Legislation Targets Coastal Commission Business Methods : Assembly: Two proposals, spurred by the corruption probe of a panel member, cover fund raising and opening up deliberations.

Spurred by the continuing political corruption investigation of California Coastal Commissioner Mark L. Nathanson, two West Los Angeles Democratic lawmakers are seeking legislation to overhaul the way the commission does some of its business.

One proposal, by Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), is designed to limit the potential for campaign fund raising to influence the panel’s decisions. The other, by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Los Angeles), would open up the commission’s deliberations.

The proposals have grown out of a federal grand jury probe into whether Nathanson used his office to extort money from homeowners, including film celebrities and executives with houses in Malibu, seeking commission permits. A Beverly Hills real estate broker, Nathanson is known in political circles as a “bundler”--someone who legally solicits campaign contributions from friends and business associates and then presents the money to candidates.

During a brief legislative hearing Monday, Hayden described Nathanson as “really a shakedown artist and fundamentally damaging the image of the Coastal Commission.”

Hayden’s bill would block Nathanson and other commissioners from raising, soliciting, donating or accepting funds from anyone who has had a matter pending before the coastal agency in the previous three years.

The measure also would bar commissioners, who are appointed by state Assembly and Senate leaders and the governor, from becoming involved in fund raising on behalf of the elected officials who name them to the panel. Kip Wiley, a Hayden aide, said Tuesday that he expects the measure would be expanded to prohibit a coastal panel member from receiving fees or commissions from an applicant.

The 12-member Coastal Commission is charged with safeguarding the state’s 1,200-mile shoreline from illegal development and ensuring public access to beaches.

Friedman’s Coastal Commission reform proposal would require the growing army of consultants, planners and lawyers who lobby the Coastal Commission to register with the state.

Friedman’s interest in “opening up” commission procedures is not new, however. In 1988, he unsuccessfully sought legislation to ban secret contacts between lobbyists and commissioners. Friedman said he also is considering whether to revive that proposal.

Friedman said he could amend his proposals into a current “spot bill” dealing with minor technical Coastal Commission issues. The measure was unanimously approved Monday by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and sent to the Assembly floor.

The Natural Resources Committee, which oversees coastal legislation, however, unanimously decided that it should send Hayden’s bill to the Assembly Elections Committee, which handles fund-raising and conflict of interest issues.

Hayden did not oppose the move but said it “deprived us of the opportunity to do oversight into the issue of corruption of the Coastal Commission, which is the domain of the Natural Resources Committee.”

Hayden, whose Assembly district stretches from Malibu to Venice, has asked Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) to remove Nathanson from the commission. Brown, who first appointed Nathanson to the panel in 1986, has stood by his appointee.

Both Hayden and Friedman are in the middle of tough election contests. Hayden is seeking a state Senate seat that stretches from Beverly Hills and Santa Monica to Westlake Village, while Friedman is running for a new Assembly seat that stretches from Santa Monica to Agoura Hills. Brian Baird, legislative liaison for the Coastal Commission, said the panel has not taken a position on Hayden’s measure or Friedman’s proposals.

Robert Shapiro, Nathanson’s lawyer, welcomed Hayden’s suggestions on fund raising, saying that all appointed officials, not just members of the Coastal Commission, need better guidance on campaign fund raising. In response to the federal grand jury investigation, Shapiro has denied that Nathanson has done anything wrong.

Besides the federal probe, a Los Angeles County grand jury has subpoenaed records to determine whether Nathanson failed to report about $150,000 he received as lobbyist-consultant for MGM Grand Air, a luxury airline. Nathanson helped market its coast-to-coast service and negotiate airport gate leases in Los Angeles and New York.

On Monday, Nathanson, who has not previously reported income from the airline, amended his state-required disclosure form for 1990 to reflect income of more than $10,000 from MGM Grand Inc., the airline’s parent company.