Lie 15 | The Missinformation | Hermosa Beach, CA

Lie #15

The Misinformation:

The HBCSD Board Highlights for May 2014 state:

“During the public comment section of the meeting, several residents asked the City Council and Board to consider the use of the Community Center (formally Pier Avenue School) to house school children. For over a year, this suggestion has been investigated by the City, District and State agencies, and eliminated as a viable option for the following reasons:”

Please see “Existing Data/Facts:” in the Board Highlights of May 2014.

NOTE: HBCSD (Superintendent Pat Escalante?) labeled this section “Existing Data/Facts” when the ACTUAL data/facts are completely different from what the district reported in this section.)

(1) “October 8, 2013 – City Staff report was unanimously approved and filed, that states:"

"The Community Center is the property of the City and is not for sale (#1); the deed restriction states that programmed activities must be for recreational purposes (#2)…”

CORRECT INFORMATION for #1 and #2:

(#1) HBCSD does NOT need to purchase the Community Center since they have a standing contractual agreement with the city that allows the district to use classrooms at the Community Center when enrollment exceeds 1,266 students.

NOTE: HBCSD tries to put the responsibility for misinformation on the city regarding “programmed activities must be for recreational purposes”. Superintendent Pat Escalante could have and should have looked this information up herself to be familiar with the provisions included in the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Real Property.

(#2) The use of the Community Center for educational purposes (not just recreational purposes as stated in the Board Highlights) is stipulated at least four times in the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Real Property: (Exhibit PA-14)

1. Article 9, Future Use of Property, 9.02 on page 8 of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property (Pier Avenue School) states:

“Its use shall not be for any purpose other than parks,

recreational, open space, educational, or other community purposes.”

2. The Grant Deed, Exhibit C states:

“The conveyance is made and accepted upon the following

expressed condition, restrictions and covenant which shall apply to

and bind the lessees, grantees, successors and assigns of the parties:

The property granted herein shall not be used for any purpose other

than for park, recreational, open space, educational or other

community purposes.”

3. The Arbitration Agreement, Exhibit D, Article 4, 4.01a states:

“It is the intent of the District and the City that the primary

purpose of Pier Avenue School is for open space, park, recreational,

educational, or other community purposes which purposes include

activities which contribute to the cultural and recreational benefit of

the community.”

4. Exhibit J, Letter from Hermosa Beach City Attorney J.B. Mirassou, January 20, 1978 (page 3) states:

“The parties have entered into agreements limiting the future use

of the property. This use is limited to parks, recreational, open space,

educational, or other community purposes.”

(2) “The Center does not currently meet TITLE 5 requirements. (#3)”

COMPETING INFORMATION for #3:

1. Title 5 Regulations are standards; they are NOT requirements.

2. Title 5 standards apply to new acquisitions and new construction, including new construction at North School (aka Vista School). Title 5 standards can be waived when applied to existing and temporarily leased facilities.

3. Title 5 Regulations were developed in 1993. The CDE does not require that school districts make all existing buildings conform to relatively new Title 5 standards. If school districts were required to bring all school buildings up to current Title 5 standards it would cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

4. Although HBCSD 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 state agency that evaluated the Community Center and North School was the Department of General Services, Office of Public-School Construction (OPSC) NOT the CDE School Facility Planning Division that would review the Community Center and North School for Title 5 standards.

NOTE: The Office of Public-School Construction (OPSC) ONLY advises on CDE requirements for receiving limited additional funding from the State Allocation Board. 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.

NOTE: If HBCSD does not use state funding it does not need to follow either OPSC requirements or Title 5 regulations when renovating/modernizing the Community Center or North School. The renovations for the Community Center or North School could have been self-funded by Hermosa Beach taxpayers without the use of minimal state funds.

5. 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.”

(3) “Office of Public-School Construction Report, March 2014: re Community Center. School Facility Program (SFP) Regulation Section 1859.22 requires that if a school district is to receive modernization or new construction funding* (please see the NOTES below), the property must be owned by the district or have a 30 or 40 year lease and that there are no other educationally adequate sites for new construction available under a 40 year lease.”: (#4)

Please see Letter to at Pat Escalante dated March 26, 2014 from the Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction regarding Title 5 site evaluation of the Community Center and North School.

MISLEADING STATEMENT: “…there are no other educationally adequate sites for new construction available under a 40-year lease”. This statement does NOT disqualify the Community Center from district use as is alluded to in the district’s stated “fact”. Introducing this statement into the "EXISTING DATA/FACTS" is a RED HERRING; it is a non-issue.

School Facility Program (SFP) Regulation Section 1859.22 (page 3 of the letter from the Office of Public School Construction) refers to "new construction”, not to temporarily leasing classrooms as would be the case with the district use of the Community Center.

