Signal Hill Dilemma May Change Law

The staff of the Fair Political Practices Commission, prompted by a Signal Hill dispute, has recommended that public officials in small cities be exempted from certain conflict-of-interest regulations.

Public officials whose principal residence is 300 feet to 2,500 feet from a development are now restricted from voting on the project unless it affects the value of their homes the same way it affects other nearby property.

The commission staff has proposed exempting from this provision officials in cities with populations of less than 25,000, where council members are elected on an at-large basis and the city is 10 square miles or less.

Sandy Michioku, a spokeswoman for the commission, said that when an official’s home is more than 300 feet from a project, “you probably won’t have a conflict of interest” if the recommendations are adopted.

However, if officials live in homes closer than 300 feet from the development, they still could be required to disqualify themselves.

The commission Wednesday postponed action on the recommendation until January. Officials from Southern California cities could not reach Sacramento because the city’s airport was closed by fog.

In its recommendation released last week, commission lawyers said: “Even for a small jurisdiction . . . a distance of 300 feet or less from a subject property is mighty close. Staff feels that such close proximity should require disqualification” unless officials demonstrate that the impact on their property is similar to the impact on other property owners.

However, Signal Hill, South El Monte and other small cities have complained that there is no scientific basis for establishing a 300-foot restriction.

The commission was spurred to consider the change after Sen. Robert Beverly (R-Manhattan Beach) in August introduced a bill to exempt a public official’s principal residence from conflict-of-interest requirements. The measure is pending in the Legislature.

Even before it was introduced, the commission and officials of Signal Hill were attempting to hammer out a compromise to allow members of the City Council and other panels to vote on two proposed developments. The projects could add 1,300 residential units on 130 acres in the two-square-mile hilltop city with a population of 8,400.

At a hearing in August, Beverly said three of the city’s five council members and two of its Planning Commission members are prohibited from voting on any item affecting these developments because of regulations issued last year by the political watchdog agency.

As a result, the city has had to conduct a random drawing among the council members who are disqualified, according to Tim O’Donnell, Signal Hill assistant city manager. Along with the remaining two members, the person whose name is drawn makes up a quorum.

O’Donnell criticized the situation, saying, “We have the most significant development that will occur in this community, and several (council) members have been precluded from participating in the normal manner.”

Josh Pane, an aide to Beverly, whose district includes Signal Hill, said the staff recommendation spells out an alternative to small cities so they are not forced to contact the commission each time a potential conflict of interest arises. Pane said Beverly has not seen the recommendation.

Michioku said the goal of the proposal “is to try to clarify the conflict-of-interest rules for small jurisdictions.”