O.C. Commissioner’s Votes Appear to Break State Law : Development: Planning official acted on Mission Viejo Co. matters after accepting $365 in gifts from them.

An Orange County planning commissioner may have violated California’s conflict-of-interest law by voting on matters affecting a major development company within one year after he accepted $365 worth of free golfing privileges, meals and theater and sports tickets from the firm, records show.

County documents reviewed by The Times show that Planning Commissioner C. Douglas Leavenworth voted eight times in 1988 on land-use matters affecting the development plans of the Mission Viejo Co., the firm that designed and built what is now the city of Mission Viejo and nearby Aliso Viejo.

Leavenworth’s votes, all favoring positions urged by the Mission Viejo Co., followed his acceptance in 1987 of the gifts from the firm. Leavenworth valued those gifts at $365 on an annual financial-disclosure statement he filed with the county and the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

State law prohibits elected or appointed officials “at any level of state or local government” from participating in decisions that “will have a material financial effect” on any individual or company from which the official has received gifts worth $250 or more within the preceding 12 months.

Sandra Michioku, a spokeswoman for the state Fair Political Practices Commission, confirmed that any officeholder violating the $250 gift provision could face maximum fines of $2,000 per violation, imposed by the FPPC, or misdemeanor charges prosecuted by the county district attorney.

Referring to officials who accept $250 or more of gifts, Michioku said, “They must avoid participating in a governmental decision, if it is likely to affect the financial interest” of the donor.

Leavenworth, who was appointed by then-Supervisor Ralph Clark in 1982 and reappointed by Supervisor Don R. Roth, said in an interview that he has violated no law and has “absolutely not” been influenced by the gifts from the Mission Viejo Co.

“Not one iota,” Leavenworth said. “. . . It’s really an insult to suggest that people are buying our influence by providing us lunch, for Christ’s sake. . . . We’re private citizens trying to do our best for the county under very difficult circumstances.”

Orange County planning commissioners are paid $170 for every meeting they attend. If the commissioners attended the minimum number of meetings held each year, 84, they would be paid $14,280, according to the commission’s secretary.

The five-member Planning Commission holds wide power over whether, or how land may be developed in unincorporated areas of Orange County. The commission, for instance, can approve or deny land-use permits, variances and site plans that are crucial to developers who have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. Decisions of the commission can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

Leavenworth’s votes in 1988 regarding the Mission Viejo Co. encompassed approvals of the company’s proposed area plans and tentative tract maps, according to Planning Commission records. On April 12, 1988, for instance, Leavenworth and his colleagues voted unanimously to deny an appeal of a Mission Viejo Co. tract map for the Aliso Viejo Planned Community. The appeal had been lodged by The Laguna Greenbelt Inc.

Records also show that over six years, from 1984 through 1989, Leavenworth has reported receiving $1,207 worth of gifts from the Mission Viejo Co. During that same period, Leavenworth reported that eight other development-related firms gave him gifts worth a total of $1,470.

Other planning commissioners have reported receiving gifts from developers. But none, other than Leavenworth, received more than $250 worth of gifts a year from any single company, according to the records.

Leavenworth answered questions over the telephone from his home in Anaheim but declined to grant an interview in person. The commissioner said that he does not know of any law that prevented him from voting on matters after he had accepted gifts of any value.

Leavenworth declined a reporter’s invitation to show him, in writing, the state conflict-of-interest law.

The prohibition is contained in the Political Reform Act, the post-Watergate reform that was enacted overwhelmingly by California voters in 1974.

Leavenworth instead pointed out that Orange County’s so-called TIN CUP ordinance does not apply to him because, as an appointed official, he does not accept campaign contributions. The county ordinance was designed to prevent county supervisors from participating in decisions affecting development companies that give more than $1,808 to the politician’s campaign.

Terry Andrus, a deputy Orange County counsel, confirmed that the TIN CUP ordinance does not apply to members of the Planning Commission. Andrus also said that the commissioners are subject to the $250 gift ceiling contained in the state’s conflict-of-interest law.

