Councilmember Chang owned a single-family that was within 500 feet of a pending residential subdivision where the development would be limited to two single-family homes. Mr. Chang’s residence was also located in an area where a proposed easement for hiking trails was located.
In answering the question of whether the development agreement would have a reasonably foreseeable measurable impact, the California Fair Political Practices Commission found that the development agreement would not have a foreseeable or measurable impact on the Chang’s property. In order for there to be a reasonably foreseeable impact, there must be specific direct affect on Chang’s property and a reasonably foreseeable financial effect. The commission further found that there would be no increased traffic in Chang’s neighborhood as a result of the subdivision, there were already adequate access roads and the area dedicated for trails was already in use by hikers. An appraisal was also conducted to determine the market value impact and it was determined that the distance between the subdivision site and Chang’s property did not create a sufficient measurable impact. In regards to the issue of Chang’s view from his property would be altered by the subdivision, the commission found that the view from Chang’s property did not include a view of the relevant subdivision in this matter. For these reasons, the commission advises that Chang does not have a conflict of interest and should not be disqualified to participate in the decision.
Robert H. Pittman, CA FPPC Adv. A-14-167 (2014)
The Advisory Letter Can be Accessed at: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/adv/Advice%20Letters/2014/14167.pdf#search=”Pittman”