Panel Cannot Hear Porter Ranch Plan, L.A. Rules

The Los Angeles city attorney’s office on Wednesday disqualified the Planning Commission from hearing or voting on plans for a $2-billion residential and commercial development in Porter Ranch, saying a commissioner who owns property near the project has a conflict of interest.

Assistant City Atty. Anthony S. Alperin said Commissioner Theodore Stein Jr. has a conflict because he is part owner of a 10-acre, 19-home tract at Rinaldi Street and Canoga Avenue, about a mile from the Porter Ranch site.

Because of the conflict, the proposal will be heard by the five-member Board of Referred Powers. The board is made up of City Council members and headed by Councilman Hal Bernson, who has received $50,380 in campaign contributions from the project’s developer and associates since 1982.

The development firm, headed by Beverly Hills builder Nathan Shapell, wants to build 2,195 single-family homes, 800 multifamily housing units and 7.5 million square feet of commercial space. Bernson has recommended reducing the commercial area to about 6 million square feet and adding 400 multifamily units.

Changes Would Affect Tract

Alperin said street improvements and traffic mitigation measures required for Porter Ranch would affect the Stein tract. The improvements would include a traffic signal at Rinaldi and Canoga, street restriping and the completion of Rinaldi Street south of the Simi Valley Freeway.

Alperin said any Planning Commission decision on the Porter Ranch project and the area’s general plan “would have a material financial effect on Mr. Stein’s property.” He said the city Department of Transportation concluded that the improvements would benefit the 19-home subdivision.

The ruling marks the sixth time this year that the city attorney’s office has disqualified the Planning Commission from considering project plans because of a financial or non-financial conflict of interest, Alperin said. The Porter Ranch proposal cannot be heard by the other four commissioners because the City Charter requires disqualification of an entire board if any member has a conflict.

Stein said he did not believe the proposed traffic improvements “would benefit or hurt me.” He said by the time the improvements could be completed, he will have sold his property.

Stein said nine homes in the subdivision have closed escrow, four are in escrow and the remaining six will be sold within the next six months.

‘No Ownership Interest’

“After that, I will have no ownership interest in that property whatsoever,” he said.

But Alperin said the conflict existed.

“Unless he would be disqualified, he would be called upon to make a decision today that would have an effect on his property,” Alperin said. “The fact that he owns it now is the relevant consideration.”

Commissioner Suzette Neiman also owns property in the subdivision, but she was not included in the ruling because only Stein had asked the city attorney’s office to assess his potential conflict, Alperin said.

Bernson, whose council district includes the proposed development site in the hilly Porter Ranch area north of Chatsworth, called the city attorney’s ruling “a very poor and improper decision.

“There is not the possibility of personal gain for the commissioner,” he said. “It’s ridiculous. It’s a tragedy that casts a shadow of doubt on the entire commission system.”

Bernson said contributions he received would not affect his view of the project. “I have no personal gain in this thing,” he said.

Twenty companies and individuals involved with the project, including Porter Ranch Development Co., its consultants and lobbyists, have donated to Bernson over the last seven years, according to campaign documents.

“Contributions do not affect my decisions at any time or with anyone,” Bernson said. “I listen to everyone equally. That’s my job. I have nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to hide. I don’t have any conflicts.”

Alperin said Bernson should not be disqualified from voting on the plans because the city has “no facts to indicate that he has a conflict. The fact that he received contributions from persons associated with this project does not form a legal basis for disqualification.”

Other members of the Planning Commission, which had been scheduled to consider the plan at a hearing today, said the ruling upset them.

“I’m disappointed with the conclusion that was reached,” said Commission President William G. Luddy. He said the decision may set a bad precedent.

“I’m particularly concerned by the implications this might have for the operations of commissions in general,” he said.

In effect, the issue will go to City Council members without being addressed first by planning commissioners, who are not elected officials.

Project opponents also were disappointed by the ruling. “It’s unfortunate,” said David Miller, president of the Granada Hills Chamber of Commerce. “My concern is whether there will be an adequate hearing of the issue since one step is removed.”

But spokesmen for the development said they had no quarrel with the decision.

“We have no interest one way or the other on who hears it,” said Paul Clarke of Porter Ranch Development Co. “Our position is that we are happy to present the plan before any of the two panels. The plan is an excellent one, and if it’s good in one place, it will be good in another.”

Bernson said the plan should come before the board within the next two weeks. He said that although the Planning Commission already has considered the plan at a public hearing, the board will have to hold another public hearing.