Section 1859.22 on page 3 refers to the Community Center only. On page 3 in the March 26, 2014 letter from OPSC, Pier Avenue Community Center is considered against other sites that are available under a 40-year lease. North School is not included as a 40-year lease option because North School is owned by HBCSD. What other sites are available for new construction in Hermosa Beach under a 40-year lease? If there are no other available sites for new construction under a 40-year lease in Hermosa Beach, then HBCSD CAN use the Community Center and qualify for modernization funding.

COMPETING INFORMATION: HBCSD already HAS a lease agreement with the city of Hermosa Beach for use of classrooms, office and storage space in perpetuity at the Community Center when district enrollment exceeds 1,266 students. (See the Memorandum of Understanding attached to the Resolution of Intention to Sell & Prescribing the Terms Therein, Exhibit G of the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School.) District enrollment below 1,266 students can be handled by existing district campuses, therefore no need to use the Community Center when enrollment drops below 1,266 students. HBCSD could confirm the availability of the Community Center under its existing lease agreement for the 40-year term to satisfy the School Facility Program (SFP) even if HBCSD would not actually NEED to use classrooms at the Community Center for the full 40-year term.

NOTE: The projections of rising enrollment from 2013 – 2019 were highly suspect and was eventually found to be substantially incorrect. School board members could have renovated North School for students and used the Community Center temporarily while North School was being renovated regardless of the possibility of receiving $242,320 in modernization funding. The community could have passed a small city sponsored facilities bond to modernize the Community Center for the public AND temporary use by HBCSD.

Please see:

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 incorrect.

Lie #25: The district’s enrollment projections supplied by Decision Insite 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: HBCSD enrollment consultants 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’s enrollment consultants changed their projections from future large increase in enrollment to one of markedly lower overall enrollment at HBCSD.

NOTE: According to the Office of Public-School Construction Report, March 2014 (page 2): Existing New Construction eligibility is only $242,320 and Existing Modernization eligibility is only $215,784. The cost to tear down and rebuild North School was $24,000,000 dollars. The total estimated cost of the district alternative plans (completely rebuilding North School for temporary use by district students) should be examined when considering temporary use of the Community Center.

NOTE: HBCSD spent approximately $1,149,371.85 on TEMPORARY facility costs from 2012-2016. The $1,149,371.85 did NOTHING to relieve the overcrowding at district campuses. In addition, the $1,149,371.94 of district and community funds spent on TEMPORARY classrooms did nothing to add lasting value to an asset. In effect, the funds spent on TEMPORARY classrooms was wasted money.

(4) “Office of Public School Construction – Title 5, California Code Requirements. The Center does not presently comply with Title 5 requirements.” (#5)

1. Title 5 Regulations are standards; they are NOT requirements.

3. Title 5 Regulations were developed in 1993. The CDE does not require that school districts make all existing buildings conform to relatively new Title 5 standards. If school districts were required to bring all school buildings up to current Title 5 standards it would cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

(5) “Education Code 17536/17537 – Exchange of Properties: The governing board of a school district may exchange any of its real property for real property only of another person or private business firm.” (#6a, b)

CORRECT INFORMATION for #6a:

Education Code 17536 states: “The governing board of a school may exchange any of its real property for real property of another person or private business firm.”

NOTE: Somebody (Superintendent Pat Escalante?), in this Board Highlights newsletter sent to parents, added the word “ONLY” of another person or private business firm, which changed the meaning of the code 17536.

CORRECT INFORMATION for #6b:

Education Code 17537 states: “Before ordering any exchange of real property the board shall adopt, by a two-thirds vote of its members, a resolution declaring its intention to exchange property.”

How does either Education Code 17536 or 17537 affect the usage of the Community Center by the school district? HBCSD does NOT need to exchange property in order to exercise the provisions of the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School to use classrooms, office and storage space at the Community Center when district enrollment exceeds 1,266 students. See the Memorandum of Understanding that is included as an exhibit in the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School and confirmed by the City Council Meeting minutes of June 14, 1977.

“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 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].”

NOTE: Pat Escalante does not hold a Doctor of Education degree, nor did she have any prior experience as a superintendent. School board members who hired her should have been aware of her lack of qualifications to advise them of their options.

Please see:

Lie #20: Misleading the public that Pat Escalante was well qualified to be a superintendent.

Lie #21: Claiming that Pat Escalante was qualified to be superintendent and that she had decided to apply for the superintendent position at HBCSD on her own.

Lie #22: Claiming that hiring Pat Escalante saved HBCSD money.

Lie #23: Claiming that Pat Escalante was honored by the Creative Coalition at the Sundance Festival in Park City, Utah.

NOTE: CORRECT INFORMATION regarding the May 2014 Board Highlights was presented to school board members and Pat Escalante at the school board meeting on June 16, 2014. It is believed that neither school board members nor Superintendent Pat Escalante took any action to correct the misinformation contained in the Board Highlights to parents after presented with the misinformation contained in Pat Escalante’s write-up.