HBCSD Facility Misinformation and Measure Q $54M Facility Bond: September 2013 to November 2014

September 11, 2013 – Amendment to Superintendent Employment Contract P-08-13/14

…”in the event the Superintendent is convicted of a crime constituting “abuse of office,” the Superintendent shall reimburse the District to the fullest extent mandated by Government Code Section 53243, et seq. (i.e. for paid leave, criminal defense expenditures, or any cash settlement). In the event of such a conviction, the District shall make no payments barred by Government Code Section 53243, et seq.”

October 8, 2013 - Misleading and misinformation contained in the Update on Proposed Expansion of P.A.R.K. After School Program, by Tom Bakaly, City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach

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.

October 28, 2013 - Letter to the Editor by Miyo Prassas, October 28, 2013, The Beach Reporter.

"The Oct 24th Hermosa Beach School Board candidate Q&A illustrates several examples as to how misinformation is passed along in this community."

"Some quotes from the canidates are: "I commend the current board for examining all our options that address increased enrollment in Hermosa's schools" and "... North School is a viable solution to our space issues, the situation has been studied pretty extensively..." First, how do any of the candidates know for sure what was discussed in the FPAC meetings? The meetings weren't video-taped, and none of the candidates or current School Board member attended any of the meetings. The minutes from the meetings are a joke. How can any of the candidates or School Board members come to the conclusion that our facilities options were extensively studied when they have no ideas as to what issues and questions came up in those meetings?"

"Then there was this statement: "Even the public who fought the last attempt to rebuild North School in 2006...." WHAT? We fought an attempt to rebuild North School? That's news to me. The 2006 Measure 'A' bond described two and a half pages of things the money could be used for. Who knows if any of the Measure 'A' funds would have actually been used for North School? In fact we were told by district admnistration in 2006 that enrollment at HBCSD was not increasing, the Facilities Master Plan recommended against rebuilding North School and the district's hired architect firm told us that it was cost prohibitive to rebuild it."

November 8, 2013 - Misinformation and Misleading Statements contained in History of the Sale of Pier Avenue School to the City of Hermosa Beach, by Pat Escalante, Superintendent, Hermosa Beach City School District dated 11/08/13, posted to the HBCSD.org website.

Please see: Lie #39: Misinformation and misleading statements contained in the History of the Sale of Pier Avenue School to the City of Hermosa Beach by Superintendent Pat Escalante.

November 20, 2013 - Misleading statements contained in article: Document uncovers details about 1978 Pier Avenue School sale by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter

“Neither current Superintendent Pat Escalante nor current City Manager Tom Bakaly knew about the MOU until last month, when Facilities Planning Advisory Committee member Kat Bacallao started to dig into the count records department.”

“As Bacallao was considering North School options alongside the other FPAC members, she heard several of her neighbors and friends ask why the school wanted to rebuild or renovate North School instead of asking permission to use the Community Center. Although she heard verbal negations from both the district and the city, references that is was “not available” or was “not up to code”, she hadn’t seen anything on paper that she could show residents as proof.”

““As a Facilities Planning (Advisory) Committee member, I felt a tremendous responsibility to do my homework”, Bacallao said. “I take a lot of pride and integrity in being asked to be a member of a committee, and I felt like it was my complete obligation to know everything and to be able to respond to the community when the community asks questions.””

NOTE: According to this article both Superintendent Pat Escalante and City Manager Tom Bakaly claim to have had no knowledge of the existence of the Memorandum of Understanding prior to a Facility Planning and Advisory Committee member finding a copy of it with the entire Agreement at the County of Los Angeles Registrar’s Office in Norwalk. Supposedly, they both had copies of the entire Agreement which included the MOU. Had neither of them read the entire Agreement as their jobs would require?

NOTE: Why would Superintendent Pat Escalante NOT know about the MOU while overseeing the Facilities Planning and Advisory Committee process? Why would Tom Bakaly make the statements in the P.A.R.K. After School Program update without having read the entire Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School?

NOTE: Why didn’t either former city councilmen and signers on the Agreement in 1978, George Schmeltzer and Lance Widman alert the district superintendent and the city manager to the existence of the MOU? Both George Schmeltzer and Lance Widman were in contact with Pat Escalante and city council members during this time. Did neither of them ever think of disclosing this information? Or were Pat Escalante and Tom Bakaly lying to reporter Alana Garrigues about their lack of knowledge of the MOU?

November 22, 2013 - Misleading statements made in article: City attorney questions document in Pier Avenue School sale by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter.

Please see:

Lie #1: Misleading the public regarding HBCSD’s contractual provisions for use of classrooms, office and storage space at Pier Avenue Community Center.

Lie #2: Claiming that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not valid because it was not signed by the Hermosa Beach City Council members.

December 11, 2013 - California Code Regulation Title 5 Site Evaluation of Hermosa Beach Community Center by Office of Public School Construction representative. (S-16-13/14).

“RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Education discuss and take action to request a representative of the Office of Public School Construction perform a site evaluation on the Hermosa Beach Community Center.”

“BACKGROUND: At the November 2013 School Board Meeting a presentation was given to the Board of Education by Superintendent Escalante regarding the sale of Pier Avenue School by the District to the City of Hermosa Beach. As a part of the sale agreement, a fifty-year lease option was created that details the option of the District to use the facilities. The lease has fifteen years remaining on it.”

“The Board expressed an interest in requesting that a representative from the state Office of Public-School Construction conduct a site review of Pier Avenue School. A report will be generated and presented to the Board. There is no cost to the District for this service.”

MISLEADING INFORMATION IN THIS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:

1. The statement: “The Board expressed an interest in requesting that a representative from the state Office of Public-School Construction conduct a site review of Pier Avenue School.” The Office of Public-School Construction (OPSC) does NOT do Title 5 evaluations.

