and 2022 for $59M. See also information on Decision
Insite, HBCSD demographic consultants.
A. Poaching students from other school districts harms those
districts because all school districts in California are paid
per child per grade.
B. Hermosa Beach taxpayers, if they had known, may not have
been willing to spend $29M for a brand-new campus so that
HBCSD School Board members could fill up HBCSD classrooms
with students poached from other school districts.
C. Poaching students from other school districts also contributes
to congestion on Hermosa Beach streets and pollution as
students are driven in from outside Hermosa Beach twice a day.