Lie 4 | The Missinformation | Hermosa Beach, CA

Lie #4

The Misinformation:

(1) Superintendent Pat Escalante (2012-2020) and City Manager Tom Bakaly (2012-2016): Joint Meeting of the Governing Board of the Hermosa Beach City School District and the Hermosa Beach City Council Recommendation, May 22, 2014: Attachment 4 (A-E)

NOTE: This "information" was released as part of the school district and city joint meeting in May 2014 before the district asked for voters for a $59M bond to rebuild North School (aka Vista School) in June 2016.

NOTE: The City of Hermosa Beach and HBCSD do not have to prove these "challenges", they just suggest them in order to disqualify use of the Community Center for students. These "challenges" were NOT proven to be "challenges" by either the City or the school district.

“CHALLENGES: Title 5 – California Department of Education Code of Regulations. This is an excerpt of California Code of Regulations, Title 5 that relate to school facilities construction.”

"The site shall not be located near an above-ground water or fuel storage tanks 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.” This is item ‘h’ in the Title 5 Codes of Regulations.

CORRECT INFORMATION:

1. 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.

2. There are no indications of an underground pipeline 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.

“The site shall not be located near an above-ground water or fuel storage tanks 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.”

NOTE: The write-up by Tom Bakaly and Pat Escalante states the exact same paragraph twice! Didn’t anyone proofread this write-up? Why write the exact same statement twice? To make it look like you have three issues that are supposedly “CHALLENGES” instead of just two?

“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 Section 17213 and Governing Code Section 65402 and available traffic surrounding the site.” This is item ‘m’ in the Title 5 Code of Regulations.

CORRECT INFORMATION:

1. Item 'm' only applies to school site acquisitions. HBCSD would not be acquiring the Pier Avenue Community Center as a district asset. HBCSD would only be leasing the Pier Avenue Community Center temporarily while district enrollment exceeded 1,266 students as specified in the Memorandum of Understanding lease agreement.

2. A CALTRANS tally of traffic on Pacific Coast Highway at Pier Avenue shows that daily traffic is below Title 5 standards (Ed Code Sec 17213(item 9)) of 100,000 vehicles in an urban area.

(https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census/traffic-volumes/2017/route-1)

3. There are crossing guards stationed at PCH and Pier Ave. AND Pier Ave. & Valley/Ardmore that would mitigate students crossing those intersections.

4. The surrounding zoning does NOT pose a safety risk to students or staff.

5. Education Code Section 17213 regulations are surprisingly easy to comply with.

6. Ed Code Section 17213 is only required as a condition of receiving state funding. State funding for HBCSD modernization may only be in the thousands, not millions of dollars. Therefore, it may behoove taxpayers to self fund the renovation of Pier Avenue Community Center for students.

(2) Superintendent Pat Escalante (2012-2020) and City Manager Tom Bakaly (2012-2016): Joint Meeting of the Governing Board of the Hermosa Beach City School District and the Hermosa Beach City Council Recommendation, May 22, 2014: Attachment 4 (A-E)

“CHALLENGES: There are many misconceptions about easy, cost-effective ways for the City and the School District to provide facilities within currently owned properties.”

“Through an ongoing collaboration between the City and the School District to review all potential remedies for overcrowding, a number of issues with current properties once considered as viable options for school resources and additional office space are challenged by state laws and regulations. This includes:”

“Education Codes”

“Exchange of Properties: Education Code 17536”

“The governing board of a school district may exchange any of its real property for real property of another person or private business firm. Any exchange shall be upon such terms and conditions as the parties thereto may agree and may be entered into without complying with any provision of this code (including surplus property procedures …) except as provided in this article.” …

“Education Section 17537”

“Therefore, if a school district desires to dispose of surplus property to a private organization, it may do so by following this streamlined procedure if it can: 1) locate a property for which it is willing to exchange its surplus property, and 2) negotiate for the acquisition of the located property by a private organization which will in turn exchange the located property with the school district’s surplus property pursuant to an exchange agreement.” …

COMPETING INFORMATION:

How exactly does either of these quoted Education Codes “challenge” the district using the Community Center for students?
All these Ed Codes state is that the district can exchange property with a private person or private business firm. There is nothing in these Education Codes that would prevent the school district from exercising their lease agreement with the city for priority usage of the Community Center when enrollment exceeds 1,266 students.
It seems that the City and the School District are simply tossing around leaves and sticks (like gorillas in the forest) in an effort to try and scare the community away from the idea of using the Community Center for students.
The same misleading information is given by Pat Escalante and Tom Bakaly on at least two other occasions:

A. See also: Misinformation and Misleading Statements contained in Letters to the Editor #3. Tom Bakaly, City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach Letters to the Editor 10/09/14, Easy Reader News:

B. See also: Lie #15: Misleading information and misinformation regarding district use of the Community Center contained in the May 2014 Board Highlights sent to school parents.

