Lie 16 | The Missinformation | Hermosa Beach, CA

Lie #16

Partial listing of incorrect and misleading information presented by HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao on May 31, 2016, six days prior to the June 6, 2016 Measure S $59M bond vote.

NOTE: Community members were only able to make a three minute statement before Terry Tao's presentation. Community members were not allowed to ask questions or make comments during or after Terry Tao's presentation.

Hermosa Beach Joint City Council and School Board Meeting May 31, 2016

Partial Transcript, Run time 2 hrs 57 minutes http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4169 See also transcripts of the May 31, 2016 meeting.

Attendees: HBCSD Superintendent: Pat Escalante

HBCSD Board President: Mary Campbell

Board member: Patti Ackerman

Board member: Maggie Bove-La Monica

Board member: Monique Eshan

HB City Council member: Justin Massey

HB City Council member: Hany Fangary

HB City Council Mayor: Carolyn Petty

HB City Council member: Jeff Duclos

HB City Council member: Stacy Armato

HB City Manager: Tom Bakaly

Part II: Presentation by Mr. Terry Tao, Senior Partner at Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Rund & Romo

(1) FALSIFICATION: (02:00:51) Terry Tao, HBCSD’s hired “expert”: “Ah, the Newport [Elementary] school; that was unreinforced masonry; that cost $55 million to renovate. (Loud gasps from the audience.) Ah, that school [Richmond Street Elementary School], let’s see, I worked on that one too. Ah, El Segundo here, that, that school, that one was, you know I’m going back in history, that one was $25 million in ’01, then they had to do a subsequent bond for $14 million dollars, just to kind of give you an idea of what it costs to do some of these historical renovations. It is very expensive.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: Newport Beach Elementary school (reconstructed in 1936 and renovated in 2002) cost $4.1 million to renovate in 2002. See Capital Program Management, Inc. and Newport-Mesa USD, February 26, 2002, Newport Elementary School, General Information Newport Elementary p 2. Total Hard Cost $4,117,448.

Richmond Street Elementary in El Segundo (circa 1936) cost $5.3 million to renovate in 2001. See email from Melissa Moore, Ed. D, Superintendent El Segundo Unified School District, July 2016. “Our records indicate the modernization project at El Segundo Middle School cost $4.8 million and the modernization project at Richmond Street School cost $5.3 million.” See photos from 2016 of Richmond Street Elementary School (circa 1936) in El Segundo, CA.

(2) MISREPRESENTATION: (02:02:45) Terry Tao: “So what I did was, I collected some of this data and I put it together in a slide show. Ah, it’s a, it, it looks like it was a lot of work. It was not a lot of work. So don’t think a lot of work went into this [presentation].”

CORRECT INFORMATION: Mr. Tao spent 42.75 hours between May 17 and May 31st preparing his presentation and billed the district $10,901.25 for his work. Mr. Tao’s billed hours included at least 6 hours of collusion with HBCSD employees and/or School Board members to provide false information prior to the May 31, 2016 presentation. See Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo Invoice #499132 dated May 31, 2016.

(3) INCORRECT STATEMENT: (02:07:37) Terry Tao: “And what Quimby Act meant, is if somebody was selling a piece of property and a parks, recreation, city, county was going to use the property for park land or recreation purposes then the property is sold for a fraction of what the fair market value price is.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: The price offered for District surplus property is specified in the Naylor Act not the Quimby Act. Quimby Act has to do with developers setting aside land and charging developer fees and is California Government Code 66477. The Naylor Act is Education Code 17485-17500.

(4) FASIFICATION: (02:08:00) Terry Tao: “I haven’t looked at the statute (Quimby Act) for a while…”

CORRECT INFORMATION: Mr. Tao billed the district for .5 hours on May 30, 2016 for “Legal Research Re Quimby Act and Application to Pier Avenue School”. See Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo Invoice #499132 dated May 31, 2016, item dated 05/30/16 for $127.50.

(5) INCORRECT STATEMENT: (02:08:15) Terry Tao: “And that appears to be what it is that the very first offer was made on the property under Quimby.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: The price offered for District surplus property is specified in the Naylor Act, not the Quimby Act. The Naylor Act did not apply to the Agreement of Sale for Pier Avenue School because the Naylor Act did not become law until did not become law until January 1, 1997, almost two decades after the Sale of Pier Avenue Agreement was signed in February 1978.

(6) MISREPRESENTATION: (02:08:47) Terry Tao: “The resolution of intention to sell was on June 13, 1977, the City had expressed interest and there were some terms in the MOU, ah, in an MOU, that happens to be unsigned. The reason I bring up the terms of a resolution is that’s not what it is that the City and the School District had agreed to. That’s actually what it is that the City and the School District may have talked about and what the School District at the time may have been thinking about, hoping for, fantasizing about maybe… So, check out the date, June 13, 1977, there is a cross reference to this M.O.U. (Memorandum of Understanding, attached to the Resolution of Intention to Sell and Prescribing the Terms Thereof, Exhibit G in the Agreement.) and the cross reference to the M.O.U., um, which is an unsigned M.O.U…,”

CORRECT INFORMATION: Terry Tao incorrectly alludes to the fact that since the Memorandum of Understanding was not signed it is not a valid part of the entire Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Real Property (aka Pier Avenue School). See information in Lie #2.

A. The HBCSD Memorandum of Understanding was a product of a City and School District Land Use Committee. The MOU was adopted by HBCSD at their School Board meeting of June 13, 1977. The City Council members accepted the MOU the NEXT DAY at their meeting of June 14, 1977.