2. The OPSC only oversees the administration of state bond funds. It is only concerned with requirements for districts to obtain supplemental funding from the State Allocation Board.

3. The School Facility Planning Division (SFPD) reviews and approves school sites and plans. Since there were no plans for new construction at Pier Avenue School the SFPD had nothing to examine. Title 5 standards pertain to new construction only. Title 5 standards were adopted in 1993 and the CDE does not require school districts to bring all existing buildings up to the relatively new standards. If all districts were required to bring their pre-1993 buildings up to Title 5 standards, it would cost taxpayers billions.

NOTE: Did school board members know that they had not received a Title 5 site evaluation on either the Community Center or North School? Was this Board Recommendation simply a Red Herring to mislead the community?

NOTE: Please see: March 26, 2014 – Cover letter and three-page report from the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to Superintendent Pat Escalante regarding state supplemental funding for modernization or new construction for both the Pier Avenue School Community Center and North School. The report simply lists the OPSC regulations in order to receive possible state funding for modernization or new construction at either site. This report does NOT make a judgement call as to district use of either property or the safety and appropriateness of either property.

NOTE: Superintendent Pat Escalante totally mischaracterizes the OPSC report findings at the May 28, 2014 City and District joint meeting. Please see: partial transcripts to the City and District Joint Meeting, May 28, 2014.

NOTE: In March 2014 the Office of Public-School Construction looked at the Community Center and North School and specified the CDE requirements for both the Community Center and North School to receive supplemental state funds for modernization or new construction. This was NOT a Title 5 evaluation, since Title 5 applies only to design plans, not to receiving funds from the State Allocation Board.

4. The statement: “As a part of the sale agreement, a fifty-year lease option was created that details the option of the District to use the facilities. The lease has fifteen years remaining on it.” is misleading.

CORRECT INFORMATION:

There are two separate lease agreements in the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School.

One lease agreement is described in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Article 4. The MOU, Article 4 describes the provisions for district use of classrooms, office and storage space when district enrollment surpasses 1,266 students. There is no expiration to the lease agreement for classrooms contained in the MOU, it is solely based on district enrollment above 1,266 students.

The other lease agreement is described in Exhibit K. Exhibit K describes the lease agreement for district use of the auditorium, gymnasium, changing rooms and tennis courts at the Community Center. Exhibit K was originally referred to as the Recreation Agreement. The district’s use of the auditorium, gymnasium, etc. is for 50-years in renewable 3-year increments.

NOTE: Both lease agreements, Article 4 in the MOU and Exhibit K, are valid. Why then does Pat Escalante ONLY refer to the lease provisions described in Exhibit K in this district Recommendation? Did any of the school board members read the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School themselves?

Please see:

Lie #1: Misleading the public regarding HBCSD’s contractual provisions for use of classrooms, office and storage space at Pier Avenue Community Center.

Lie #9: Confusing the separate provisions for district use of the gymnasium changing rooms and auditorium in Exhibit K with the provisions for district use of classrooms, office and storage space that has NO expiration date contained in the Memorandum of Understanding in Exhibit G.

January 3, 2014 – City Council members:

1. Peter C Tucker

2. Michael DiVirgilio

3. Nanette Barragan

4. Carolyn Petty

5. Hany S Fangary

6. Tom Bakaly – City Manager

March 2014 – Decision Insite Composite TK-8 Forecast.

This is the first TK-8 enrollment forecast provided to the public concerning HBCSD future enrollment. The forecast given to the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee members in 2013 concerned the City of Hermosa Beach overall and was later found to be substantially incorrect.

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: The March 2014 Decision Insite forecast for HBCSD projected that the district’s high enrollment would be for the 2014/2015 school year at 1,470 students. Thereafter, Decision Insite predicted that HBCSD enrollment would drop by 16 students in the 2015/2016 school year to 1,454 students. Decision Insite projected that enrollment would continue to slightly decrease through 2021 to 1,423 students. HBCSD’s actual enrollment in 2015/2016 was 1,431 students, 23 students less than DI’s projected enrollment at March 2014.

NOTE: After HBCSD lost the November 2014 Measure Q bond vote, the next Decision Insite projection released in May 2015 was titled “Conservative 5-Year Projections, Assuming Return to Half Day Kindergarten”. DI’s May 2015 projections predicted a total of 1,517 students enrolled at HBCSD as of September 2015. The actual count at HBCSD was 1,427 students in September 2015. A difference of 90 students less than projected by DI only four months earlier in their May 2015 projections and 27 less students than projected in DI’s March 2014 projections for the 2015/2016 school year.

NOTE: HBCSD voters would use DI’s May 2015 enrolment projections to inform their vote. Only Six months after the district’s $59M facilities bond passed in June 2016, Decision Insite’s changed their May 2015 Enrollment Projections from 1,543 students in 2019 to that of only 1,234 students in 2019. DI changed their enrollment prediction to a 309 student DECLINE in HBCSD by September 2019 from the May 2015 enrollment projections.

Please see:

Lie #32: HBCSD enrollment consultants, Decision Insite’s May 2015 enrollment projections for the 2015-2016 school year predicted rising enrollment prior to June 2016 $59M Measure S bond vote.

Lie #33: Decision Insite changed historical enrollment data on the March 2014 and May 2015 History even when HBCSD had exact month to month enrollment information that had NOT changed.

March 26, 2014 – Cover letter and three-page report from the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to Superintendent Pat Escalante regarding state supplemental funding for modernization or new construction for both the Pier Avenue School Community Center and North School. The report simply lists the OPSC regulations in order to receive possible state funding for modernization or new construction at either site. This report does NOT make a judgement call as to district use of either property or the safety and appropriateness of either property.