(3) Pat Escalante, HBCSD Superintendent (2012-2020):

“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:”

“Existing Data/Facts: 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), the Center does not currently meet TITLE 5 requirements (3), 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.” (4).” May 2014 Board Highlights (sent to HBCSD parents and posted on the HBCSD website.)

THERE ARE FOUR STATEMENTS OF MISINFORMATION IN THE MAY 2014 BOARD HIGHLIGHTS EMAILED TO PARENTS AND POSTED ON THE DISTRICT WEBSITE:

MISLEADING STATEMENT: “Community Center is the property of the City and is not for sale”
INCORRECT STATEMENT: …”the deed restriction states that programmed activities must be for recreational purposes”…
MISLEADING STATEMENT: … “the Center does not currently meet TITLE 5 requirements”…
INCORRECT AND MISLEADING STATEMENT: … “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.”

CORRECT INFORMATON FOR (1): HBCSD does not need to purchase the Community Center in order to use classrooms there, so this statement is meaningless and misleading. Please see: Lie #3: Claiming that the Community Center needs to be purchased by HBCSD in order for it to be used by the district.

CORRECT INFORMATON FOR (2): There are at least five places in the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School in which it states that the Community Center may also be used for educational purposes. (Article 9 Future Use of Property, the Grant Deed, The Arbitration Agreement, letters from HB City attorney JB Mirassou and HBCSD attorney Gerald Hilby dated January 20, 1978. Please see: Lie #5: Misinforming the public that the Community Center can only be used for recreation purposes.

CORRECT INFORMATION FOR (3):

1. Title 5 are CDE standards NOT “requirements” and apply only to new construction not to existing or temporarily leased school buildings. Title 5 Regulation were adopted 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.

2. 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.”

3. HBCSD does NOT need to follow Title 5 standards if they entirely self-fund the renovations. Title 5 standards need to be followed only if a school district applies for additional, minimal state supplemental funding.

4. The Community Center already conforms to Title 5 regulations for safety.

CORRECT INFORMATION FOR (4): 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: Superintendent Pat Escalante changed the wording of the Ed Code 17536 in the Board Highlights which changed the meaning of Ed Code 17536.: “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.”… Pat Escalante added the word “ONLY” of another person or private business firm, which changed the meaning of code 17536.

CORRECT INFORMATION FOR (4): 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 Education Code 17537 affect the usage of the Community Center by the school district (4)? Neither Education Code 17536 nor 17537 would in any way affect HBCSD’s use of the Community Center or prevent the district from using classrooms, office and storage space there. 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. See also email from Michael DiVirgilio, Mayor of Hermosa Beach, July 9, 2014.

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 sent to parents after being alerted to the incorrect information contained therein.

(4) Tom Bakaly, Hermosa Beach City Manager (2012-2016): “…but upon further review current properties once considered viable options for school resources and additional office spaces are challenged by state law and regulations, some of which include Exchange of Properties: Education Codes 17536, Education Section 17537 and Title 5 – California Department of Education Code of Regulations. In summary, these laws prevent the use of buildings for school purposes.” Old school schooling, Letters to the Editor, 10/09/14, Easy Reader News.

CORRECT INFORMATION:

1. Education Codes 17536 and 17537 in NO WAY prevent HBCSD from using the Community Center. Both Ed Codes that Tom Bakaly cites have to do with an exchange of properties which is not necessary for the city and the school district to undertake.

2. The lease agreement as defined in the MOU does not require that properties be exchanged.

3. Again, there is no explanation as to which Title 5 standards the Community Center does not meet and how the supposed issue would prevent school district usage.

4. Title 5 standards apply to new construction and permanent acquisitions by school district and only apply if a school district is applying to the State Allocation Board for matching funds which might only be a small percentage of the total cost of the project.

5. The school district could have ordered a Title 5 evaluation of the Community Center by the CDE and the DSA but did not do so.

(5) Terry Tao, HBCSD Attorney (2002-), “And let’s go over to a couple of issues. 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. 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.” May 31, 2016 presentation to the Joint meeting of the HB City Council members and HBCSD School Board members. Time stamp: 02:13:58 (One week before the district's $59M Measure S bond vote)

NOTE: The Office of Public-School Construction in a letter and report to Superintendent Pat Escalante on March 26, 2014 indicated that HBCSD can indeed lease the Community Center for use by students.

6. Question from City Council member Justin Massey at the May 31, 2016 Joint City and School Board meeting: “And, would reacquisition [of the Community Center] 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?” May 31, 2016 presentation to the Joint meeting of the HB City Council members and HBCSD School Board members. (02:45:01)

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 RESPONSE: Terry Tao, HBCSD Attorney (2002-),(02:45:01): “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.