Leavenworth, asked about the eight meals that he reported as gifts from the Mission Viejo Co. in 1987, said those sessions increased his knowledge of the matters that he was to vote on. Leavenworth said the meals provided good, low-key opportunities to ask questions of company executives about a project.

“It takes a couple hours out of your time,” said Leavenworth, a retired aerospace engineer. “And it usually is a very comfortable way to have a one-on-one discussion. . . . In any case that comes before us, the person that knows the most about it is the applicant.”

Leavenworth also said that he has not been influenced by the $125 worth of free golfing privileges provided during that year by the Mission Viejo Co. In fact, Leavenworth said that he has extended a “standing invitation” to David A. Celestin, the Mission Viejo Co.’s executive vice president for planning and governmental affairs, to be part of the commissioner’s golfing foursome on Saturday mornings at the Willowick course in Santa Ana.

“We’re brought into contact and we enjoy the same things,” Leavenworth said.

Celestin did not return calls seeking comment. Wendy Wetzel, spokeswoman for the Mission Viejo Co., said that the company provides gifts to members of the county Planning Commission and an array of other business contacts.

“We do business with the Planning Commission,” Wetzel said. “They’re our business associates.”

Asked about the theater-related gifts he received from the Mission Viejo Co., Leavenworth said they were, in part, the result of the cultural focus of the firm and its corporate parent, the Philip Morris Cos. Leavenworth said the theater-related gifts he reported from the Mission Viejo Co. involved performances of the Joffrey Ballet and the American Ballet Theatre.

“I think it’s a great thing that Philip Morris is doing,” Leavenworth said. “We’re happy to support the ballet, in effect, by going.”

The FPPC’s Michioku said that any official who reaches the $250 gift limit should abstain for 12 months from decision-making that effects the donor of the gifts. In other words, if Leavenworth’s gifts from the Mission Viejo totaled $250 as of October, 1987, he should have abstained on matters affecting the company until October, 1988.

It is not clear from reading Leavenworth’s financial-disclosure statement precisely when he reached the $250 limit. But the records indicate he reached that point in either November or December of 1987.

The precise date would be important to calculating exactly how many times Leavenworth’s votes affecting Mission Viejo Co. occurred after he reached the $250 state limit. County Planning Commission records show that he voted eight times on matters affecting the company in 1988 and 14 times in 1987. Two of the votes in December, 1987, were clearly after Leavenworth passed the $250 threshold, because they occurred within days after his last reported gifts from the company that year.

Planning Commission records show that, of the 22 occasions during 1987-1988 that Leavenworth voted on matters affecting the Mission Viejo Co., each time he took the position sought by company representatives.

