Divestiture Plan Would Mainly Affect 1 Commissioner

A proposal to bar Los Angeles Planning Commission members from owning land in the city--other than their homes--would most directly affect one commissioner who owns eight properties in the city.

City Council members Joy Picus and Joel Wachs said their proposal was triggered by the recent disqualification of the five-member commission from hearing the controversial $2-billion development plan proposed for Porter Ranch.

The commission was disqualified because one of the eight properties owned by Commissioner Theodore Stein Jr. of Encino is near the project site in Chatsworth.

Three other commissioners report owning no real estate other than their homes. A fifth member, Suzette Neiman of Encino, reported two property investments, but three of four recent disqualifications involving her were because of her position on the boards of two trusts.

Neiman said Thursday that she plans to resign in August from the Horace Heidt Trust and the Cal State Northridge Trust Fund to avoid conflicts of interest.

Picus and Wachs said they made the divestiture proposal to prevent appointed citizens from being disqualified from hearing important land-use cases such as the Porter Ranch plan, in which a developer wants to build about 3,000 homes and an office and retail complex on 1,300 acres.

The Board of Referred Powers, a body of five council members, heard the case instead Wednesday, gave it preliminary approval and sent it to a council committee. Picus and Wachs bemoaned the loss of citizen involvement.

Proposal Criticized

But their divestiture proposal was immediately criticized by Planning Commission members who said it would go too far.

“It’s ludicrous,” said Neiman, adding that she will regret resigning from the trusts.

“We’re talking about a minute number of cases where the commission is disqualified,” Stein said. He said he has heard 540 cases since his appointment in October and has been disqualified only three times.

Picus and Wachs said the importance of some of those cases, such as Porter Ranch, should be the overriding consideration.

“Porter Ranch is really quite major,” Wachs said. The commission’s replacement by council members who will vote twice on the project “looks bad,” he said.

Stein appears to have the greatest potential for a conflict of interest on the commission. A conflict by only one member forces the disqualification of the entire commission, Assistant City Atty. Anthony S. Alperin said.

Stein’s eight properties, according to a statement of economic interest he filed last year, are two condominium developments, three apartment buildings, an industrial and office complex, an office building and a 19-home tract about a mile from Porter Ranch.

Stein’s ownership of the 19-home tract resulted in Alperin’s decision to disqualify the commission from hearing the Porter Ranch plan. A stoplight called for in that proposal would be next to Stein’s tract.

Neiman’s economic interest statement disclosed an investment of at least $100,000 in Stein’s housing tract and in a commercial building in Chatsworth.

Commission President William G. Luddy and members William R. Christopher and Fernando Torres-Gil reported owning no property other than their homes.

In the past two years, the Planning Commission has been disqualified from 13 cases, including Porter Ranch, city records show. Three of the cases involved Stein, four involved Neiman and one involved Christopher because of his activity with a homeowners group. The others involved members no longer on the commission.

At a Planning Commission meeting last month, commissioners poked fun at the close scrutiny that has enveloped them. The issue at hand concerned a cemetery in Mission Hills. After Neiman disclosed that his father-in-law is buried there, Luddy joked that the commission should send the city attorney to the cemetery “to discuss it with those involved.”