B. According to the June 14, 1977 Hermosa Beach City Council meeting minutes the City Council members (who included then Council members Lance Widman, George Barks and George Schmeltzer) took action to:

"Approve the Memorandum of Understanding subject to review

and approval of the City Attorney: and to authorize staff to open an

escrow with the HBCSD for the purchase of Pier Avenue School,

basically incorporating said Memorandum of Understanding and

attached related materials with the following contingencies: Agreed

rights to use for both parties and reversionary clause.” See HB

City Council meeting minutes of June 14, 1977 .

C. The City Attorney at the time (J.B. Mirassou) reviewed and approved the entire Agreement and district provisions to lease classrooms, etc. at the Community Center in his letter of January 20, 1978 included as Exhibit I in the final Agreement.

D. The entire MOU was automatically executed or accepted by the City of Hermosa Beach when the Article 3 Escrow instructions contained in the MOU were carried out by the City of Hermosa Beach to open an Escrow for Pier Avenue School. The escrow was taken out by the City one week after receiving the MOU. Therefore there was no need for both parties to actually sign the MOU.

“The District and the City shall cause an escrow to be opened

forthwith. The escrow agent shall be the Bank of America, Hermosa

Branch 63. The cost of said escrow shall be shared equally by the City

and the District”. See HB City Council minutes of June 28, 1977.

(7) FALSIFICATION: (02:09:40) Terry Tao: “… and it doesn’t reflect all of the final sales terms.” … “However, just because it’s in writing, and that’s what the District was hoping for, doesn’t mean that that’s what the City had agreed to.”

COMPETING INFORMATION: According to a letter to the Editor submitted to the Beach Reporter on April 5, 2018, Mr. George Barks, who was on the HB City Council during the negotiations for the sale and purchase of Pier Avenue School:

"To set the record straight, as a former city council member during

the time of the sale of Pier Avenue School to the City, I can attest

first-hand that when this issue came before the council, we absolutely

guaranteed that the students could return to use the school if needed

in the future. A simple lease-back option was included within the

contract [the Memorandum of Understanding] between the district

and the city. As I have always said: "Why wouldn't the City Council

allow Hermosa students priority use of Pier Avenue classrooms and

facilities?" See The Beach Reporter, We Get Letters: Week of April 5,

2018, Reopening Pier Ave. School, by George Barks.

CORRECT INFORMATION: The MOU, which was attached to Exhibit G (Resolution of Intention to Sell and Authorize the Sale of Real Property to the City of Hermosa Beach and Prescribing the Terms Thereof), is stamped with the County of Los Angeles document number#78-241041, the same number stamped on the rest of the Sales Agreement and all of the other Exhibits, A through K.

CORRECT INFORMATION: The MOU, which was attached to Exhibit G (Resolution of Intention to Sell and Authorize the Sale of Real Property to the City of Hermosa Beach and Prescribing the Terms Thereof) spelled out the essential terms of the agreement that were carried out by both parties. The MOU was executed when Article 3 Escrow, Section 3.01 was completed by the City of Hermosa Beach.

“The District and the City shall cause an escrow to be opened

forthwith. The escrow agent shall be the Bank of America, Hermosa

Branch 63. The cost of said escrow shall be shared equally by the City

and the District”. See HB City Council minutes of June 28, 1977.

Also: Exhibit B, Memorandum of Understanding, Article 4, Further Agreements Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding:

Section 4.02:

“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.”

Section 4.02 b.: “The District shall have the right to use classrooms facilities at the subject property when and if the District’s pupil enrollment exceeds 1,266 pupils in that after the District shall be entitled to the use of one classroom per 28 children enrolled beyond 1,266 pupils.”

Section 4.10: “Each and all of the terms, conditions and agreements contained herein shall in every respect be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective successors in interest of and assigns of the District or the City.”

Section 4.11: “Each and every provision of law and each and every clause required by law to be inserted in this Agreement shall be deemed to be inserted herein and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though they were included herein; and if for any reason such provisions are not inserted, or are not correctly stated, then upon application of either party this Agreement shall forthwith be physically amended to make such insertion or correction.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: According to the June 14, 1977 Hermosa Beach City Council meeting minutes the City Council members (who included then Council members Lance Widman, George Barks and George Schmeltzer) took action to:

“approve the Memorandum of Understanding subject to review and approval of the City Attorney: an to authorize staff to open an escrow with the HBCSD for the purchase of Pier Avenue School, basically incorporating said Memorandum of Understanding and attached related materials with the following contingencies: Agreed rights to use for both parties and reversionary clause.” See HB City Council meeting minutes of June 14, 1977.

Between October 27, 1977 and January 1978 there were eight special meetings held between the City Council and HBCSD to hash out the details of the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School. If the MOU, Article 4 had not been agreed to, the City and the District would have rewritten Article 4 or would have removed Article 4 from the final signed agreement. Instead, at the City Council signing meeting of February 28, 1978, City Council members Lance Widman, George Barks and George Schmeltzer signed the Agreement and instructed the City Clerk to send the final set of documents which included all Exhibits A through K, including the MOU, to the LA County Recorder’s office to be officially stamped and recorded by the County. See HB City Council meeting minutes of February 28, 1978.