1. OPSC requirements do NOT apply If HBCSD does not apply for state supplemental funding which could be minimal considering the cost of $29 million to rebuild North School.

2. Page one of the report lists the remaining funding available for Valley School improvements: Valley School new construction additional available funding is $242,320. Valley School modernization additional available funding is $215,784.

3. Page two gives information regarding Pier Avenue Community Center:

“The School Facility Program (SFP) regulations require that if a school district is to receive modernization or new construction funding, a district must be located on real property owned or leased by the district. The district could purchase or lease the site from the City of Hermosa Beach for a term of 30 or 40 years.”

NOTE: HBCSD’s valid, priority contractual rights to lease classrooms, office and storage space at the Pier Avenue School Community Center is ONLY dependent on enrollment above 1,266 students. There is NO expiration to this provision. Therefore, HBCSD could in fact lease the Community Center for 40 years even if the school district does NOT need or intend to use the Pier Avenue Community Center for 40 years. According to the OPSC rules, there is no regulation that states that HBCSD must actually use the Community Center for 40 years. HBCSD just needs a 40-year lease that the City of Hermosa Beach and the school district could decide to terminate at any time after receiving supplemental funding from the State.

NOTE: If HBCSD does not apply for supplemental state funding, they do not need to follow the regulations for a 40-year lease of Pier Avenue School. HBCSD could simply pass a small bond to renovate the Community Center and NOT apply for supplemental funding from the state, which might not be much anyway. The choice not to use supplemental state funding arguably WAS the most expedient and economical choice for the district and taxpayers vs. waiting five years and spending $29M to rebuild North School.

NOTE: By the time North School was rebuilt, HBCSD enrollment had dropped below the 1,266 student threshold for District priority use of the Community Center classrooms. In 2023 Hermosa students were 1,165 with an additional 174 students brought in from other school districts to increase HBCSD enrollment.

4. Page three gives information regarding the North School property. The report states that the district can receive supplemental funding for MODERNIZATION from the state if they plan to use the campus for at least five years. There is no information regarding supplemental state funding for new construction at North School.

NOTE: A brand-new, rebuilt North School was finished in April 2021. By April 2021 enrollment has dropped by 270 students. In 2022, after View School was renovated and expanded. HBCSD now had space for an additional 768 students as enrollment had dropped by 270 students. As of September 2022, one year after the 510 student North School (aka Vista School) was reopened at a cost of $29 million dollars, HBCSD no longer needs the campus.

April 16, 2014 – Report from the Office of Public-School Construction on Site Inspections. R-26-13/14.

“BACKGROUND: …”On February 8, 2012, the Board voted to create a Facilities Planning Advisory Committee (FPAC) to provide direction regarding the best use of district facilities for students, staff and the Hermosa Beach Community.”

NOTE: School board members never gave authorization to the FPAC to investigate district use of the Community Center.

“During this process, community members expressed to the Board an interest in possible use of the Community Center (formerly, Pier Avenue School) to house students on a temporary basis as a way to address the current overcrowding at district schools. The City of Hermosa Beach currently owns the Community Center.”

NOTE: HBCSD has a valid lease agreement with the city of Hermosa Beach that allows them priority use of classrooms, office and storage space at the Community Center when enrollment exceeds 1,266 students.

“A request was made by Mrs. Jones [Business manager Angela Jones] to have the office of Public School Construction (OPSC) conduct a visitation of the district owned properties which include Valley, View and North schools (North School does not currently house enrollment form the Hermosa Beach City School District.) OPSC also visited the Community Center. The visitation occurred on February 13, 2014. A final report was received by the district from OPSC on March 26, 2014.”

NOTE: School board members supposedly 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 (R-16-13/14). However, what the school board authorized in that meeting was NOT actually a Title 5 site evaluation. It was a visit by the Office of Public School Construction which ONLY deals with the requirements for district’s to receive supplemental funding for facility projects. Issues impacting supplemental funding include lease agreements, available properties, past funding, etc.

NOTE: The OPSC only oversees the administration of state bond funds. Title 5 Regulations has to do with classroom size, playground size, parking lot design, site hazards, etc. The March 26, 2014 report sent to Pat Escalante simply lists the OPSC regulations in order to receive possible state funding for modernization or new construction at either site. The OPSC report does NOT make a judgement call as to district use of either property or the safety and appropriateness of either property.

NOTE: The OPSC requirements do NOT apply If HBCSD does not apply for state supplemental funding which could be minimal considering the cost of $29 million to rebuild North School.

NOTE: Page one of the report lists the remaining funding available for Valley School improvements: Valley School new construction additional available funding is $242,320. Valley School modernization additional available funding is $215,784.

May 22, 2014 – Joint Meeting of the Governing Board of the Hermosa Beach City School District and the Hermosa Beach City Council Recommendations. Pat Escalante, District Superintendent, HBCSD Tom Bakaly, City Manager, 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.

May 28, 2014 – Joint City and School District meeting, partial transcript. Hermosa Beach Joint City Council and School Board Meeting Partial Transcript http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4169

NOTE:

1. Superintendent Pat Escalante totally mischaracterizes the OPSC report findings at the May 28, 2014 City and District joint meeting. (see time stamp 1:03:20 - 1:13:52)

2. Hermosa Beach Attorney, Michael Jenkins also misinforms the community about the lease provisions for district use of classrooms at the Pier Avenue Community Center. (see time stamp 1:13:52 - 1:22:48)

May 2014 - Misinformation contained in the May 2014 Board Highlights given to parents.

Please see: Lie #15: Misinformation and misleading information and misinformation regarding district use of the Community Center contained in the May 2014 School Board Highlights sent to school parents.

NOTE: Superintendent Pat Escalante added a letter to parents regarding the misinformation that was emailed to them. Misinformation was intentionally and shamelessly targeted at HBCSD parents.

