Council Asked to Bar Planners From Owning L.A. Land

Los Angeles City Council members Joy Picus and Joel Wachs called Wednesday for city planning commissioners to divest ownership of all their property within city boundaries to avoid another conflict of interest like one that barred the commission from hearing the Porter Ranch development plan.

The Picus-Wachs measure would force the five current commissioners to choose between owning land in the city--other than their homes--or serving on the board. The proposal joins a crowd of ethical reforms under consideration by city officials.

Picus and Wachs also suggested that the city’s Governmental Operations Committee, to which their proposal was sent, study similar prohibitions for all city commissioners, board members and the City Council itself.

The announcement came the same day the Board of Referred Powers, a five-member City Council panel that takes up matters that have posed conflicts for other city boards, gave preliminary approval to the mammoth Porter Ranch commercial and residential plan.

Several board members expressed frustration that the Planning Commission did not grapple with the complex land-use issues involved in the $2-billion, 1,300-acre development plan.

In a City Hall news conference Wednesday morning, Picus said her divestment measure would reduce the chances that the Planning Commission would be bypassed again.

Two weeks ago, Assistant City Atty. Anthony S. Alperin determined that Commissioner Theodore Stein Jr.’s part interest in a subdivision about a mile away from the Porter Ranch development posed a conflict of interest because Stein could benefit from street improvements involving the proposed development. The decision prohibited the entire commission from hearing the matter.

“When the commission is disqualified from acting, then the people of Los Angeles lose because our system is based on having citizen input into the decision-making process,” Picus said. “Those commissioners are part of that process.”

The Board of Referred Powers has ruled on 12 planning cases since 1987 because of conflicts of interest involving commissioners, according to a review of board agendas released by Wachs. Seven of the disqualifications were the result of property holdings by commissioners. Others were the result of business dealings or involvement in community groups involved in matters before the commission.

Planning Commission President William G. Luddy said the Picus-Wachs proposal “is out of proportion to the perceived problem,” noting that the commission has made decisions on thousands of pieces of property.

Stein, an attorney, said he believes that the proposed ordinance would illegally discriminate against a whole class of Los Angeles residents--property owners--by barring them from participation on citizen panels.

During Wednesday’s Board of Referred Powers hearing, several council members appeared reluctant to take on the Porter Ranch case and criticized the city attorney.

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky said he was “flabbergasted” by the city attorney’s opinion.

“The whole process . . . has been turned on it head,” he said. “By the same thinking, Stein could have a financial interest in any stoplight because he would use more gas. I don’t know where it ends.”

Councilman Marvin Braude, who also is a member of the Board of Referred Powers, said he “was uncomfortable being thrust in this kind of position.

“I for one think we ought to move forward and try and change the state law or the City Charter or whatever it takes because we can’t afford the decision-making process of this city to be handicapped in this way,” Braude said. “I think we are missing a lot by not having this go through the Planning Commission.”