(8) MISLEADING STATEMENT: (02:13:23) Terry Tao: “One of the things that keeps coming up is the possibility of the district reacquiring this property. So, reacquiring the property under State of California is treated no different than if the district is buying the piece of property.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: HBCSD does NOT need to reacquire the property since it has a lease agreement with the City of Hermosa Beach to use the Community Center when district enrollment exceeds 1,266 students. District enrollment exceeded 1,266 student in 2010, yet HBCSD ignored its contractual agreement with the City of Hermosa Beach to the detriment of students and staff.

COMPETING INFORMATION: According to Exhibit ‘I’ to the Agreement, letter from City Attorney J.B. Mirassou dated January 20, 1978, and stamped with Los Angeles County registrar’s number #78-241041, identified as Exhibit ‘J’ and included with the entire Agreement: “In conjunction with the sale the City is entering into a leasing agreement with the District.”

According to Exhibit ‘J’ to the Agreement, letter from HBCSD attorney Gerald M. Hilby, dated January 20, 1978:

"… wherein the District may retain a future interest in the property or the partial use of the property for school, recreational or athletic purposes.” And “… the publication of the Resolution and all the documents setting forth the terms of sale as set forth in the Agreement of Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School and those exhibits attached thereto that do in fact set forth the terms and conditions of the sale as required by Section 16203 of the Education Code.”

According to Exhibit ‘H’ to the Agreement, Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Real Property to the City of Hermosa Beach and Prescribing the Terms and Conditions of the Sale Thereof as amended at the Board Meeting of January 16, 1978.:

“Whereas, the District has authorized the sale of the Pier Avenue School to the City pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in an Agreement entitled, “Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Real Property”, and the Exhibits attached thereto.”

According to Exhibit ‘D’ to the Agreement, Arbitration Agreement (dated and signed February 14th and February 28, 1978: Article 4 Factors Which the Arbitrators Shall Use in Making Their Decision: Section 4.01(d):

“It is the intent of the parties that Hermosa Beach residents and property owners shall be given priority use of the facilities.”

(9) MISLEADING INFORMATION: (02:13:27) “So that means the district needs to evaluate a number of things under what’s called Title 5. What Title 5 is, is what you typically are required to do in order to acquire any property for school purposes.”

CORRECT INFORMATION:

1. Title 5 Regulations are STANDARDS not requirements.

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

3. If renovations at either the Community Center or North School are entirely locally funded (i.e. no state matching funds used) then Title 5 standards AND Office of Public School Construction requirements do not need to be followed.

4. Title 5 Regulations give school districts substantial leeway as to their application.

5. Any Title 5 standard can be exempted; see Item u. in Section 14010 Standards for School Site Selection states: “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.”

6. What exactly were the supposed Title 5 violations at Pier Avenue School? Were they legitimate concerns?

Please see:

Lie #13: Misinformation and misleading information and misinformation regarding district use of the Community Center contained in the October 2023 update on Proposed Expansion of P.A.R.K. After School Program by the City of Hermosa Beach.

Lie #14: Misinformation and misleading information in the Recommendations for the May 2014 Joint Meeting of the Governing Board of HBCSD and the HB City Council.

7. HBCSD has no problem violating Title 5 standards when it suits them: Overcrowding campuses, using a multipurpose room to hold two classrooms, building a new North School campus (aka Vista School) that is only 27% the CDE recommended size for 425 students even as it was built for 510 3rd and 4th graders, housing kindergarten students in classrooms designed for elementary school students at North School, etc.

(10) MISLEADING/WITHOLDING OF FACTS: Slide: Reacquisition of Pier Avenue: Minimum School Site, 4.7 acre site/CDE recommendations for an elementary school: (02:15:20) Terry Tao: [Speaking about Pier Avenue School] “The Pier School is about 4.7 acres. I took the liberty of putting up what it is the California Department of Education recommends for minimum sizes. So what you’ll see on the website, I just grabbed and put on the page. Ah 450 students; I think you’re talking about between 300 and 450; requires a 9.6 acre site which is about double what it is that your talking about as far as the Pier Avenue School as it is. There may not be enough property there which would require perhaps eminent domain, which may require other things with regards to acquiring enough space so that you could have the play space that’s necessary in order to operate a school.”

COMPETEING INFORMATION: Although the main campus at Pier Avenue School is 4.7 acres the playfields at Clark field would significantly increase the entire usable acreage of the campus.

Mr. Tao does not mention that the main North School campus at the top of the sand hill is only 2.3 acres and that the playfields for North School are located in 2.4 acres in Valley Park. HBCSD Superintendent Pat Esclante and school board members had already promised the community that they would not to touch the much used and loved Valley Park in order to pass their $59M bond. That left only 2.3 acres for use as a campus for 510 students at North School.

Mr. Tao comments that the district would need to invoke eminent domain to use Clark Field and the fenced in basketball courts adjacent to Clark Field. In fact HBCSD could easily share the play field facilities with the City during school hours with a joint use agreement and relinquish Clark Field, adjacent basketball courts and upper campus tennis courts outside of school hours back to for wide-spread community use.

COMPETEING INFORMATION: Recommended site sizes are part of the Department of California Title 5 standards for school districts. See item #9 above. Title 5 Regulations are recommendations not absolutes. (See Title 5 California Code of Regulations, Article 2. School Sites, Section 14010, u.) This is confirmed by the fact that North School was used as a campus even though the site used is only 27% of the recommended site size for 425 students (see Title 5 California Code of Regulations, Article 2. School Sites, Section 14010, a.) – even as the new North School (aka Vista School) was built to house 510 students NOT 425 students. See California Department of Education letter to the Governing Board of HBCSD, April 11, 2019.