“The attached Board Highlights will provide more information regarding the short and long term options to address the overcrowding issues in the District. Please take a minute to learn about the facts associated with this issue. It is a priority for the Board and myself, to ensure that our families have the information they need to be informed.”

June 16, 2014 – Hermosa Beach City School District Long Range Facilities Master Plan by GKK Works.

NOTE: Large file.

NOTE: The original Facility Master Plan copy was designed to be printed on 11 X 17 paper. This version has been reduced to 8-1/2 X 11 standard-size document. The 11 X 17 original size of the FMP was unnecessary and made it very difficult to work with, print or duplicate.

July 9, 2014 – Lease Agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and the Hermosa Beach City School District use of Facilities at South Park. In July 2014 the City of Hermosa Beach leased out three classrooms at South Park to HBCSD for district offices.

1. The cost to HBCSD to lease three classrooms from the city was set at $1/year.

2. Four classrooms at South Park had only been used by the city and HBCSD in the afternoon for after school childcare. Therefore, the four classrooms were empty during the morning hours.

3. The city decided to move the afternoon childcare to View School reportedly saving the city $40k in busing costs.

4. The city and the school district could have decided to keep students at View School for afterschool childcare long ago which would have saved taxpayers 40k/year.

5. The city could move any programs offered at the Community Center to South Park and allow the district to use classrooms at the Community Center instead. This was confirmed by HB Mayor Michael DiVirgilio’s email to resident Miyo Prassas on July 19, 2014.

6. The lease agreement states: “Lessee acknowledges and agrees that the use is consistent with the terms and restrictions contained in the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property between the parties dated August 19, 1991.” Is this the Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of South School to the City of Hermosa Beach? What are the exact provisions of the South School lease agreement between the school district and the city?

July 19, 2014 – Email from HB Mayor Michael DiVirgilio re district usage of the Community Center.

“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 most 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: Please also see: April 5, 2018 – Reopening Pier Ave. School by Goerge Barks (former City Council member 1974-1978 and signer on the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School in 1978) , Letters to the Editor, The Beach Reporter.

“To set the record straight, as a former city councilmember during the time of the sale of the 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.”

“This entire matter of current overcrowding could be quickly resolved by City Council member honoring the contractual agreement between the city and school district to allow the 7-8grade students use of the classrooms at Pier Avenue School while construction at View and Valley Schools takes place over the next few years.”

September 1, 2014 - Letter to the Editor by Miyo Prassas, September 1, 2014, The Beach Reporter.

"The Hermosa Beach City School District does not have enough classroom space again this year due to a lack of urgency and good planning by the district, not becuase of a lack of options. Since 2009, the district has been well aware of an enrollment bubble and the need for additional classrooms."

"When the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee (FPAC) held its first meeting 21 months ago, many ideas were put forth that could have immediately alleviated the district's overcrowding such as instituting a mult-track classroom schedule in which students attend classes in staggered blocks year round. Another idea was to use the 4.7 acre Pier Avenue School, now the Community Center, that the district sold to the city for $650,000. Pier Avenue School has 14+ classrooms, gymnaisum, auditorium, pick up and drop off area, parking, tennis courst and access to the baseball field and basketball courts. The district can lease this property from the city. Yet another option was to house transitional kindergarten and kindergarten at a former district school such as South School or North School."

September 7, 2014 – HBCSD calls for support of upcoming bond measure, despite opponents’ concerns about 2002 bond spending by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter

“The state of the district’s facilities and the quality of academics in Hermosa Beach do not match up, in the eyes of many Hermosa Beach residents and school employees. The only way they see to move forward is to invest in the district with Measure Q, a $54 million bond on the November ballot that would rebuild and renovate an aging district, based on two years of long-term facilities planning with gkkworks architects and a citizen’s committee. However, there are still opponents who don’t trust that the district will spend the money wisely, based on a previous bond measure. But school officials argue this time will be different.”

““The process has been a long yet productive one that has been well documented, public and inclusive,” said Hermosa Beach City School District Superintendent Pat Escalante.”

COMPETING INFORMATION:

1. Facility Planning Advisory Committee members were given very limited information regarding HBCSD facilities, issues, and options. They were also given demographic information and projections that were later found to be substantially incorrect.

2. Basically, most of the members have NO KNOWLEDGE of district facilities and are given NO background of the history of past HBCSD facility issues and decisions.

3. Meetings are not recorded, or video tapped. FPAC meetings are held in a small conference room in the interior of Valley School. The door to the conference room is kept closed during meetings.

4. FPAC members are given no information regarding the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School.

5. Community member attendees consist of one or two at the first two meetings and up to three or four in later meetings. Community members are only allowed to comment for three minutes prior to the start of each meeting. Community members are not allowed to ask questions or make comments during meetings.

6. At their first meeting FPAC members were given the Decision Insite’s 2012 Executive Insite report. This report projected that in ten years HBCSD would have 1,741 more students. This report made no sense and was later found to be substantially incorrect in its projections. Please see: DISCUSSION AND FACTS Questionable demographic information, wild swings in enrollment projections and unbelievable historical scenarios contained in HBCSD reports by district consultants, Decision Insite Item #1.

7. FPAC members are NOT GIVEN either the district’s 2002 Facilities Master Plan or the 2009 Update to the 2002 Facilities Master Plan (HBCSD paid architects Dougherty and Dougherty approximately $100,000 for an update to the 2002 FMP which was promptly shelved.)

