Records Show Belmont Woes Didn’t Slow South Gate Plan

Even after the environmentally plagued Belmont Learning Complex had become a public embarrassment, Los Angeles school officials pressed on with efforts to acquire industrial property for two new South Gate schools without clearly understanding the enormous cleanup costs or even determining whether the project was feasible, records show.

The land acquisition team’s efforts to push the South Gate project toward a July 2001 opening touched off an intense behind-the-scenes battle that climaxed this week with the Board of Education’s decision to name a new chief executive over all district operations.

The district’s environmental safety team, which wanted to put the project on hold, said it had become a runaway train that had to be stopped.

The team told board members this week that senior staff had not provided critical information to them or the superintendent and that conditions were potentially worse than those at Belmont. The future of that $200-million high school has been jeopardized by site contamination from explosive methane gas and toxic hydrogen sulfide.

A new report due out next week is expected to support the prognosis that the South Gate site has greater problems.

“There is no indication that any lessons have been learned,” environmental attorney Barry Groveman wrote in a memo to senior staff earlier this month. “This speeding train is heading in the same direction as Belmont and can be expected to have the same consequences if this is not immediately addressed.”

In the memo, Groveman complained that no one could tell him how much had been spent on the project and that a middle manager was making decisions on legal strategy in condemnation proceedings.

The new study, commissioned by the district several weeks ago to find any problems that might prevent a school from being built, identifies three critical issues that could support a decision not to proceed, The Times has learned.

District officials are scheduled to present it to the Board of Education on Oct. 28.

The key factors, according to a draft of the report, are a protracted cleanup time--necessitating a delay of up to four years--and the presence of two underground pipelines, one carrying natural gas and the other gasoline.

Another factor not cited in the report is the potential cleanup cost. The new project manager for South Gate said he estimates it could be $10 million to $20 million. Already, $39 million has been spent on land acquisition, Groveman said.

The report, by the consulting firm Arcadis, says it appears that one of the pipelines lies under a portion of the site. State law prohibits construction of a school over a pipeline.

Project manager Alfonso Rodriguez said he has determined that the closest pipe is actually about 25 feet from the property.

However, even if not on the school site, the pipelines “are still near enough to pose a risk,” the report concluded. “Pipeline explosions have the potential to cause damage and injury across a wide area.”

Groveman, who helped draft the state law requiring disclosure of environmental hazards, said that only the school board can decide whether to accept that risk or not, and that it should have been briefed long ago on the problem.

The South Gate site consists of 38 industrial lots just west of the Los Angeles River. Although the site was chosen in the 1980s, the district began condemning the land only about two years ago. The owners included chemical formulating businesses, truck and auto services, and steel manufacturing and chrome plating factories.

Early environmental assessments showed that the property is contaminated by numerous hazardous chemicals, including heavy metals such as lead and mercury, petroleum products and solvents such as benzene. There is also contamination of underground water, raising the possibility that the district will have to pay for cleaning up neighboring residential properties.

The state Department of Toxic Substances Control has found the early studies inadequate and is requiring a comprehensive review to characterize all 38 properties. A cleanup plan will be based on those studies, which have not yet begun, said Ron Baker, spokesman for the department.

The battle over the South Gate project heated up during the summer when Groveman warned district general counsel Richard K. Mason and Chief Administrative Officer David Koch that the project “is following identical footsteps as Belmont” and recommended an immediate freeze on all activity. Mason, Koch and district real estate director Robert Niccum were among those who an auditor’s report on Belmont said should be disciplined.

Groveman said he was upset to learn that the district had settled a condemnation proceeding with one of the 38 South Gate property owners on terms he considered unduly favorable to the owner.

A judgment filed in Superior Court shows that the district agreed to pay $1.7 million for one parcel. That amount was reduced $138,750 to compensate the district for environmental cleanup.

The cleanup cost, however, was based on the district’s estimate of preparing the lot for future industrial development. To build a school, the district must meet a much stricter standard established for residential construction. The cost for achieving that standard is more than three times greater, according to the district, Groveman said.

Groveman said he learned that the deal was negotiated by the school district’s real estate attorney, Ed Szczepkowski, and approved by Niccum.

Szczepkowski said eminent domain law did not allow the use of the residential standard because appraisers determined that the best use of the property was industrial.

But Groveman said the decision to waive the district’s claim to hundreds of thousands of dollars in cleanup compensation should not have been left to mid-level managers.

He then demanded the immediate appointment of a project manager and an environmental attorney, an investigation of the pipeline and a full briefing of the school board.

The district later hired Rodriguez, a former MTA project manager, to oversee the project and retained Arcadis to conduct the critical issues analysis.

Even while that study was underway, however, district real estate staff continued to push condemnation proceedings.

On Sept. 28, Niccum asked the board to approve $3.9 million to settle three condemnation cases. Although the item was withdrawn shortly before the meeting, Groveman penned a new series of caustic memos.

“I believe that money continues to be spent and condemnation proceedings continue to go forward, including settlements on several properties, without adequate management review, accountability, strategic analysis and cost considerations,” he wrote to Mason and Koch.

Niccum did not return a call Friday seeking comment.

*

Times staff writer Sylvia Pagan Westphal contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Toxics at School Site

Following is a list of some businesses that were or are still operating on a 40-acre school site in South Gate and the chemicals and metals detected at them, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Department of Toxic Substances Control. Many of the compounds have been linked to cancer and other health problems, but the risk they pose to people depends on factors, such as concentration and level of exposure.

*

Note: DCA is an industrial solvent. DCE is a byproduct of TCE, an industrial solvent. DDD is a pesticide whose use has been restricted in some states. Use of DDT was banned by the federal government 26 years ago because it caused environmental damage as an insecticide. DDE is a byproduct of DDT. PCB is an industrial liquid formerly used in transformers. Its manufacture was banned by the federal government 23 years ago. TCA is an industrial solvent. Toluene and xylene are widely used hydrocarbon solvents.

Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control