(11) FALSIFACATION/WITHOLDING OF FACTS BY MR. TAO AND SUPERINTENDENT ESCALANTE: (02:23:08) Terry Tao: [Speaking about Pier Avenue School] “I don’t know about here, I just don’t, but it would require a very significant evaluation by the DSA in order to be able to reuse the school; be able to upgrade for the Field Act and more likely than not it would require very significant upgrades.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: Pier Avenue School, as well as North School, were reconstructed after the Field Act earthquake safe building requirements were implemented for public school construction. A quick check with the California Department of State Architects would confirm this. See Green Bill, School Building Act – Chapter 59 – 1933 for Hermosa School District #19-45 application no. 382 received on 6/21/34. See Division of Architecture for North School, application no. 382 filed on 6/21/34.

NOTE: The Field Act passed in April 1933 also set up the California Division of Architecture to track and approve of all structural changes and future building of public schools. The second document above was a more formalized version of the initial document prepared by the newly created Division of Architecture.) It is assumed that both Terry Tao and Pat Escalante knew this information but withheld it during the meeting. Neither school needs to be upgraded for the Field Act because they were built to Field Act requirements. Please see: Wikipedia information for the Field Act.

NOTE: California Education Code Section 17280.5 (e):

"Notwithstanding any law, a leased or purchased building that is determined to have the equivalent pupil safety performance standard as a building constructed according to Filed Act requirements of a school building set forth in Section 17280, and is hereby deemed to be in full compliance with the Field Act.”

Please see: Seismic Safety Inventory of California Public Schools (A Report to the Govenor of California and the Calfiornia State Legislature) Prepared by the Department of General Services (November 15, 2002) page 5:

"Pubic school buildings in California are the safest in the nation. They exceed the seismic standards required for most other building and have proven to provide a level of protection that assures the safety of California’s public school children. Since the passage of the Field Act in 1933, no school has collapsed due to a seismic event, and there has been no loss of life.”

COMPETEING INFORMATION: John A. Martin & Associates were retained by the City of Hermosa Beach to conduct a seismic study of the Community Center (aka Pier Avenue School) in the summer of 2015. It passed the required Tier One inspection. Martin & Associates, without reviewing Samuel E. Lunden’s blueprints and specifications for the building of the Auditorium at Pier Avenue School, assumed a $2 million cost to seismically reinforce the Auditorium. Demolition and rebuilding of North School campus is estimated to cost $32 million. See Hermosa Beach Community Center (Gymnasium and Classroom Building) ASCE 31-03 Phase 1 Structural Seismic Evaluation Report June 11, 2015 by John A. Martin & Associates, Inc.

City Manager Tom Bakaly, who was in attendance at the May 31, 2016 public meeting knew this information but withheld it during the meeting. See May 4, 2016 City Council meeting partial transcript. http//hermosabeach Granicus.com/MediaPlayer php?view id=6&clip id=4149 time stamp 01:49:10.

(12) MISINFORMATION/DISTORTION/WITHHOLDING OF FACTS BY SUPERINTENDENT ESCALANTE: (02:26:19) Terry Tao: “Um, the earthquake issues that would have to be evaluated if the district ever actually had to go through the process of evaluating the acquisition, the reacquisition of the school [Pier Avenue School] and to be able to use Pier Avenue as a school once again.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: Both Pier Avenue School as well as North School are safe for school children as is.

NOTE: California Education Code Section 17280.5 (e):

COMPETING INFORMATION: In March 2014 the Office of Public School Construction did an evaluation of both Pier Avenue School and North School for HBCSD. Both Pier Avenue School and North School were deemed eligible for matching funds for renovation.

COMPETING INFORMATION: In the summer of 2015, the City of Hermosa Beach hired John A. Martin & Associates structural engineers to perform an ASCE 31-03 Phase 1 Structural Seismic Evaluation of the Community Center (aka Pier Avenue School). The report found that the Community Center classrooms and gymnasium were designed "remarkably well" when subjected to Tier 1 checks of ASCE 31. Both City Manager Tom Bakaly and city council members had this information, yet no one spoke up to offer this information during HBCSD attorney Terry Tao's presentation.

(13) MISSTATMENT/DISTORTION: (02:28:15) Terry Tao: “North School was completed on September 10, 1924, the earthquake occurred March 10, 1933, and then there was a remodel of North.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: According to DSA application #382, North School was reconstructed not "remodeled" in 1934 after the 1933 Long Beach earthquake.

(14) MISLEADING/DISTORTION: (02:28:15) Terry Tao: “So here are the drawings [of North School]. It’s actually only six pages…”

COMPETING INFORMATION: Terry Tao alludes to the idea that there is something lacking in the architectural plans for the main building at North School because as he states “it’s actually only six pages.” Other buildings at North School only had five pages of architectural drawings yet no one dismisses those buildings as not being original designs by the architects.

(15) MISLEADING/DISTORTION: (02:28:15) Terry Tao: “… and I took the liberty of blowing up this little corner over there, um, to show that what we are looking at is DSA application 382. Also, let’s see, I have a slide here, there; there is some mention that Samuel Lunden is the architect and yes, you see the title block is Samuel Lunden, architect, but you look at the actual project, it’s actually a reconstruction of the existing building there that was previously built and if you go back and you look what he’s doing is very, very minor stuff.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: The before and after photos of North School after Samuel Lunden’s reconstruction of the original four room building after the 1933 earthquake look completely different. The Historical Assessment of the North School Campus by Daly & Associates stated that the original North School was brick and wood construction and that the reconstruction of North School was done with poured concrete (gunite). In addition the entrances to North School were changed from a South facing orientation to a West/East facing orientation to take advantage of the ocean breeze. Samuel Lunden prepared six pages of architectural drawings and 61 pages of hand-typed specifications for the North School reconstruction, which again, contradicts Mr. Tao’s statements that just “very, very minor stuff” was done in the reconstruction after the 1933 Earthquake.