8. The district hired an “expert” on school buildings to advise the FPAC. Paul Bunton had a legal complaint against him and obviously skewed his information to support school board members’ desire to demolish and rebuild North School. Legal Complaint against Paul Bunton of BCA Architects by San Diegans for Open Government, Case #37-2012-00101391-CU-MC-CTL in San Diego Superior Court. (TL-2012Jul30 BCA Accusation)

“On or about July 30, 2012, plaintiff San Diegans for Open Government filed Case No. 37-2012-00101391-CU-MC-CTL in San Diego Superior Court against respondent and other named defendants who also had contracted to perform services to the District [Southwestern Community College District (District)] for the same project."

"According to the complaint, respondent had sought to provide architectural services to the District, a public agency. In the weeks and months leading up to making of the contract with the District, respondent gave food, entertainment, and other gifts of substantial value to the District’s vice president for business and financial affairs (vice president), and the senior director of business, facilities, and planning (senior director). These District’s officials would be involved in the making of the contract or would make recommendations that would carry substantial weight by District’s final decision maker as to whom to award the contract. As a quid pro quo exchange, these officials would affirmatively lobby and encourage the District’s governing board to enter into a contract with respondent.”

“The complaint also alleged that respondent engaged in a civil conspiracy to bribe public officials.” …”Respondent, for its part in the stipulation, agreed to pay $250,000 to the District. Respondent however did not report this settlement to the Board within 30 days.”

“Third Cause for Discipline, False Statement on Renewal Application, Business and Professional Code sections 498 and 5579. “Respondent has subjected his architectural license to discipline for submitting a false statement under penalty of perjury on an application to renew his architectural license…”

NOTE: BCA Architects have since rebranded themselves as Studio W Architects. https://studiow-architects.com/about/. HBCSD School Board members used Studio W Architects to present information about the District $28.7M Measure HV bond in 2024.

“She [Superintendent Pat Escalante] said that options to acquire or rent other properties were considered but not found feasible, and demographic software was used to project future enrollment.”

Please see:

Lie #1: Misleading the public regarding HBCSD’s contractual provisions for use of classrooms, office and storage space at Pier Avenue Community Center.

Lie #2: Claiming that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not valid because it was not signed by the Hermosa Beach City Council members.

Lie #3: Claiming that the Community Center needs to be purchased by HBCSD in order for it to be used by the school district.

Lie #5: Misinforming the public that the Community Center can only be used for recreational purposes.

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.

Lie #15: Misinformation and misleading information and misinformation regarding district use of the Community Center contained in the May 2014 School Board Highlights sent to school parents.

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 #27: Less than six months after the district won it’s $59M Measure S bond vote, their enrollment consultants changed their projections from future large increases in enrollment to one of markedly lower overall enrollment at HBCSD.

“She [Superintendent Pat Escalante] added that with City Council support and a citizen’s oversight committee, this bond would have additional checks and balances.”

1. This is a misleading and untrue statement by Superintendent Escalante. The bond does NOT have additional check and balances.

2. The offer of a Citizen's Oversight Committee is frequent selling point by the school district for their bonds. Citizen's Oversight Committees are, on the whole, insufficient protectors of public monies.

A. School districts appoint their friends and supporters of the bond to the COC. Friends and supporters of the bond are unlikely to bring up issues/ problems when the district is spending bond funds. COC members are unlikely to actually bring a suit against the school district regarding misspending by the school district.

B. The COC examines district spending after the funds have already been spent. Often times bond funds are spent six months or more prior to the COC's approving the expenditure.

C. The COC cannot stop the district from spending taxpayer funds on a bad or wasteful plan.

“[Monique] Ehsan [the former chair of the disbanded Facilities Planning Advisory Committee] understands the concerns of residents who oppose the bond measure. She admits that she would have like more community dialogue, input and a broader scope as a FPAC member to evaluate all of the district’s options, including an in-depth evaluation of a property purchase or lease, if for no other reason than to make the case that due diligence was met in recommending the most expensive option.”

“Despite the criticism of the bond, opponents aren’t against improving schools or increasing the value of properties.”

“Then there are the concerns raised at community meetings with the architects that the district will once again shrink and render the extra investment in facilities futile. Long-term facilities plan project a 20-year trend of rising or consistent enrollment numbers…”

NOTE: LESS THAN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DISTRICT’S $59 MILLION DOLLAR BOND PASSED, THE POST-ELECTION NOVEMBER 2016 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS COMPLETELY REVERSED THE PRE-ELECTION MAY 2015 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS.

Please see:

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.

“In the meantime, teachers and students are putting up with less, unnecessarily, according to View second-grade teacher Tracy Robinson, who is an advocate for the bond. Robinson has worked as a teacher in the district for 24 years, and has seen it transform form a one-school district into two campuses. She is responsible for scheduling the outdoor assemblies at View, due to a lack of indoor meeting space for students. The district has made do with a stream of Band-Aid solutions such as staggered lunches, portables and repurposed classrooms, but it is not an optimal learning environment and wouldn’t be feasible in the long-term, she said.”

1. North School could have been renovated with Measure J funds if there had been forethought by school board members as to the district’s actual future needs. The 2002 Facility Master Plan had recommended that HBCSD supply an additional 13 classrooms by 2012.

2. November 7, 2002 – School bonds approved in a landslide, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader News.

"The bond [Measure J] is needed “to completely bring both schools up to the current standards of construction and technology, and to build the necessary classrooms to handle anticipated growth in the district,” school board President Cathy McCurdy said.

NOTE: School board President Cathy McCurdy does not mention the gymnasium as the main focus of Measure J bond money in this article.

3. At ANY time HBCSD could have exercised their leasing rights to use classrooms, office and storage space at Pier Avenue Community Center to relieve overcrowding at district campuses.

Please see:

Lie #1: Misleading the public regarding HBCSD’s contractual provisions for use of classrooms, office and storage space at Pier Avenue Community Center.

Lie #2: Claiming that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not valid because it was not signed by the Hermosa Beach City Council members.

