4--Vote Difference Leaves Hotel Issue in Doubt : 11 Ballots Challenged; Recount a Possibility

For the second time in six months, residents have almost evenly split over the issue of a proposed beachfront hotel development, with opponents of the project apparently winning a disputed special election Tuesday by just four votes out of 4,793 cast.

Eleven challenged ballots and one overlooked absentee ballot, however, still have not been counted. An additional nine ballots were disqualified for various reasons on election night, City Clerk Kathleen Reviczky said. With supporters of the project likely to request a recount, the final tally is still uncertain, she said.

The special election has also been challenged in court, which means the results--regardless of which side they favor--may be invalidated. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled last month that the election should not be held because it follows too closely a December referendum in which a similar hotel proposal was defeated. The election was held anyway, pending an appeal by the city and the developers.

Reviczky ruled Wednesday that the overlooked absentee ballot and at least two of the challenged ballots are valid and will be counted. One of the challenged ballots will not be counted because the person voted twice, she said.

Remaining Ballots to Be Counted

Reviczky said she will determine the fate of the other challenged ballots after consulting with county election officials. Once those determinations are made, the remaining ballots will be counted at a public session in City Council chambers. The date of the meeting had not been determined Wednesday.

Nearly 39% of the city’s registered voters went to the polls in the bitterly fought special election, which was called by the City Council at the request of the Los Angeles development firm Greenwood & Langlois. The firm proposed building a 250-room hotel on city-owned property and several adjoining properties on the Strand between 13th and 15th streets.

Last December, the same developers proposed a larger hotel for the site, but that plan was rejected in a special election by 19 votes out of 4,291 cast. Proposed hotel developments for the beachfront land--the site of a Biltmore hotel that was torn down in 1969--were also rejected by the voters in 1983 and 1972.

“The four-vote difference is beautiful because it forces the two groups to get back together,” said Paul Robinson, an opponent of the proposed $31-million project. “There is no mandate. We now have to look at the alternatives.”

Developer ‘Pretty Unhappy’

Joe Langlois, a partner in the development firm, would not comment on the election results. City Councilman Jack Wood, who favored the hotel development, said Wednesday that Langlois is “pretty unhappy” about the results but had not yet decided if he will give up on the project.

“Statistically, 4 votes and 19 votes is not exactly a direction,” Wood said. “I’d say they are telling us that this particular proposal was unacceptable, but it wasn’t totally out of the realm of possibility.”

Langlois said last month that he would erect commercial buildings on properties adjoining the Biltmore site if the hotel development was defeated. Langlois has options to buy several parcels of land adjacent to the site. In elections past, however, Langlois said he would abandon the idea of a hotel if it were defeated by the voters, only to come back months later with a new hotel proposal.

This week’s vote on the proposed hotel, which would have required up to $20 million in bonds floated by the city, split along the same lines as the December vote. The precincts closest to the downtown and beach, particularly the St. Cross Church and Manhattan Avenue precincts, voted heavily against the project, while support for the development came from absentee ballots and precincts farther from the site.

‘Tremendous Backlash’

“The results were a sociopolitical statement that some people are making,” said Edie Webber, former councilwoman and hotel proponent. “There was a tremendous backlash from the younger beach-goer who hangs out over his balcony with a beer. Those people who are solid citizens who have been here a long time, some of whom own their own property, understand what is going on and wanted the hotel.”

Councilman Gary Brutsch, also a hotel proponent, offered a similar explanation. “We have a town with 65% renters, and the long-term and short-term goals are different. There are kids running around on their motorcycles saying vote no. They like Hermosa Beach the way it is now. But there are a lot of us who want others to help us pay the bills. This is an expensive place to live.”

Hotel proponents, who say the city needs more commercial activity to generate tax revenue, argued that the hotel would be an anchor for downtown rejuvenation.

Mayor George Barks, the only council member to oppose the hotel project, said the election confirms the notion that the city cannot allow a hotel development on the site unless all factions within the community reach an agreement on the project.

“I agree that a consensus on what to do has not been reached,” he said. “A hotel on the site makes sense, but I would not support a hotel unless we could bring everyone together and reach a consensus.”

But Chuck Sheldon, a local real estate broker and city planning commissioner who favored the proposed hotel, said the responsibility for finding a new development proposal lies with people like Barks who worked to defeat the proposed hotel.

“The city is polarized against development of that property,” he said. “We’re done. I would never again support building a project of that magnitude downtown. It has divided the city. The opponents have to come up with something now.”

ELECTION RESULTS

Vote Percent Yes 2,390 49.96 No 2,394 50.04

In addition 11 challenged ballots were not counted.

STATUS OF CHALLENGED BALLOTS

The city clerk will count one absentee ballot unopened because of an oversight; and two poll ballots originally not counted because voters had applied for absentee ballots.

The city clerk will not count one poll ballot because the voter already had voted via absentee ballot.

The city clerk may or may not count seven poll ballots because voters’ names did not appear on list of registered voters; and one poll ballot because voter’s name was not on street index of registered voters.