Fact #25:

HBCSD provided false information in the Environmental Impact Report regarding the CDE Naylor Act regulations as it applies to North School.

PROOF OF THE LIE:

(1) The Naylor Act is Article 5 of the of Part 10.5 School Facilities (17210-17653), Chapter 4 Property: Sale, Lease, Exchange (17385-17561).

(2) The Naylor Act description as defined in section #17485: “The Legislature is concerned that school playgrounds, playing fields, and recreational real property will be lost for those uses by the surrounding communities even if those communities in their planning process have assumed that the properties would be permanently available for recreation purposes.  It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this article to allow school districts to recover their investment in surplus property while making it possible for other agencies of government to acquire the property and keep it available for playground, playing field or other outdoor recreation and open-space purposes.” (Added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 277, Sec 3.  Effective January 1, 1997.  Operative January 1, 1998.)

(3) The Naylor Act continued: Section #17486:  “This article shall apply to  any schoolsite owned by a school district, which the governing board determines to sell or lease, and with respect to which the following conditions exist:” … “(c) No other available publically owned land in the vicinity of the school site is adequate to meet the existing and foreseeable needs of the community for playground, playing field, or other outdoor recreation and open-space purpose, as determined by the governing body or the public agency which proposes to purchase or lease land from the school district, pursuant to Section 17492.”

(4) The approximately 3 to 4-acre Valley Park satisfies the Naylor Act Section #17486 above.  Therefore, the Naylor Act WOULD NOT apply to North School if the district chose to sell or lease North School.  The Environmental Impact Report does not disclose this fact to the Coastal Commission and to the public.

(5) The Naylor Act continued: Section #17491 (a): “In no event shall the price be less than 25 percent of the fair market value of the land described in Section 17486…”

THE MISINFORMATION: 

7: Alternatives to the Proposed Project:

7.3.2.3: Alternate 3, Alternative Locations: (page 7-8)

Alternate 3d, Community Center: (pages 7-8, 7-9)  

“The District does not own any of the locations considered [The Community Center, Time-Warner (aka Spectrum) site, St. Cross Episcopal church, etc.].” … “Additionally, the sale of any surplus school grounds would be required to comply with the Naylor Act, which requires school districts to first offer the property to other government agencies for 25 percent of its fair market value.”

CORRECT INFORMATION:

The Naylor Act actually states: “In no event shall the price be less than 25 percent of the fair market value of the land described in Section 17486…”  Naylor Act does NOT say that the district has to sell North School for 25 percent of its fair market value.

HBCSD states incorrectly that they would need to sell North School for 25% of its fair market value. The correct information is that a school district CAN NOT sell property for LESS than 25% of its fair market value.

Was this mistake simply an "oversight" or was it intentionally written to lie to the people of Hermosa Beach and to the Coastal Commission?

NOTE: The information regarding the Naylor Act cited in this website was published by Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Rudd and Romo (AALRR). AALRR was the attorney group who employed HBCSD attorney Terry Tao. HBCSD school board members kept Terry Tao as the district's primary lead on Measure S and the Measure S Environmental Impact Report, even after significant proof was supplied to them about Terry Tao's lies prior to the passage of Measure S $59M bond. How did HBCSD school board members and their hired consultants Place Works and HBCSD hired attorney Terry Tao get the information regarding the Naylor Act wrong? Was the misinformation intentional?

NOTE: Claiming that the city purchased the Community Center from the school district because the school district needed money since Proposition 13 had decimated district funding in the 1970s. Please also see: Lie #11.

NOTE:  Claiming that the school district sold Pier Avenue School for less than fair market value because of the Quimby Act or Naylor Act requirements.  The Quimby Act did not apply to school districts selling surplus property.  The Naylor Act does apply to school districts’ surplus property, but did not become operational until January 1, 1998.  HBCSD sold the Community Center to the city of Hermosa Beach in 1978. Please also see: Lie #12.