Lie #3: Claiming that the Community Center needs to be purchased by HBCSD in order for it to be used by the school district.

Lie #5: Misinforming the public that the Community Center can only be used for recreational purposes.

Please see:

Email from Hermosa Beach Mayor, Michael DiVirgilio to Miyo Prassas, July 19, 2014.

"The City is not aware of any prohibition that would prevent us

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. Consequently,

absent a directive from the City Council, the City Attorney will

not be studying this issue further."

4. At ANY time HBCSD could have used North School to reduce overcrowding at Valley and View Schools. North School is a grand-fathered-in campus. It is considered code compliant AS IS.

5. There are many examples of school districts renovating older, unused campuses when needed to house students as enrollment rises.

In the early 2000s Robinson School in Manhattan Beach cost about $3M to renovate. Richmond Street Elementary School in El Segundo, circa 1935, cost about $5.3M to renovate in the early 2000s. Newport Elementary School in Newport Beach, CA, circa 1936, cost to renovate $4.1M (hard costs) in 2002. North School was estimated to cost $6.2 million to renovate in 2017 by the same construction company that had rebuilt Valley School in the mid-1980s.

NOTE: From fall 2008 to December 2011 HBCSD employed formally retired 74 year old Dr. Bruce Newlin and paid him a very large salary. Dr. Newlin had 30 years of experience as a superintendent at six different school districts with up to 14,000 students and 20 schools. It is presumed that Dr. Newlin had a lot of experience with school facility decisions. Why didn’t HBCSD School Board members have Dr. Newlin start the facilities process for HBCSD from at least 2009? Why wait until overcrowding became a crisis at Hermosa Schools? Why not investigate options and make plans for expansion before being faced with a crisis? Why wait until Pat Escalante was made superintendent in 2012? Pat Escalante had no superintendent experience or specialized training or education to be a superintendent. Was the reason school board members ignored overcrowding until it became a crisis, because the cabal was waiting for the overcrowding to become a crisis so they could use it to pressure the community into passing an unnecessarily expensive facilities bond?

September 8, 2014 - Letter to the Editor by Miyo Prassas, dated September 8, 2014, The Beach Reporter.

"There are no additional checks and balances with this bond than there were with Measure J. The only "checks and balances" or "protection" written into Measure Q is that of a citizen's oversight committee. A citizen's oversight committee has NO POWER to control spending. The committee onl assures that bond funds are expended in the fashion outlined in the district's bond resolution, it does NOT prevent overspending, wasted dollars or costly mistakes."

"There are no quarantees that this bond would "give our schools everything they need". In fact a disclaimer is written into bond language in the voter pamphlet that states "Based on the final cost of each project, certain projects described above may be delayed or may not be undertaken."

"Long-term facmilities plan DO NOT project a 20-year trend of rising enrollment. The district's demographic report projects 10-years of slightly decreasing enrollment through 2023."

September 29, 2014 – Email from Katrina Bacallao, member of the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee (FPAC) who did research on the Community Center/Pier Avenue School Agreement for the FPAC.

“I went over this with the team in Sacramento who put me in touch with our local constituents in Long Beach. They offered to come to the CC [Community Center] and do a walk thru. The [School] Board/Pat [Escalante] did not agree to have them do it, so I was not able to pursue it. There are MANY ways around this ED Code, especially considering our overcrowding issue. As long as we don’t ask for taxpayers’ money, we don’t have to follow State ed code laws…” … “I was not able to get the board or Pat to request permission…”

October 09, 2014 - Old School Schooling by Tom Bakaly, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader News.

Please see:

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.

October 13, 2014 – Email from Katrina Bacallao, member of the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee (FPAC) to community activist and historian Chris Miller. Katrina Bacallao did extensive research on the Community Center/Pier Avenue School Agreement for the FPAC.

NOTE: It is believed that Katrina was informing Chris Miller on her recent research regarding the Facility Planning issues.

“Title 5 requirements only apply to new buildings and new property. Title 5 is not required if no state funding is requested. Wouldn’t it make sense for taxpayers to make necessary repairs to the Community Center and let the school children use it temporarily to alleviate overcrowding now? Moving 250 7-8th graders to this site would free up 12 classrooms at Valley School and a new bond measure that is reasonable could be developed to rebuild North School.”

October 15, 2014 – Email from Marie Rice, community member and signer on the NO on ‘Q’ arguments, to Superintendent Pat Escalante:

Subject heading: “False information on “Yes on Measure Q” Facebook page:”

Marie Rice writes to Pat Escalante: “From “Yes on Measure Q” Facebook Page Posted 10/10/14:”

“The HB Community Center is not a school although it once was before being sold to the City of HB. It is owned by the City and is not for sale or lease at this time. The HB School Board requested that this option be vetted during the exploration and researching process. There was an inquiry with the City as well as the State of CA School Construction organization, including an inspection by the state agency which determined several issues with the Pier location if it were to even be considered for a school site (security/safety/lunchroom needed, etc.)” THIS POST ON FACEBOOK PRIOR TO THE MEASURE Q BOND VOTE IS GIVING FALSE INFORMATION.

THIS IS THE CORRECT INFORMATION from Marie Rice:

“1: The mandate of the FPAC was to investigate the North School ONLY, and I attended the actual meetings in which you directed the FPAC to stop their investigation and requests for information from the State for more evaluation of the Community Center/Pier Ave School because the Board did not want to pursue it any further.”

Additional correct information: The description of the inspection by the state agency referred to on the Facebook page is misleading and incorrect. The state agency that the district contacted was the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC). Please See March 26, 2014 – Cover letter and three-page report from the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to Superintendent Pat Escalante. The OPSC is only involved with determining state supplemental funding for modernization or new construction at Pier Avenue School Community Center and North School. The OPSC report did NOT make a judgement call as to district use of either property or the safety and appropriateness of either property. The report simply lists the OPSC regulations in order to receive possible state funding for modernization or new construction at either site. HBCSD does not need to follow any of the OPSC requirements if it chooses NOT to apply for RELATIVELY meager state supplemental funding.

