School Board Votes to Dump Developer of Belmont Site

The Los Angeles Board of Education voted Tuesday to dump its developer on the Belmont Learning Complex, setting up a possible court battle over the escalating costs of the more than half completed high school west of downtown.

In a unanimous vote after an hourlong closed meeting, the board said the developer, Temple Beaudry Partners, had failed to meet its deadline for protecting the $200-million project against weather and vandalism. The board vote authorized the project director to solicit bids for up to $1.2 million to complete the work.

Project director Edwin Weyrauch said he expects to meet with bidders today and could make a decision immediately. He said he hopes to have work completed by Dec. 22.

The board is scheduled to decide as early as next week whether to complete construction or abandon the project and build a high school on a different site.

Even if Belmont goes forward, however, the construction would have to cease for many months, and possibly years, to complete environmental testing.

Despite the board’s order to Temple Beaudry Partners to have the project in mothballs by Nov. 23, dozens of windows on the four-story main building remain unglazed and several walls remain exposed. District officials expect to use plastic sheeting to protect the building.

“My feeling was just the frustration that we had asked repeatedly for them to secure the site,” board member David Tokofsky said. “To find out that they were not moving and recalcitrant is disturbing.”

The development firm’s managing partner, Kajima Urban Development, is a subsidiary of the Japanese construction giant Kajima International.

Weyrauch left open the possibility that the firm could return to the job if the board decides to complete the environmentally plagued project. However, company officials have made it clear that they view the action as termination of their contract.

District general counsel Richard Sheehan also said the board could take Temple Beaudry Partners back, but would have to vote to reengage the firm.

The developer has blamed the district for the delays, saying that it has denied payments and given confusing directions.

District financial records show that about $78.3 million has already been spent or encumbered on construction of the school, amounting to all but about 10% of the firm’s guaranteed minimum price.

Also deepening the rift Tuesday, Don Mullinax, the district’s top auditor, announced that he had subpoenaed records from Temple Beaudry Partners as part of his continuing investigation into what went wrong at Belmont.

Mullinax plans to release a second report on the project, covering the finances of the $200-million construction plan, in the week of Dec. 13.

He said that he issued a subpoena to Temple Beaudry Partners last Wednesday as a precautionary measure because he was concerned that deteriorating relations between the contractor and the school district could be a cause for records to disappear.

“I don’t have a good feeling that with everything going on now, possibly relocating offices, that the documents are going to be safeguarded,” he said.

A spokesman for Temple Beaudry Partners said the firm would continue to cooperate with the investigation.

Mullinax issued four more subpoenas Tuesday to other contractors on the project including the construction arm of the partnership, Turner/Kajima.

The first Mullinax report, released Sept. 14, found nine district officials responsible for allowing construction to start before the site was adequately assessed for environmental hazards. They included general counsel Richard K. Mason and Chief Administrative Officer David Koch, who have left the district.

The district has faced criticism and court battles since selecting a team headed by Kajima to design and build Belmont in 1996 even though it was the highest of three competing firms.

A competitor and two unions filed suits in unsuccessful attempts to block the project.

The crisis dates to the summer of 1998, when several state legislators began to criticize the district’s handling of environmentally hazardous sites purchased for new schools.

Under orders from the Department of Toxic Substances Control, new tests established that explosive methane and toxic hydrogen sulfide are pervasive on the 35-acre site at Temple Street and Beaudry Avenue and cannot be eliminated.

Following a recommendation in the Mullinax report, the board has sued the O’Melveny & Myers law firm, its attorney on the project. Among the reasons was the inclusion in the developer’s contract of a clause making the district liable for unforeseen environmental problems.

Mullinax also recommended that the board negotiate with Temple Beaudry Partners over the cost of environmental problems at the site and sue if it cannot reach agreement.