SEAL BEACH : Development Puts Planner in Catch-22

Caught in a Catch-22, the City Council faces the prospect of possibly asking a veteran planning commissioner to resign because he lives too close to a proposed residential development.

Planning Commissioner Phillip Fife’s home is less than 300 feet from the project site, so he is prohibited by state law from voting on the development when it comes before the commission in the next few months.

But a city ordinance requires that the district affected by a development be represented on the planning commission when the project is presented.

As a result, the city either must find a new planning commissioner for the College Park East district or alter city regulations--a process that could take three months and might even require a special election.

Though a decision on Fife’s fate isn’t expected for another two weeks, most city officials agree that he will not vote on the development, which is proposed for land near the corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson Avenue.

Councilman George Brown has suggested that each council member appoint an “alternate” planning commissioner who could fill in on the panel when conflicts arise. The plan would allow Fife to return to the commission after members vote on the development.

Such a move would require officials to draft a new city ordinance, a process that would take about three months, said City Manager Jerry L. Bankston. It remains unclear if all work on the new law could be completed before the development plans come before the commission.

Another option is to reword the ordinance in a way that allows four members of the commission to vote on the development without a College Park East representative. Bankston said that would also require three months.

Councilman Frank Laszlo--who appointed Fife to the council six years ago--stressed the importance of having a College Park East representative on the commission when the development comes up. He said the project could have a serious impact on the neighborhood.

Fife said Tuesday that the he has “given serious consideration” to resigning if the council decides not to modify the ordinance.

Regardless of his future, Fife said the council should do something to fix the apparent contradiction in the laws.

The state law assumes that his home’s proximity to the development means that Fife has a financial stake in the project’s outcome. But Fife said he doubts the development will have any effect on his property’s value.