NOTE: Marie Rice is correct in calling-out the misinformation on the Yes on Measure Q Facebook posts. Please see discussion of Facilities Planning Advisory Committee process and discussion 2013-2014. However Superintendent Pat Escalante ignores the misinformation and lies about the district’s part in disseminating misinformation to the public before the November 2014 bond vote.

Superintendent Escalante denies involvement in and makes no effort to correct the misinformation given to voters after it is brought to her attention.

Email response from Superintendent Pat Escalante to Marie Rice:

“Regarding the Yes on Measure Q for Quality Schools website, you will need to contact the administrator of the webpage or the campaign to bring to their attention your concerns. The account is not managed by the district.”

Correct Information: According to a Public Records Request of 2014 Measure Q district documents, School Board member Mary Campbell wrote the Yes on Measure Q Facebook posts. Both Yes on Measure Q chairperson Ryan Nowicki and Superintendent Pat Escalante should be aware of the incorrect information in the Facebook post that Marie Rice has pointed out to them. However, neither Pat Escalante nor Ryan Nowicki decided to correct School Board member Mary Campbell’s posts for accuracy. Superintendent Pat Escalante dismisses Marie Rice’s complaints as “gamesmanship”. Pat Escalante is being disingenuous in her claim to Marie Rice that the district is not responsible for incorrect Facebook posts.

Discussion between Mary Campbell, Ryan Nowicki and Superintendent Pat Escalante regarding Marie Rice's email of inaccurate information posted Yes on Measure Q Facebook page:

It appears that Mary Campbell did not speak to Facility Planning and Advisory Committee chair Monique Ehsan or review district information and recommendations or the information provided by the Office of Public School Construction before writing her “information” for the Measure Q Facebook posts. Please see October 19, 2014 – Email from Monique Ehsan FPAC chair to Superintendent Pat Escalante and School Board member Patti Ackerman:

Email response from Ryan Nowicki, chairman of the Yes on Measure Q campaign:

“I think this looks great and is indeed accurate!” (The information is not accurate.)

Email response from Superintendent Pat Escalante:

“I agree with Ryan. Don’t change. The complaint is gamesmanship.”

SUPERINTENTENT ESCALANTE INTENTIONALLY IGNORES MISINFORMATION ON THE YES ON Q FACEBOOK PAGE prior to taxpayers voting on the district’s $53M bond.

October 19, 2014 – Email from Monique Ehsan FPAC chair to Superintendent Pat Escalante and School Board member Patti Ackerman:

“I am writing just to clarify a matter with regard to the FPAC so that we don’t fan the flames of the opposition. Your letter to the Editor last week indicated that the FPAC considered Prospect Heights, South School, the Time Warner building and the Community Center. The FPAC never discussed Prospect Heights or South School because we didn’t understand the history of the School District with regard to the sale of these properties and any leaseback options nor did we have a mandate to do historical research. Katrina Bacallao, on her own time and with her own funds, exhaustively researched the history of the District but her findings were presented to Pat, not to the FPAC. At a couple of meetings Pat [Escalante] brought up the Community Center and the fact that we don’t own it but we never had an FPAC discussion about the States rep’s tour of the facility, the Title V inadequacies, the MOA [MOU], etc.”

*NOTE: Superintendent Escalante did not bring up the Community Center, members of the public brought up the Community Center during FPAC discussions. There was no substantial discussion of the Community Center in the FPAC meetings.

October 21, 2014- Email subject: RE: Measure Q Q&A, Email exchange between Superintendent Pat Escalante, former school board member Cathy McCurdy and former school board member Lance Widman (former City Council member and signer on the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School in 1978).

Former school board members Cathy McCurdy, Lance Widman, and current HBCSD Superintendent Pat Escalante are discussing who in the school district will write letters attacking the No on Measure Q members/stance:

Cathy McCurdy writes: “Someone needs to respond to this baloney…” Lance Widman writes: “I also believe current Board members need to respond as well, not just Pattie [Ackerman?], Jenn [Auville?] and Cathy [McCurdy?].” Pat Escalante writes: “Lisa (Claypoole) was published two weeks ago - jack burns has a letter in this week, city manager two weeks in row. More next week…”

NOTE: This email illustrates the on-going collaboration and coordination between Superintendent Pat Escalante, and former school board members Cathy McCurdy, Lance Widman, Pattie [Ackerman?], Lisa Claypoole, and Jack Burns to attack community members' with a different opinion than the school district's.

October 23, 2014 – Peer into Pier School’s Future, by Miyo Prassas, Letters to the Editor, The Easy Reader (TL-2014Oct23 LTTE J Burns and M Prassas)

“Hermosa Beach owns an under-utilized former middle school comprising of 14 classrooms while students languish in overcrowded Valley and View schools. The 4.7 acre Community Center (formerly Pier Avenue School) is a tremendous community asset that should be used for the greatest good.” …

“Just because the district and the city rattle off official-sounding documents as reasons why the Community Center can’t be used as a school, doesn’t mean that those documents actually contain information that would prohibit its use. The city and the district are counting on the fact that community members won’t actually take the time to read the documents and will simply accept their smokescreen.”…

October 23, 2014 – Step into the Arena, by School Board member Jack Burns (2009-2014), Letters to the Editor, The Easy Reader

“The negative campaign Miyo Prassas continues to wage against Hermosa Beach schools has reached comical levels to those of us who take the time to understand the issues.”… [reads like something former School Board member (2002-2009) Greg Breen would write]

“Having served on the board for four years, I can say firsthand that countless volunteers logged thousands of hours and left no rock unturned in the quest to solve a variety of issues that helped the district weather one of the most challenging economic periods in several generations. I believe the efforts were a success and Prassas’ ongoing rock throwing is an insult to their efforts.” [reads like something former School Board member (2002-2009) Greg Breen would write]

“I agree that some solutions seem logical on the surface but must be dismissed because they are either against the education code, state law, or just not practical.”

