BELMONT ARCHITECT'S DEAL WORTH $6 MILLION.

Byline: Greg Gittrich Staff Writer

Architect Ernesto M. Vasquez - the man who parlayed a $110,000 consultant's fee into a nearly $6 million deal for his firm to design the Belmont Learning Center - stands accused in an internal LAUSD investigation of a direct conflict of interest and failure to design a school suitable for the site's environmental conditions.

Vasquez's dream of a ``unique urban high school'' - featuring classrooms for more than 5,000 students, a bustling minimall, lush parkland and low-income housing - has turned into a public works nightmare, a $200 million scandal.

The housing component was scrapped early on and the Los Angeles Unified School District has found it impossible to lure tenants to the retail portion. Now project delays, legal threats and environmental fears call into question whether Belmont's much-needed classrooms will ever be used.

The complex is half-complete, sitting downtown atop an oil field plagued by potentially explosive and deadly gases.

A scathing review of the project by LAUSD's top investigator charges that Vasquez and his Orange County firm, McClarand, Vasquez & Partners Inc., sat on both sides of the negotiating table as the district looked for a developer to build the nation's costliest high school.

Vasquez and his firm worked for the district and the eventual winning developer at the same time, breaching their ``duty of professional care by engaging in a direct conflict of interest,'' said Don Mullinax, director of the LAUSD Internal Audits and Special Investigations Unit.

Vasquez could not be reached immediately for comment. But in a rare interview prior to the release of Mullinax's report Tuesday, Vasquez told the Daily News he believes there is no reason Belmont can't be opened and occupied safely.

``Lots of construction exists over former active oil fields,'' Vasquez said, adding that he believes the district has been falsely accused of failing to identify environmental problems. ``It's amazing to me that this project is being made an example of.

``It's something extremely needed in that community. Something the parents, teachers and students have been waiting for.''

Vasquez joined the Belmont project in April 1994 as a consultant for the district on a $110,000 contract and his role quickly grew.

His total fees: $5.8 million.

``I'd say the architect hit the jackpot,'' said school board member David Tokofsky, a Belmont critic. ``The architect kept drawing and since we were playing with this new concept of a joint-use high school and retail complex no one was really paying attention.''

Switching teams

Vasquez was originally hired by the district to draft a conceptual plan for Belmont, evaluate potential developers and oversee the final design.

Vasquez told the Daily News his acquaintance from Orange County, Wayne Wedin, brought him onto the project. Wedin, a $125-per-hour ``asset development'' consultant for the district, supervised the architect with help from Dominic Shambra, the director of the LAUSD Planning and Development branch.

In the early stages of the competitive selection process, Shambra and Wedin gave prospective developers a general description of the project and guaranteed Vasquez a long-term role.

The April 1994 Request for Qualifications sent out by the district stated: ``The project architect (Mr. Ernie Vasquez) will work for the district'' until the district signed an agreement with a developer.

Once the agreement was signed, Vasquez and his firm were ``to be retained by the developer to oversee the project architecture and planning in accordance with the district's concept.''

When some developers questioned Vasquez's role, the district issued a written clarification: ``(Vasquez) will not be part of competitive teams. Once a developer is selected, then Mr. Vasquez will be a part of that team.''

But that apparently had changed by December. A Dec. 12, 1994, financial review of potential developers listed Vasquez's firm, MV&P International, as the project architect for Temple Beaudry Partners, the eventual winning team led by Kajima Urban Development.

District records indicate Vasquez was working for both the district and the competing team for at least a brief period of time.

Relying on his memory, Vasquez said he did not recall when his relationship with Temple Beaudry began and couldn't confirm whether he worked for the district and the developer simultaneously.

``Those dates don't make much sense,'' he said.

By the time the district chose to negotiate exclusively with the Kajima team, Vasquez said, his firm MV&P International had been replaced as the project architect by its parent company McLarand, Vasquez and Partners.

Nevertheless, Vasquez remained the lead architect.

``The architect and his firm were players for more than one team,'' Mullinax said.

`Dear Ernie'

Vasquez and the district ``mutually'' terminated his original $110,000 contract on Feb. 1, 1995.

``Your termination from this project does not in any way reflect on the quality of your work or level of professionalism; it is simply change in direction for the project,'' Shambra wrote in a Jan. 25, 1995, letter.

Shambra, a driving force behind Belmont, told Vasquez he was free to join any of the developers competing to build complex, but would ``in no way receive any consideration or advantage because of (his) concept drawings or participation'' with the district.

Nine months later, the LAUSD entered into exclusive negotiations with Kajima, agreeing to pay Vasquez up to $250,000 for architecture fees.

In April 1996, the district increased the approved fees to $800,000.

Later that year, when it appeared talks with Kajima would drag on longer than expected - or possibly disintegrate - Shambra and then Superintendent Sidney A. Thompson convinced the school board to alloBcate enough money for all the design fees, according to district records.

The move allowed the project to move forward quickly in case the district needed to bring another developer on board, they contended.

The report approved by the school board pegged the full scope of design fees at about $4 million in two references and between $4 million and $5 million in another.

That figure jumped again in February 1997 when a confidential review by the LAUSD Internal Analysis Unit placed the bill at nearly $5.3 million and over budget.

``The proposed architect's fees are $1.7 million above the state-allowable amount,'' the report concluded. ``We expected that the overage would be more like $400,000.''

One month later, an additional increase surfaced in a billing summary submitted to the developer by Vasquez's parent company. The new tally: $6.2 million.

LAUSD spokesman Erik Nasarenko said financial records show Vasquez was paid approximately $5.8 million. Vasquez said he believed the figure is between $5.5 million and $5.75 million.

Panama connection

While the district was ironing out the development deal, Vasquez and Wedin, the LAUSD consultant heavily involved in Belmont, became partners in a venture that landed a $50 million construction deal in the Republic of Panama.

Vasquez said the deal was unrelated to Belmont and in no way influenced the district's agreement with Kajima.

However, some elements of the Panama deal were similar to Belmont.

The Orange County development team, led by HNTB Design/Build, offered to put together a financing package that would allow the cash-strapped country to build a legislative building at almost no cost.

In return, Panama agreed to let HNTB build a $50 million hotel-business center on an adjoining 25 acres.

Like Belmont, the agreement gave elected officials a chance to ``make more with less'' and offered private developers the chance to earn sizeable profits.

``That project is pretty much on hold or poBssibly dead because of changes in political leadership down there,'' Vasquez said.

Still, a sign proclaiming the coming of the new legislative building remains on the Panama City site.

A virtual Belmont

McLarand, Vasquez & Partners continues to feature color photographs, three-dimensional renderings and a glowing description of Belmont on its corporate Web site.

The facility was intended to be a high school that included many ``firsts,'' the Web site boasts, mentioning the shops, parks, housing and school aspects.

Cut into the side of steep hillside, the campus was designed to be ``technically advanced, computer-oriented'' and ``provide essential neighborhood services such as health care and child care facilities.''

Vasquez said the final drawings evolved out of several meetings with the surrounding low-income community.

``It is a unique urban high school designed to deal with unique urban issues,'' Vasquez said. ``We were trying to think out of the box.''