Planner Calls Developer’s Gifts Just Business as Usual : O.C. Supervisor ‘Shocked’ by Conflict of Appointee : Development: Roth ‘shocked’ by revelation that his appointee voted on projects in conflict of interest.

SANTA ANA —  Supervisor Don R. Roth said Friday that he was “shocked” to learn that his appointee to the Orange County Planning Commission may have violated California’s conflict-of-interest law by voting on projects affecting a major development company.

Planning Commissioner C. Douglas Leavenworth’s votes, after his acceptance of $365 worth of golf privileges, meals, and theater and sports tickets in 1987 from the Mission Viejo Co., were reported Friday in The Times.

State law prohibits public officials from voting on matters that financially affect a company from which the official has received gifts worth $250 or more within the preceding 12 months.

Leavenworth has denied any wrongdoing, and in an interview Friday, he said that he does not consider most of the meals provided to him by the Mission Viejo Co. to have been gifts.

“It’s just something that’s typical in the business world,” Leavenworth said. “They’re dealing with others on a regular basis and they like to show their appreciation. . . . They like to keep the good relations and the good feelings going. That’s the way it is.”

Leavenworth, referring to the $1,470 worth of gifts he got from 1984 to 1989 from development companies, in addition to the $1,207 during that period from the Mission Viejo Co., dismissed their significance.

“These little courtesies that we get,” Leavenworth said, “I don’t think that anybody thinks they’re trying to exert undue influence.”

However, environmental activists who have tried unsuccessfully over the years to oppose the Mission Viejo Co. at the Planning Commission said Friday that they viewed Leavenworth’s relationship with the firm as symptomatic of developers’ influence with county government.

Elisabeth Brown, president of Laguna Greenbelt Inc., said that she does not think planning commissioners should accept any gifts. “It is gross,” she said. “It buys access and it shouldn’t.”

Regarding Leavenworth’s gifts, Brown said, “If the (gift) amount was improper, then he shouldn’t have voted. . . . He was one of the heavy, pro-development votes” on the Planning Commission.

Leavenworth and a majority of the Planning Commission voted six times in 1987 and 1988 to reject appeals of Mission Viejo Co. development plans lodged by Laguna Greenbelt.

Brown said the gifts from developers--meals, golf, the ballet and the other entertainment outings--serve to gently constrain an official from acting impartially.

“I think it makes a difference,” said Brown, who served for six years on the Laguna Beach Planning Commission. “You shouldn’t be friends with the people you’re supposed to regulate--because you don’t vote against your friends’ projects.”

Roth said Friday that he “was completely shocked to read the story. To me, I’ve been well aware of the $250 limit, personally. I follow it. Everybody should.”

Roth said that, as of midday Friday, he had not discussed with Leavenworth his voting and acceptance of gifts. Leavenworth was appointed originally to the Planning Commission in 1982 by then-Supervisor Ralph Clark. Roth reappointed Leavenworth on June 23, 1987.

Each of the five Planning Commission members serves at the pleasure of the supervisor who appoints him or her. Consequently, the commissioners have open-ended, indefinite terms.

Roth said that although he was displeased to learn of the possible violation of law, he is withholding final judgment.

“I’m giving him a breather,” Roth said. “ . . . I think that he should have his fair day in court, so to speak. He should have the right to prove his innocence.”

The Planning Commission holds wide power over whether or how land is developed in the unincorporated areas of Orange County. The commission’s decisions are crucial to development companies, with hundreds of millions of dollars in investments and profits at stake.

If Leavenworth were found to have breached the state law, he could face maximum fines from the California Fair Political Practices Commission of $2,000 per violation. The FPPC has four years to act from the time of any violation.

Such violations also could be prosecuted as misdemeanors by the Orange County district attorney.

For his part, Leavenworth said Friday that he would not comment on whether he now believes that he violated the law. But Leavenworth said that he intends to remain on the Planning Commission.

“If someone’s going to call for a formal investigation, fine,” said Leavenworth, a 66-year-old retired aerospace engineer. “I’m really not too excited about it.”

Leavenworth also said that, after checking Friday morning with a Mission Viejo Co. executive, he suspects that he has overstated the value of the firm’s gifts to him over the years.

Asked if he was aware that he disclosed those gifts annually under penalty of perjury, Leavenworth said:

“I may have been guilty of overstating some of the costs. But if that’s perjury, so be it.”

From 1984 through 1989, Leavenworth received golf privileges, meals, and theater and sports tickets worth $1,207 from the Mission Viejo Co., according to disclosure statements that he has filed yearly with the county registrar of voters and with the state FPPC.

County Planning Commission documents reviewed by The Times show that Leavenworth voted 22 times during 1987 and 1988 on matters affecting the financial interests of the Mission Viejo Co. On each of those occasions, Leavenworth’s votes favored the positions urged by company executives.

Leavenworth noted that gift-giving “can get out of hand.” He cited one occasion when he returned a camera provided to him and other county officials by Hon Development Co. “I felt that that was an inappropriate type of gift,” Leavenworth said, “so I sent it back. I didn’t think the . . . ham (also given by Hon) was inappropriate.”

Leavenworth acknowledged that the acceptance by planning commissioners of gifts from developers can invite a perception of favoritism.

“That’s possible,” Leavenworth said. “A lot of people are very cynical. And they probably assume that a great deal more is going on than actually is.”

Leavenworth said that the reason he reported so many meals--eight lunches and breakfasts--in 1987 was because the Mission Viejo Co. had “a greater number of matters” before the Planning Commission that year.

By meeting for lunch with one or more executives of the company in Santa Ana at 11:30 a.m., Leavenworth said, he was able to discuss the firm’s concerns privately and still be on time for the afternoon Planning Commission meetings, beginning at 1:30 p.m.

“Sometimes,” Leavenworth said, “we don’t have lunch. I’ll suggest meeting in Supervisor Roth’s office. We’ll get together in one of his conference rooms.”

Leavenworth added that he also is accessible to those who oppose development projects. “We make ourselves available to everyone,” he added.