(16) MISREPRESENTATION/DISTORTION: (02:20:18) Terry Tao: “So it was just a six page renovation of an earthquake damaged building. It is not a Lunden design.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: Samuel Lunden RECONSTRUCTED North School, he did not “renovate” North School as Terry Tao states above. See Green Bill, School Building Act – Chapter 59 – 1933 for Hermosa School District #19-45 application no. 382 received on 6/21/34. See Division of Architecture for North School, application no. 382 filed on 6/21/34. (Note: the Field Act passed in April 1933 also set up the California Division of Architecture to track and approve of all structural changes and future building of public schools. The second document above was a more formalized version of the initial document prepared by the newly created Division of Architecture.

NOTE: At the May 25, 2016 Measure S Informational Meeting (time stamp 00:45:09), Superintendent Pat Escalante incorrectly states that the Green Bill document was a loan application to build North School. The Division of Architecture does NOT have a financing arm.

NOTE: Samuel E. Lunden was a very important and well-known architect in Southern California. He was educated at Cal Tech and MIT. He designed both the Los Angeles [Pacific Coast] Stock Exchange [1929] and the USC Doheny Library [1933] among many other notable buildings. He was president of the American Institute of Architecture in 1965. He lived in Manhattan Beach in 1934 and was instrumental in bringing the newly planned highway [Pacific Coast Highway] close to the beach cities.

COMPETING INFORMATION: There are six sheets of hand-drawn blueprints by Samuel E. Lunden and 61 pages of hand-typed specifications submitted to the DSA for the reconstruction of a four classroom building at North School. The before and after building materials and look of the North School building are completely different from the original Classical Revival style of the building to the existing Moderne/Art Deco style.

COMPETING INFORMATION: The 1938 DSA application for the Kindergarten building designed by Marsh, Smith and Powell (MSP) only had five pages of blueprints. The MSP Kindergarten building is located just east of the main four room classroom building that Samuel Lunden designed. The District is not denying that the Kindergarten building was a MSP designed building. However, they refuse to acknowledge the design work presented in six pages of plans and 61 pages of specifications prepared by Samuel Lunden for his design of the main building at North School.

17. Question from School Board member Maggie Bove-LaMonica: (02:31:21) “Thank you so much for that presentation. It was really thorough, and I think it answered a lot of questions for the board (didn’t the school board already know all this information before putting a $59 million bond and plan, Measure S, on the ballot?), the council and the community. Um, I had a question. You were mentioning grand-fathering-in of buildings, and so, ah, the current Community Center, previous Pier Avenue School could not be grandfathered-in because it’s no longer a school correct?”

FALSIFICATION/MISREPRESENTATION: (02:31:39) Terry Tao: “That is correct. Actually there is something I should have mentioned. There was, ah, in 1999, there was something called AB300 (Assembly Bill 300). You’ve probably; you may or may not have heard of it. AB300 was an inventory of all school buildings that the State of California believed would be, um, earthquake vulnerable, ah, to collapse, and perhaps injure people. If I remember correctly, Newport School was one of the schools that was on that list [AB300], is why they had to put so much money into the school. What we noticed is that almost all of the reinforced concrete masonry buildings that were built probably pre-50s, pre-60s almost all ended up on the AB300 list. The only reason why Pier didn’t end up on AB300 for school purposes was more likely than not because it was no longer listed as a school in the inventory.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: AB300 is inventory information of schools in California constructed of concrete, masonry and steel submitted to the DSA before July 1, 1978. Wood frame buildings were not part of the survey. AB300 did not identify which schools needed seismic retrofit. See AB 300 Frequently Asked Questions, Department of General Services.; See AB 300 Inventory Information for Hermosa Beach City Elementary School District as of Friday, April 08, 2016; Table 1. Building Classification System for Seismic-Safety Inventory of California Public Schools, p.11; Chapter 3. Inventory Results, 2.1 Building Seismic Vulnerability Categories, p. 12.

CORRECT INFORMATION: Newport Elementary School cost $4.1 million to seismically renovate in 2001. See Capital Program Management Inc., Newport Elementary School, 5 pages.

CORRECT INFORMATION: As of June 2016, neither Pier Avenue School, North School nor Newport Elementary School were included on the AB300 Inventory lists. Schools were included or not included on the list for many reasons, but not because they were “earthquake vulnerable” as Terry Tao states above.

18. Question from School Board member Maggie Bove-LaMonica: (02:32:50) “So the second half of the question is, what is the North School site classified in and what terms would it be grandfathered under?”

