Activists Protest Proposal to Abandon Work on Belmont

By DOUG SMITH

Jan. 25, 2000 12 AM PT

TIMES EDUCATION WRITER

Community activists rallied outside the half-completed Belmont Learning Complex on Monday in opposition to a recommendation that the Los Angeles school board abandon the high school project.

With the Board of Education scheduled to consider the recommendation today, the activists accused chief operating officer Howard Miller of betraying the community by pressing for a quick vote on Belmont rather than waiting for a state study to determine whether the polluted site can be made safe.

A lawyer for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said at Monday’s rally that he was researching a possible lawsuit if the board scuttles the $200-million high school.

“The school district has a legal obligation to commit whatever is necessary to ensure that every child has a safe school,” said Thomas Saenz, MALDEF regional counsel.

State officials have indicated that they think the hazards of explosive methane and toxic hydrogen sulfide can be reduced to an acceptable level, but a final judgment is not expected before summer. The 35-acre site is a former oil field.

With the concurrence of interim Supt. Ramon C. Cortines, Miller announced his decision to recommend the scrapping of Belmont last week, saying the district cannot afford to spend the estimated $55 million required to finish the project.

Instead, he proposed building primary centers, converting middle schools to senior highs and looking elsewhere for a new high school, including the former Ambassador Hotel, the downtown postal annex and the district’s downtown headquarters at 450 N. Grand Ave. Miller suggested using the construction site at Temple Street and Beaudry Avenue as a new district headquarters and warehouse.

But community members rejected any alternative.

“If the school district can afford to make the Belmont Learning Complex safe to house administrators, it can also make it safe to house students,” said Angela Sanbrono, executive director of the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles.

“We do not want 450 N. Grand. We do not want Terminal Annex. We do not want the Ambassador,” said Belmont parent Maria Rodriguez. “We want a Cadillac. We do not want a Chevy.”

Victoria Castro, the only board member who has steadfastly supported Belmont, stepped up her criticism of Miller’s recommendation Monday, saying that it is “premature, short of answers and gives nothing of hope to this community.”

Castro said preliminary studies of both the postal annex and the current district headquarters indicate environmental problems that would require extensive mitigation.

A preliminary study of the Terminal Annex obtained by The Times identified nine underground storage tanks on the site and concluded that a high potential for contamination remains from uses on or near the site that include wood staining and gluing, steel forging and vehicle storage.

In a related development, The Times has learned that a consultant recently testified in a deposition that he was pushed to inflate the cost of mitigating the hazards at Belmont in a report last year to a commission appointed to weigh the fate of the project.

Although the committee eventually voted 4 to 3 to recommend completion of the school, minority members cited the estimated environmental cost of $60 million as a key point in their strong dissent. But John Black, senior engineer for Environmental Strategies Corp., said in the deposition that the site could be made safe for about $16 million.

Black said he came up with the more expensive plan after being told that committee members wanted “a maximum worst-case scenario.”

“There’s a point where you’ve protected the school, we’ve provided the system that will mitigate the problem,” Black testified. “Adding more doesn’t protect you more.”

The disclosure may have little effect on Miller’s recommendation, which is based on the estimated cost to complete construction, and notes environmental costs merely as an “unknown.”

The deposition was taken by attorneys for O’Melveny & Myers, which is being sued by the district for giving bad advice on the Belmont project.