“Is Prassas implying our elected officials should break the law by pursing illegal paths?“ [reads like something former school board member Greg Breen would write]

“It is also hard to follow the twisted logic that the district should utilize property it does not own and is not for sale rather than use property that it currently operating as a school site. I can only conclude it is not that there is insufficient data available, but simply an inability to comprehend the data.” [reads like something former school board member Greg Breen would write]

NOTE: Former School Board member, Jack Burns (2009-2014) is believed to have left the Hermosa Beach School District in 2014. According to public records he moved his family to Palos Verdes Estates in 2013 and purchased a new home in Palos Verdes Estates in January 2014.

NOTE: It seems slightly strange that a school board member who has already left the school district and is no longer a school board member would take the time to attack a member of the community.

NOTE: October 09, 2014 - Old School Schooling, by Tom Bakaly, City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader News: Please see information and discussion regarding misinformation and misleading information contained in Tom Bakaly’s Letter to the Editor of October 09, 2014.

NOTE: October 21, 2014- email Re: Measure Q Q&A, email exchange between Superintendent Pat Escalante, former school board member Cathy McCurdy and former school board member Lance Widman (former City Council member and signer on the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School in 1978). (TL-2014Oct21 email btwn C McCurdy, L Widman and P Escalante)

Former school board members Cathy McCurdy and Lance Widman and current HBCSD Superintendent Pat Escalante are discussing who in the school district and city will write letters attacking the No on Measure Q members and stance:

NOTE: This email illustrates the on-going collaboration and coordination between Superintendent Pat Escalante, and former school board members Cathy McCurdy, Lance Widman, Pattie [Ackerman?], Lisa Claypoole, and Jack Burns to attacks members of the community with a different opinion than the school district's.

2014 – TEXT OF BALLOT MEASURE Q

“To reduce student overcrowding by reopening a school and to make safety, security, and health improvements; modernize, repair, construct, equip and upgrade classrooms and other school facilities; replace aging roofs; provide technology improvements for students; and upgrade/replace outdated electrical, plumbing, heating and air conditioning systems, shall Hermosa Beach City School District issue $54,000,000 of bonds at legal interest rates, with an independent citizens’ oversight committee with no money for administrative salaries or taken by the state?”

NOTE: Only this portion of the bond description is listed on the face of the ballot. There is no mention to voters of the district’s plan to tear-down and rebuild North School at a cost of $29,000,000 or encroach into Valley Park to build a 65-car parking lot on the face of the ballot.

NOTE: Renovating North School was estimated to cost between $6.2 million by the Juge Construction Company in 2017. Juge Construction also renovated Valley School in 1987 for $3.4 million. Renovating North School was also estimated to cost $11 million by HBCSD hired Facility Planning Advisory Committee consultant Paul Bunter of BCA architects and $14.7 million to demolish and completely rebuild North School in 2013. Renovating North School was estimated to cost and between $16,251,624 and $18,689,368 on page 2 of the GKK Works Executive Summary.

NOTE: Five years later, after North School was rebuilt for 510 students, enrollment had dropped by 270 students, making North School (aka renamed Vista School) unnecessary. HBCSD would lose $230,000/year by not leasing North School out since summer 2017.

NOTE: The information below is listed in the back pages of a voter guide that accompanies the ballot description.

The first page and first line of the “Project List for The Bond Measure” does not indicate that North School would be completely torn down and rebuilt:

“PROJECT LIST FOR THE BOND MEASURE:”

“The following are the types of projects that may be financed with proceeds of the bonds at the Valley School and the View School and both on and offsite at the North School.”

“ Renovate and Modernize Existent Classrooms and Buildings, ….”

Page 2: Bottom of the third paragraph:

“Projects may also include the costs of demolition and reconstruction of existing facilities currently scheduled for modernization, if the Board of Education determines that such an approach would be more cost effective solution.”

NOTE: Only if voters read down to the middle of page two of the “Project List for the Bond Measure” would they find the truth about the school board members intentions with bond monies. In the middle of page two hidden at the bottom of the third paragraph is this district disclaimer that most voters would probably miss.

NOTE: This arguably hidden information that is actually profoundly important as to how bond monies are spent is found on all facility bond measures (J, Q, S) that HBCSD has sent to voters.

November 4, 2014 – HBCSD’s Measure Q $54M facilities bond vote. Measure Q did NOT receive the required 55% of Yes votes in order to pass.

November 25, 2014 – Email from Jonathan Zaleski President of TPRC Communications (social media consultant) to Superintendent Pat Escalante (by way of executive assistant Michelle Meraz):

“Thanks for taking the time to chat on Friday. As discussed, had I been involved as a consultant to pilot the district’s social media efforts, Measure Q would have easily passed on Election Day.”

NOTE: HBCSD School Board members voted to hire Jonathan Zaleski for the duration of the Yes on S Campaign using taxpayer funds. Prior to receiving the email from Jonathan Zaleski promising to pass the district's $59M Measure S bond if he is hired, HBCSD school board members had NOT used a social media guru to influence school parents and the community. To our knowledge no other social media gurus were interviewed by the school district prior to hiring Mr. Zaleski. Mr. Zaleski is described as being a Education Consultant in HBCSD documents. Please also see: April 13, 2016 – Consultant Agreement for Public Relations Services B-51-15/16, Agreement for Educational Consultant Services and notes.