District to Form Panel to Weigh Belmont Fate

After months of speculation on the future of the Belmont Learning Complex, the Los Angeles Board of Education on Tuesday plunged the environmentally plagued high school project into new depths of confusion.

The seven-member board, controlled by a new majority of “reform candidates,” unanimously voted to set up an investigatory commission on whether to suspend construction of the downtown building.

It then put a clamp on any further comment.

“In order to ensure the integrity of the commission’s work, board members and staff will not comment on this project while the commission is at work,” board President Genethia Hayes said in a prepared statement.

The board also voted to scale back work on the project until the commission makes its recommendations in mid-October, but not to stop it altogether.

Construction on the $200-million project west of downtown was begun in 1997, before the environmental hazards were adequately investigated. District officials estimate that $125 million has already been spent.

Belmont, the most expensive high school in the nation’s history, would have an overall enrollment of about 5,000.

But a recently completed study of the site, a former oil field, found pervasive methane and other oil byproducts that will require costly mitigation for the life of the school.

The board must weigh that expense--and the potential risks to children--against the urgent need for new schools.

Both the authorization for limited work and the self-imposed silence prompted a strong rebuke from the teachers union, which went to court two years ago in an attempt to prevent the project.

“The whole process here is confused and regrettable,” said Jesus Quinones, an attorney for United Teachers-Los Angeles. “This is not a way to get public acceptance of the way the board wants to operate.”

The union had warned the board Tuesday morning that any action would violate the state’s open meeting laws, because no recommendations were posted before the public hearing in the afternoon, just before the board vote.

“They were put on notice that we believed it was unlawful, and they did it anyway,” Quinones said. “I think they need to reconsider this after giving appropriate public comment.”

The abrupt ending of the board meeting left about a dozen reporters clamoring for clarification of the cryptically worded resolution.

All board members but Hayes quickly left the meeting room, leaving her to fend off questions.

She asserted that the board was not trying to avoid a decision on Belmont by seeking the advice of a commission of independent community members. Hayes highlighted her school board campaign this spring with harsh criticism of the Belmont project, as did new board members Caprice Young and Mike Lansing.

“We want to have time to make a decision based on facts,” she said.

However, she declined to elaborate on the language in the resolution hammered out by the board during a five-hour closed session.

In allowing work to continue, the board set a limit of $2.2 million to “secure” the project.

During a brief public session, Chief Administrative Officer David Koch said securing means adding roofs, windows and doors to protect the half-completed structure from weather.

Although those precautions sound much like a prelude to suspending construction, at least temporarily, Koch said that “securing” the project will be more economical than a full suspension of work, which he estimated would cost $3.7 million.

Koch did not say whether that figure referred to actual construction costs or demands that the developer, Temple Beaudry Partners, would be expected to make if it could not continue.

A spokeswoman for the developer said the firm would not comment on the board action.

Making interpretation of the board’s intent even more difficult, board member David Tokofsky amended the resolution to say that the board “may direct the superintendent to terminate the project” if a detailed suspension agreement is not consummated by Aug. 15. The resolution made no reference to any negotiations with Temple Beaudry Partners on a suspension agreement.

The amendment passed with five votes. Hayes and board member Victoria Castro, a steady supporter of the Belmont project, dissented.

The resolution also directed Supt. Ruben Zacarias to appoint a full-time project director for Belmont and authorized the project director to retain a consultant to analyze the cost of proceeding with the project and the cost of other alternatives including abandonment.

In brief public comments before the vote, board members said they expected the five-member commission to be made up of people with “impeccable” qualifications and integrity.

In answer to a question, Hayes said she thought that it should be modeled after the Christopher Commission convened earlier in the decade to recommend reforms for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Belmont played a major role in the defeat of three former board members by Hayes, Lansing and Young.

A television ad for Young and Lansing referred to Belmont as a “$200-million high school that may never open.”

Hayes sent out literature that described the project as a “school construction fiasco.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Belmont Learning Complex: A Timeline

Sept. 18, 1990: Los Angeles Unified condemns Ambassador Hotel to use as site for downtown high school; owner Donald Trump threatens court action over price.

Sept. 20, 1993: With real estate values falling, Board of Education decides to drop Ambassador site and buy 24 acres at 1st Street and Beaudry Avenue from a Japanese subsidiary of Shimizu Corp.

Aug. 21, 1995: District development director Dominic Shambra unveils innovative plan for 5,300-student school, together with low-cost housing and retail center.

Nov. 18, 1996: Despite warnings about inadequate assessment of oil field hazards, Board of Education approves environmental impact report for Belmont Learning Complex.

Summer 1997: Construction begins.

April 1998: Testing by contractor detects methane seepage under a classroom building.

Sept. 28, 1998: State Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles) calls hearing to criticize failures in school district’s environmental reviews.

Nov. 5, 1998: Supt. Ruben Zacarias announces appointment of a team of experts to obtain state environmental certification for Belmont and other school sites.

Nov. 17, 1998: Department of Toxic Substances Control informs district that Belmont property requires further environmental assessment.

Feb. 9, 1999: State approves district’s work plan for $700,000 of new tests; cost soon escalates to $1.4 million.

June 15, 1999: Preliminary report by Environmental Strategies Corp. concludes that methane is pervasive at Belmont and cannot be eliminated; any safety plan must remain active for the life of the school; still more studies must be undertaken to evaluate environmental risks.