FALSIFICATION/MISREPRESENTATION: (02:33:00) Terry Tao: “Um, North School, since it has never been de-listed, ah, would likely still be considered a school, ah, so it could continue to be used as a school, (i.e. “grandfathered-in”) but I went to visit the school, I don’t’ have it on my computer; I don’t have the slides here. Um, It [North School] does have areas that would require some very significant evaluation, ah for seismic purposes which is what you typically do when you go through these renovations. But it would still be considered a school building but would require some very significant evaluation. Generally speaking if it requires too much redo than you will typically look at, um, reworking the building, kind of like what happened with Newport [elementary school]. (Pointing to a poster with photos of Newport Elementary School) They figured out that it was cheaper to actually tear down and build the exact same thing, um, you might be in that same situation with some of the buildings.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: North School was not listed on the AB300 Inventory catalog in the first place so it could not be “de-listed” as Terry Tao alludes to. Many schools were inadvertently left off the AB300 Inventory due to the sheer number of schools that were being cataloged. The Inventory also failed to list Newport Elementary School which has continue to be used as a public school by the Newport Mesa Unified School District and Pier Avenue School which hasn’t been used as a public school by HBCSD since 1978. Mr. Terry Tao is purposely misrepresenting the function of AB300 Inventory catalog with his comments. See AB 300 Frequently Asked Questions, Department of General Services.; See AB 300 Inventory Information for Hermosa Beach City Elementary School District as of Friday, April 08, 2016; Table 1. Building Classification System for Seismic-Safety Inventory of California Public Schools, p.11; Chapter 3. Inventory Results, 2.1 Building Seismic Vulnerability Categories, p. 12.

NOTE: California Education Code Section 17280.5 (e):

"Notwithstanding any law, a leased or purchased building that

is determined to have the equivalent pupil safety performance

standard as a building constructed according to Field Act

requirements of a school building set forth in Section 17280, and is

hereby deemed to be in full compliance with the Field Act.”

NOTE: Both North School and the Pier Avenue School were built to California Field Act earthquake specifications.

CORRECT INFORMATION: Newport Elementary School was renovated for $4.1 million in 2001. It was not torn down and rebuilt as Terry Tao states above. See Capital Program Management, Inc. and Newport-Mesa USD, February 26, 2002, Newport Elementary School, General Information Newport Elementary p 2. Total Hard Cost $4,117,448. See attached photos from 2016 of Newport Elementary School (circa 1936) in Newport Beach, CA.

MISLEADING/MISINFORMATION: (02:33:04) Terry Tao: “It [North School] does have some ADA issues that would need to be done.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: All three district schools, Valley, View and North, have been deemed to need ADA upgrades as reported in the 2014 Facilities Master Plan pages 38, 48 and 58 respectively. However, the required ADA upgrades do not necessitate demolishing and rebuilding the entire school as planned with Bond Measure S building plans for North School. See 2014 Facilities Master Plan.

19. Question from School Board member Maggie Bove-LaMonica: (02:34:00) “And so to clarify, there is no way that the building [North School] in its current state can be grandfathered in under Ed Code, because it was built to code in the 30s?”

FALSIFICATION: (02:34:10) Terry Tao: “It [North School] would be continued to be grandfathered-in, but because of the fact that it’s been used as something other than a school, you would have to go through a fairly significant evaluation.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: North School has continued to be owned by HBCSD and used as both a public and private school. The term “Grandfathered-in” means that North School is Education Code compliant and can be used for HBCSD students as is. The fact that North School was also used as a private school does not change the integrity of the facilities for HBCSD students. The only situation that would prompt a “fairly significant evaluation” by the State is if major structural changes had been made to existing buildings which had not been certified and inspected by the Department of State Architects. This is not the case with North School.

COMPETING INFORMATION: In March 2014 the Office of Public School Construction did an evaluation of both Pier Avenue School and North School for HBCSD. Both Pier Avenue School and North School were deemed eligible for State matching funds for renovation.

“The Hermosa Beach City Elementary School District currently

leases the North Avenue site to an active daycare business. The

District is considering reclaiming the site and re-opening it. The

District may re-open and establish modernization eligibility at the

site if they intend to use the site as a school for at least 5 years.”

20. Question from City Council member Justin Massey: (02:44:25) “Does the District have the unconditional right to reacquire the Pier Avenue school from the City?”

MISREPRESENTATION: (02:44:25) Terry Tao: “It does not.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: HBCSD has the right to re-enter and use classrooms, office and storage space at Pier Avenue School according to Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property, Exhibit B, Article 4, Further Agreements Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding:

Section 4.02: “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.

Section 4.02 b.: “The District shall have the right to use classrooms facilities at the subject property when and if the District’s pupil enrollment exceeds 1,266 pupils in that after the District shall be entitled to the use of one classroom per 28 children enrolled beyond 1,266 pupils.”

Section 4.02 c.: The District shall be entitled to use certain office and storage space at the Pier Avenue School, the square foot area and location to be agreed upon by District and City.

Section 4.10: “Each and all of the terms, conditions and agreements contained herein shall in every respect be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the respective successor in interest of and assigns of the District or the City.”

CORRECT INFORMATION: HBCSD also has the ability to request Pier Avenue School for District use under Eminent Domain law: for joint public use (Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.510) and Eminent Domain Law for more necessary pubic use (Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.610, 1240.640 and 1240.650).

CORRECT INFORMATION: HBCSD has the ability to request Pier Avenue School for District use under the Naylor Act:

CA Ed Code 17486: “This article shall apply to any school site owned by a school district, which the governing board determines to sell or lease…”

CA Ed Code 17494: “The school district may, at any time, reacquire the land at a price calculated in the manner prescribed in Section 17491, and the right of reacquisition provided in this section shall be set forth in the deed or other instrument of transfer.” … “For purposes of this section, “cost of acquisition,” as used in Section 17491, shall refer to the cost at which the land was acquired by the public agency.”

