Council urges LAUSD analysis of Belmont site and agrees to help seek alternatives after heated public hearing

The Los Angeles City Council voted to request that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) conduct an open analysis of alternative uses and alternative sites for the unfinished Belmont High School property and to make any future conditional‑use approvals or joint‑use agreements contingent on the district providing that analysis. The council also approved a separate motion directing city staff to work aggressively with LAUSD to identify alternative sites for Belmont students. The core package of actions passed with recorded tallies of either unanimous or near‑unanimous votes on the specific motions (final amended motion approved 12 ayes, 1 no).

Councilman Mike Hernandez framed the principal motion as a request — not a directive to build — asking the district to "consider all the facts" and promote "a fair and open public dialogue" about the Belmont site and possible alternatives. Hernandez told the council that past city reviews found the site could be mitigated and said what he sought was a factual, costed comparison between finishing Belmont and other options.

The hearing drew more than a dozen public speakers. Parents and community advocates, including Gloria Soto — identified in the hearing as the president of the Belmont High School Community Advisory Council and a vice chair of Parents for New Belmont Complex — urged the council to press the district to finish the site so neighborhood students would have a local high school. Beatrice Lopez Flores, speaking on behalf of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), said the motion would provide the community the "explanation with analysis" it is entitled to and emphasized that the motion did not require LAUSD to choose any particular option.

Opponents, led in public comment by George Bazzetti, chairman of the Association for Accountability and Equal Education, and by others who cited environmental reports, urged caution or opposed using the site for a school. Bazzetti raised past environmental findings and liability concerns; speakers referenced an earlier environmental impact report and what they described as reports identifying contaminants and the need for mitigation.

Council debate reflected deep division. Councilman Wax said he opposed city council involvement and suggested the situation raised questions about outside lobbying and potential impropriety; he said he would prefer a grand jury investigation if improper conduct were suspected. Council members Ignacio Pacheco and others rebutted Wax’s remarks, saying the record shows the community has been denied timely solutions and that the city should act where its residents’ interests are at stake. Councilman Gil Chick (referred to in the hearing as "Mrs. Chick") and others argued that jurisdictional boundaries should not prevent the city from helping find sites for its children.

Key votes during the hearing included a Rule 16 motion to consider the item (recorded 11 ayes, 1 no), approval of a motion (labeled 9a) conditioning any future city approval of CUPs or JPAs related to the Belmont cluster on LAUSD providing the requested analysis (13 ayes), approval of a separate motion (9b) calling on the city to work aggressively with LAUSD to identify alternative sites (13 ayes), and final approval of the Hernandez motion as amended (12 ayes, 1 no).

What the council asked LAUSD to provide

Hernandez and speakers asked the district to produce: a cost estimate for mitigation at the Belmont site; a comparison of mitigation cost versus the cost of developing alternative sites; a public process for airing reports and environmental findings; and an explanation of whether legal or procedural requirements (including prior conditional‑use agreements) had been met. Several speakers and council members mentioned the "Rodriguez consent decree," an earlier EIR prepared by the firm Shimizu, and various consultant reports; the motion requires LAUSD to present the district’s analysis to the city before the city approves future instrumental actions tied to that property.

Next steps and implementation

The council approved multiple, related measures to ensure the district’s response and city staff involvement. One motion requires that any future approvals of a conditional‑use permit or a joint‑use agreement for the Belmont cluster or any alternative proposal be contingent on LAUSD providing the requested analysis. Another motion directs city staff to coordinate actively with LAUSD to identify and evaluate possible alternative school sites for the Belmont cluster. Final implementation details were referred to city staff and to the committee process for follow up.

Votes at a glance (Belmont package)

• Rule 16 motion to consider item 9: approved (11 ayes, 1 no). • Motion 9a (contingency that LAUSD provide analysis before future city approvals): approved (13 ayes). • Motion 9b (city to work aggressively with LAUSD to identify alternative sites): approved (13 ayes). • Hernandez motion as amended (request for LAUSD analysis, public process and alternatives comparison): approved (12 ayes, 1 no).

Councilmembers’ statements and public testimony emphasized competing concerns: parents’ demand for a neighborhood high school and the safety and legal implications of siting children on a property where prior environmental reviews flagged concerns. The council’s actions require the district to produce a comparative analysis and commit the city to actively seek alternative sites while leaving the final decision to LAUSD subject to the requested disclosures.