LEAVENWORTH’S VOTES AFFECTING MISSION VIEJO CO. Planning Commissioner C. Douglas Leavenworth participated in 22 votes in 1987 and 1988 that affected the Mission Viejo Co. In 1987, Leavenworth reported receiving $365 in gifts from the firm. State law requires officials who have received $250 or more over a 12-month period to abstain from voting on matters affecting the gift giver. Date: March 10, 1987 Issue: Appeal by the Saddleback Coordinating Council of a tentative tract proposed by the Mission Viejo Co. Action: On motion of Leavenworth, commission votes 3-2 to deny the appeal. Date: March 23, 1987 Issue: Consideration of a site plan and an area plan proposed by the Mission Viejo Co. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to approve both plans. Date: April 13, 1987 Issue: Site plan proposed by the Mission Viejo Co. also requested revision to a finding in a county staff report. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to approve the site plan and to revise the staff finding. Date: June 15, 1987 Issue: Appeal by activists of Mission Viejo Co. tentative tract map. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to deny the appeal. Date: June 22, 1987 Issue: Site plan of Mission Viejo Co., opposed by representatives of local Nellie Gail Ranch. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to approve the plan. Date: Sept. 14, 1987 Issue: Withdrawal of site plan sought by Mission Viejo Co. Action: Commission votes 4-1, Leavenworth with majority, to approve withdrawal of site plan. Date: Oct. 13, 1987 Issue: Approval of Development Agreement covering Mission Viejo Planned Community sought by Mission Viejo Co. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to approve the Development Agreement and to recommend its adoption by Board of Supervisors. Date: Oct. 27, 1987 Issue: Approval for area plan sought by Mission Viejo Co. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to approve the plan. Date: Nov. 10, 1987 Issue: Approval for amendment to area plan sought by Mission Viejo Co. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to approve amendment. Date: Nov. 17, 1987 Issue: Approval of area plan sought by Mission Viejo Co. Action: Commission votes 4-0, with one abstention, to approve the plan. Date: Dec. 8, 1987 Issue: Delay, sought by Mission Viejo Co., of area plan. Action: Commission votes 4-1, Leavenworth with majority, to delay. Date: Dec. 15, 1987 Issue: Amendment to area plan, sought by Mission Viejo Co. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to approve the amendment. Date: Dec. 21, 1987 Issue: Appeal of site plan, sought by Saddleback Area Coordinating Council. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to deny the appeal. Date: Dec. 22, 1987 Issue: Area plan and coastal development permit sought by the Mission Viejo Co. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to approve the plan and the permit. Date: Jan. 12, 1988 Issue: Approval of area plan sought by Mission Viejo Co. Type: 170 acres, with 319 single-family dwellings, 380 multifamily units. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to approve the plan. Date: Jan. 20, 1988 Issue: Appeal of tentative tract map by environmentalists. Type: 274-acre subdivision of the Mission Viejo Co. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to deny the appeal. Date: Jan. 26, 1988 Issue: Approval sought for Development Agreement sought by Aliso Viejo Co., a unit wholly owned and operated by the Mission Viejo Co. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to approve the agreement and recommend adoption by Board of Supervisors. Date: March 9, 1988 Issue: Appeal of tentative tract map, sought by environmentalists. Type: 137 acres, subdivided by Mission Viejo Co. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to deny the appeal. Date: March 9, 1988 Issue: Appeal of tentative tract map, sought by environmentalists. Type: 133 acres, subdivided by Mission Viejo Co. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to deny the appeal. Date: March 21, 1988 Issue: Appeal of tentative tract map, sought by environmentalists. Type: 298 acres, subdivided by Mission Viejo Co. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to deny appeal. Date: April 12, 1988 Issue: Appeal of tentative tract map, sought by environmentalists. Type: 13 acres, subdivided by Mission Viejo Co. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to deny appeal. Date: July 26, 1988 Issue: Approval of area plan, sought by Mission Viejo Co. Issue: Parkland. Action: Leavenworth and colleagues vote unanimously to deny the appeal. Source: Orange County Planning Commission. MISSION VIEJO CO. GIFTS TO LEAVENWORTH

Date Value Description Feb. 17,1989 $35 Golf May 8 $60 Golf and dinner Aug. 15 $15 Lunch Dec. 13 $90 Theater/reception Dec. 15 $25 Lunch 1989 Total $225 April 18, 1988 $15 Lunch July 19 $6 Breakfast Sept. 19 $60 Golf and dinner 1988 Total $81 Jan-Dec., 1987 $100 Eight lunches and breakfasts Aug. 26 $62.50 Golf and cart fees Sept. 10 $40 Ballgame/dinner Nov. 9 $62.50 Golf and cart fees Dec. 13 $100 Theater/reception 1987 Total $365 Feb.-Nov., 1986 $65 Lunches May 5 $40 Golf and cart fees Oct. 23 $40 Golf and cart fees 1986 Total $145 Feb. 1, 1985 $50 Theater/reception Aug.-Sept. $36 Lunches July 25 $35 Golf and cart fees Dec. 11 $35 Golf and cart fees 1985 Total $156 Jan.-Dec., 1984 $120 Meals May-Sept. $85 Ballgame, theater, Olympic cycling Dec. 7 $30 Golf and cart fees 1984 Total $235

Source: California Fair Political Practices Commission.