CA Ed Code 17497: “Notwithstanding the other provisions of this article, any school district governing board may designate not more than two surplus school sites as exempt from the provisions of this article for each planned school site acquisition if the school district has an immediate need for an additional school site and is actively seeking to acquire an additional site, and may exempt not more than one surplus school site if the district is seeking immediate expansion of the classroom capacity of an existing school by 50 percent or more. (This rule should apply to View School if the District claims that the District is over-enrolled by 440 students as Mary Campbell stated at the 01:29:12 mark earlier in this meeting.) The exemption provided for by this section shall be inapplicable to any school site which, under a lease executed on or before July 1, 1974 (Pier Avenue Sale was executed on February 1978), with a term of 10 years, was leased to a city of under 100,000 population for park purposes, was improved at city expense, and used for public park purposes.”

21. Question from City Council member Justin Massey: (02:45:01) “And, would reacquisition trigger the requirement that the district comply with current codes that govern how the building is constructed, what the programs are that are in the school and so on?”

COMPETING INFORMATION: HBCSD does not need to "reacquire" the Community Center to use it for students. School Board members simply need to activate the district's contractual provisions for use of classrooms, storage and office space at the Community Center while enrollment exceeds 1,266 students. The Community Center would only be used as a temporary site for HBCSD students during an enrollment spike.

MISLEADING: (02:45:01) Terry Tao: “Field Act, Title 24, ADA, Title 5, um for

educational purposes and then of course, of, of the, um, you know,

receptors for quality, and DTSC.”

NOTE: None of the items Terry Tao lists would likely stop or negatively effect the use of either the Community Center or North School for students.

CORRECT INFORMATION: Pier Avenue School and North School were

reconstructed to Field Act Specifications in 1934 and 1935 respectively.

See also: CA Ed Code 17280.5(e):

“Notwithstanding any law, a leased or purchased building that is

determined to have the equivalent pupil safety performance standard

as a building constructed according to the Field Act and implementing

regulations is hereby deemed to be in full compliance with the safety

requirements of a school building as set forth in Section 17280, and is

hereby deemed to be in full compliance with the Field Act.”

COMPETING INFORMATION: Pier Avenue School also passed the Phase 1 Structural Seismic Evaluation performed by Martin & Associates (consultants retained by the City of Hermosa Beach) in the summer of 2015. See Hermosa Beach Community Center (Gymnasium and Classroom Building) ASCE 31-03 Phase 1 Structural Seismic Evaluation Report June 11, 2015 by John A. Martin & Associates, Inc.

(1) Pier Avenue School is structurally safe for public school students and can be used as a school according to Ed Code 17280.5.

(2) Both Pier Avenue School and North School are elligible for State matching funds for renovation according to the Office of Public School Construction letter to Superintendent Pat Escalante on March 26, 2014.

(3) Title 24 is the basic California Building Standards Code and applies to all buildings in the State of California. Title 24 would be used to make all improvements and changes to City owned as well as District owned buildings.

(4) DTSC's School Property Evaluation and Cleanup Division is responsible for assessing, investigating and cleaning up proposed school sites. Pier Avenue School Site has only been used for education and recreation since the original Pier Avenue School was built in 1911. No toxic substances have been kept there.

(5) ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act applies to all public buildings. According to the 2014 Facilities Master Plan all district schools need ADA upgrades.

(6) Title 5 Regulations only apply to new construction, not to existing buildings. Any Title 5 standard can be exempted by the School Board according to Item u.

22. Question from School Board member Mary Campbell: (02:45:05) “Can I do a quick follow up? Because it’s related to what, um, Council member Massey asked, let’s just pretend that there was some kind of path that was pursued to go back and to turn the Pier Avenue Community Center into a school. Is it considered a historical resource where the work that would be required to turn it into a working public school might be in conflict with the Historical significance of that site?”

QUESTIONABLE: (02:46:30) Terry Tao: “Oh, you know what? I, um, I had thought about that a little bit when I was wandering around the school the other day, or the Community Center, the other day. Um, this is a very significant architect that actually worked on this school, so more likely than not it would be considered a cultural resource. And so the type of money that you would have to put in in order to preserve a cultural resource does get expensive because of the need to preserve those elements that really define what it is the school was."

CORRECT INFORMATION: “Buildings and structures identified as contributing to the culture, community or heritage of a locality – and qualified as 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 [Department of State Architecture] recognizes that the strict use of the regular code may create difficulties where rehabilitation attempts to retain the historic characteristics of a building or structure.” “The California Historic Building Code (CHBC) provides alternatives that allow most of the historic characteristics to be retained while achieving the performance objectives of the regular code.” Please see: Rehabilitation of Existing Non-Conforming Buildings for Public School and California Community College use. DSA REH 002a (rev 11-30-11), Policies and Provisions for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings for Public School use. Appendix M., p.35-36.

COMPETING INFORMATION: Organizations that offer grants to renovate Historical buildings are: Department of Housing & Urban Development, National Trust for Historic Preservation Grants, Save America’s Treasures, Preserve America, Restore America, Getty Conservation Institute, National Endowment for the Humanities, American Historical Association and American Association for State and Local History.

23. Question from City Council member Hany Fangary: (02:50:40)“Okay. Um, and I think Terry you mentioned you referred to the M.O.U. (Memorandum of Understanding from HBCSD to the City contained in the Lease Agreement for Pier Avenue School.) not being signed, and you referred to prior litigation. I know this subject has come up several times, um, has there been a determination that this M.O.U. is, besides the fact that the one we have is not signed, that the M.O.U. has never been signed? Or is that still a question mark?”

