School Board Outraged at New Twist in Belmont Saga

Members of the Los Angeles Board of Education reacted with shock and outrage Thursday to a report that district officials knew the environmental study of the site of the new Belmont Learning Complex to be faulty, but allowed construction to begin without a fuller investigation.

Board member Julie Korenstein called it “unconscionable that staff members had not told the board of their own concerns that the environmental studies of the site were inadequate.”

The Times reported Thursday that key district staff, including then-Supt. Sid Thompson, were alerted by a memo five years ago that a crucial environmental report supplied by the seller of the 24-acre property was far below the standard the district would have required of its own consultants.

The memo said the study failed to establish the extent of known contamination on the former oil field at 1st Street and Beaudry Avenue, and failed to provide a remedial plan.

Although the memo received wide distribution, no action was taken to correct the deficiencies in the study. District officials, under pressure to build the high school, decided to deal with any toxic hazards as they arose during construction.

The memo was dated March 24, 1994, nine days after the district purchased the property for $30 million.

On Thursday, an environmental team assembled last year by Supt. Ruben Zacarias to examine problems of chemical contamination at several current and future school sites, reported to the facilities committee that $700,000 will have to be spent now to answer the questions raised in that 1994 memo.

“Why wasn’t this [memo] brought to the board?” Korenstein asked. “There should have been action taken immediately at that time.”

“It’s extremely disappointing. It’s shocking,” said board President Victoria Castro, who has been the strongest promoter of the Belmont project.

Castro said she hoped that the new assessment would clear the way for completion of the half-finished school.

But the consultant in charge of the study said he could not guarantee that.

Angelo Bellomo, vice president of Environmental Strategies Corp., said the California Department of Toxic Substances Control would force the district to abandon the project if the environmental hazards cannot be removed. Methane in explosive concentrations has been discovered during construction, and other problems such as toxic chemicals and ground water contamination are known to exist.

Bellomo said a state inspector had determined in a visit this week that concrete footings for a new building were about to be placed on earth that was contaminated with hydrocarbons.

As a result of that visit, he said, the contractor has agreed not to add any new slabs or structures until the two-month investigation is complete. Work will proceed only in structures already in place.

Depending on what is found, the study could lead to a recommendation for millions of dollars of remediation. Already, construction delays have caused the builder to issue notices of intent to file claims that could add up to $3.4 million.

In his report to the committee, Bellomo said his review of the records shows that district officials should have been aware of Belmont’s environmental problems from investigations going back to 1990 that cited a need for a cleanup.

“This isn’t new information,” Bellomo said. “It’s been discussed and debated for years.”

In 1996, the district conducted its own environmental impact report, which did not answer any of the questions raised in the memo.

Korenstein, who in the past has expressed strong concerns about oil field hazards, questioned staff members about who was responsible for that failure but stopped short of assessing blame.

At one point, she asked the director of the district’s real estate division, Robert Niccum, why the board was not informed about the gaps in the 1996 report. Niccum, whose branch prepares the district’s environmental impact reports, wrote the 1994 warning memo.

“I am not pointing my finger at you,” Korenstein told Niccum. “There were others involved. I’m telling you the board was terribly misdirected. We’re paying the price today.”

In answer to a question from Korenstein, Beth Louargand, general manager of the facilities division, said that all of those most responsible had since left the district.

“The staff that have not retired are at much lower levels,” Louargand said.

In an interview Wednesday with The Times, district general counsel Richard K. Mason said responsibility for the project rested with Dominic Shambra, the director of the office of planning and development, which was disbanded after he retired last year.

Board member David Tokofsky, however, said he was not satisfied with the explanation that no current staff was heavily involved.

He said it is “incumbent on the board to have the proper investigation to see everyone’s level of involvement.”