Picus Proposal to Split Panel Draws Criticism : Planning: A study says four separate L.A. commissions would be too costly. A council committee delays action for 30 days.

A proposal by Los Angeles City Councilwoman Joy Picus to scrap the Planning Commission in favor of four separate commissions, including one for the San Fernando Valley, would be too costly and Balkanize the city, according to a report released Tuesday.

The report by city Planning Director Conn Howe was prepared in response to a proposal Picus forwarded in March soon after her efforts to reduce growth at Warner Center had been rebuffed by the city’s five-member Planning Commission.

After a review of the report and a brief debate Tuesday, the council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee postponed action on the Picus plan for another 30 days.

Councilwoman Ruth Galanter said she wanted to see the voter reaction to another plan to expand government in the name of making it more accessible--Proposition C, which would expand the five-member County of Board of Supervisors to nine members.

Proposition C will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot.

Councilman Hal Bernson said he also wanted to give the idea some additional thought before sending it to the full council.

To be enacted, the Picus measure would require amending the City Charter, which can only be done by a majority vote of the people.

The council’s role would be to decide whether to place the measure on the ballot.

Picus, who represents the West Valley, hopes to place the measure on the April, 1993, ballot, when she is expected either to run for reelection or for mayor.

Picus has argued that four commissions--one each from the Valley, Westside, Central City and Harbor--would be more responsive to the citizenry, with each commission consisting only of members who live in the affected area.

But the Howe report predicted that the expense of four panels would be hard to justify during a period of tight finances at City Hall.

Currently, the annual cost of operating the commission--from support staff to the commissioners’ $50-per-meeting stipend--is about $247,000.

Funding four commissions would cost a total of $614,000, Howe estimated.

Moreover, four commissions would further fragment the city, Howe said. “Such a structure would likely exacerbate the not-in-my-back-yard attitude,” he wrote.

Howe continued: “Which of the four planning commissions would rise up altruistically and say ‘for the good of the city’ our area will provide for a hazardous waste transfer station?”

“The single commission has more responsibility to look at all the pieces of the city puzzle, assuring that they fit together . . . is less likely to be subject to the parochial influences of groups . . . who are usually focusing on narrow issues at the expense of a citywide vision.”

Picus, however, testifying before the committee, countered that any additional cost of her plan would be worth paying because it would increase the responsiveness of government. “More democracy is worth it,” Picus said.

The lawmaker also disputed that her plan would inhibit the expression of a citywide planning vision.

Picus said that no such vision exists now, so nothing would be lost.