MISREPRESENTATION: (02:50:54) Terry Tao: “That, the M.O.U. is, the M.O.U. has never been signed and from what I can tell, it’s Exhibit “B” to the resolution of June 13th 1977, ah so it was an M.O.U. that eventually gets reduced into the Sales Agreement and the Sales Agreement is the final document with regard to the sale. So whatever didn’t get incorporated from the M.O.U. essentially disappears.”

NOTE: Terry Tao does not specifically state the the MOU did not get reduced into the Sales Agreement. He states instead "So whatever didn't get incorporated from the M.O.U. essentially disappears." alluding to the idea in this passage that the district use of classrooms did not get incorporated from the MOU into the contract. This statement can easily be misconstrued by the public in this context.

COMPETING INFORMATION: The Memorandum of Understanding detailing the Lease Agreement for classrooms, office space and storage space at Pier Avenue School was included with the Agreement and all its Exhibits, including the Resolution of June 13, 1977 with attached description of the property. All pages of the Agreement and all exhibits (including the MOU and the Resolution of June 13, 1977 were accepted by the City of Hermosa Beach City Council members in 1978. All pages of the Agreement and all pages in exhibits, including the MOU, were sent to the Los Angeles County Recorder’s office and all were stamped with the official document number #78-241041 as binding provisions of the entire final agreement.

See information from Lie #2.

(1) HB City Council meeting minutes of June 14, 1977 and June 28, 1977. The day after receiving The Resolution of Intention to Sell and Prescribing the Terms Thereof, a description of the property to be sold AND the MOU from HBCSD, city council members vote to accept the MOU and proceed to take out an escrow according to the instructions contained in the MOU, Article 3 – thus automatically executing the entire MOU and accepting all its provisions, including Article 4 - district use of classrooms.

(2) The City of Hermosa Beach cannot, after the fact, pick and choose which of the articles they decide to accept from the MOU and which they decided NOT to accept without the MOU being physically modified, which it was not. If the City of Hermosa Beach accepted the description of the property in Article 1 of the MOU, the purchase price specified in Article 2, and agreed to follow the escrow instruction outline in Article 3, they then, by default, also accepted the district lease provisions for classrooms, office space and storage space described in Article 4 of the MOU.

NOTE: The Memorandum of Understanding, Article 4, Section 4.10 states: “Each and all of the terms, conditions and agreements contained herein shall in every respect be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the respective successors in interest of and assigns of the District or the City.”

(3) The HBCSD Board Resolution of Intention to Sell & Prescribing the Terms Thereof, Exhibit ‘G’, was listed on page 2 of the main body of the Agreement in Article 1 Recital of Facts, item 1.09. None of the items listed in the Recital of Facts are expounded on in the main Agreement pages 1-11. Each item in the Recital of Facts includes an exhibit that gives further information as to the details and intent – as in this case the MOU gives further details of HBCSD’s terms of their offer to sell Pier Avenue School to the city and is listed in the body of the Agreement under Exhibit G.

(4) The MOU had all the elements of a valid contract: (a) the offer terms were clear, (b) the city accepted the MOU in deed by voting on June 14, 1977 to accept the MOU and then proceeding to take out an escrow for Pier Avenue School following the directions contained in Article 3 of the MOU, (c) the city had awareness by having the city attorney attend all meetings and advising the city council members, (d) the consideration by the city was purchasing the Pier Avenue School for 40% below fair market value in exchange for the district use of premises when enrollment exceeded 1,266 students e) and the MOU was a legal offer as evidenced by Exhibit J the letter from HB City attorney J.B. Mirassou confirming the terms and legality of the final agreement.

(5) Papers supporting the claim that certain unsigned MOUs and contracts are indeed enforceable in California.

(6) Letter to the Editor from former city council member and signer of the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School: The Beach Reporter, We Get Letters: Week of April 5, 2019, Reopening Pier Ave. School, by George Barks. “To set the record straight, as a former city council member during the time of the sale of Pier Avenue School to the City, I can attest first-hand that when this issue came before the council, we absolutely guaranteed that the students could return to use the school if needed in the future. A simple lease-back option was included within the contract between the district and the city.”

24. Comment to the Community from Hermosa Beach Mayor, Carolyn Petty: (02:53:20) “Ah, Dr. Campbell, great presentation. Thank you so much, Pat, thank you for organizing this. (Correct Information: Superintendent Pat Escalante (and other school board members?) and HBCSD attorney, Terry Tao colluded in 6 hours of meetings on the misinformation contained in this presentation.) "Having Terry come; this has been illuminating to say the least. And ah, many questions that I had were answered so I don’t have any questions. So what I want to say in closing is I encourage people to share this, people here in the room, people watching from home (looks into the camera), share this with as many people as you can. Share this on social media. Spread the word and what I would ask of everybody who votes, be an educated voter. Please do not treat this vote in a cavalier fashion." (Competing Information: There was no response from Carolyn Petty or from other City Council members when the misinformation in Terry Tao’s presentation was made available to them in the fall of 2016. No disclaimer was given to the public either by the school district or by City Council members that the information given to voters prior to the $59M bond vote was incorrect and misleading and DID NOT support the district’s plan to charge taxpayers $59 million dollars (Totaling $98 million with added interest over 30 years) to provide classrooms for students.) "Take the time to know the decision that your making because it affects the future of this community. Take the time to watch this entire presentation. After that, if you still have questions, ask the School Board. But really take the responsibility of being a voter very seriously because the question that is before every voter is a serious one. (looks away from the camera) So I thank everybody for being here and ah, all the people in the room. It’s really been a highly productive evening.”