Height Fight : Debate Over 2- Versus 3-Story Limit on Homes Along Alamitos Bay Can’t Rise Above Politics

What began 18 months ago as a benign effort to close loopholes that allowed dwelling heights to soar in three Alamitos Bay communities has grown into a full-blown political struggle which has sharply divided both the communities involved and the City Council--and become a central issue in a bitter District 3 election campaign.

Indeed, at times during the last six months of heated debate at three government levels, politics has seemed to overwhelm the real issue: whether three-story homes should be allowed in the traditionally low-rise beach communities.

Two council members now say, in fact, that they favor a direct referendum of homeowners on the issue, scheduled for a May 27 public hearing, because council politics has so interfered with dispassionate discussion and possible compromise.

At its most basic community level, the dispute over dwelling heights is one of dollars and cents versus life style. If three-story structures are allowed, property values will undoubtedly rise. But the three-story dwellings would also change the cottage character of the Belmont Shore and Naples Island communities, which are made up predominately of one- and two-story homes.

Speculation Called Factor

“In general, the difference of opinion is largely between the older residents, who have a lot more attachment to the area and are not anxious to sell and move on, and the people who have bought in more recently, mostly the younger families. Some of the newer people are more interested in buying for speculative value,” said Robert Paternoster, director of the city Planning Department.

A city survey and resident petitions indicate that homeowners in the Belmont Shore and Naples areas, where most disagreement is centered, are split down the middle, Paternoster said. Proponents of a three-story, 30-foot height limit, say a majority is on their side, but backers of a two-story, 24-foot standard strongly disagree. (Heights in both standards are measured to the mid-point of sloped roofs, which means that actual heights could be about four feet higher.)

There has been much less controversy about height limits for the Peninsula, the third affected bay community. Many Peninsula homes are already three stories high and two rival height proposals vary by only three feet--32 feet to a roof’s mid-point compared to 35 feet. Each limit would allow three-story construction.

The merit of each side’s arguments, however, may have now been lost in the complex political maneuvering of this election year, in council grudge votes, and most recently in vote swapping, some council members said.

Tortuous Path

That the issue is still before the City Council reflects its tortuous path to resolution. After two lengthy November hearings, the Planning Commission recommended a two-story, 24-foot limit for Belmont Shore and Naples, the 32-foot limit for the Peninsula and the plugging of loopholes that had allowed dwellings of more than 40 feet.

The City Council first voted on the height limits on Dec. 3 after seven hours of resident testimony. On a 5-3 vote, it sent to the state Coastal Commission a proposed amendment to the Local Coastal Plan that backed three-story, 30-foot structures (35 feet for the Peninsula) and the loophole closures.

But in March the Coastal Commission, at the urging of District 3 Councilwoman Jan Hall, backed a two-story limit and returned the entire measure--including the loophole provisions all sides agreed were good--to the council. On April 1, the council voted with the same 5-3 alignment to try a new tack to gain state approval of the three-story, 30-foot limit. And on April 22, after more resident testimony, it scheduled the May 27 hearing.

What has happened politically during this lengthy process has convinced Councilman Wallace Edgerton, a critic of Hall and an outspoken participant in the divisive debate, that the issue ought to be taken out of the council’s hands and decided directly by affected property owners, he said.

‘Out of Hand’

Though vague on precisely how that would work, Edgerton said the voting would be administered by the city clerk at a central location over a period of days.

“This has just gotten out of hand,” Edgerton said. “It’s become too politically complicated, and I think it’s wrong at this point to try to put votes together (on the council) and jam it down anybody’s throat. There is so much hostility now that I think it’s hurting the community terribly. A direct vote of the people out there is the only way to handle it fairly and satisfy everyone.”

But Edgerton, who has voted with the 5-3 majority, said he would not be in town May 27 to make his proposal to the council. He is the newly elected president of the Pacific Asian Conference of Municipalities, a trade group, and said he must attend a meeting in Australia on that day.

Councilman Edd Tuttle, however, said he is interested in pursuing Edgerton’s proposal. “I think it’s a very good recommendation,” Tuttle said. “And it would take the decision out of the political realm and skulduggery.”

But Hall said a mail referendum has already been tried by the Planning Department, and only 606 of about 4,700 surveys sent to residents were returned. In contrast, more than 1,600 people have signed two petitions in favor of a two-story limit, Hall said. A petition backing a three-story standard has about 900 signatures.

Political considerations--apart from arguments on the merits of the height issue--entered into council deliberations from its first vote in December, said Tuttle and Councilman Thomas Clark, who have voted with Hall in the minority.

Tuttle said he thought some council members voted against Hall to pay her back for too often refusing to bow to their wishes on issues that involved only those council members’ districts.

“I think some of the council members probably added up some votes that Jan had made against them and decided that, since this was an important issue for her, they’d come out against her,” Tuttle said.

Edgerton, Mayor Ernie Kell and Councilmen Marc A. Wilder and Warren Harwood all said they could recall such votes by Hall. But Wilder, Kell and Edgerton said that had nothing to do with their votes on height limits. Harwood said in a December interview that he saw his vote partly as a pay-back to Hall for opposing him last summer on a nightclub entertainment license.

Harwood now said, however, that he is giving the Alamitos Bay height issue a second look because he is less certain than he was in December about how residents there see the issue.

He also said he is tired of politics and council animosity, not the merits of issues, being the factors that decide a council vote. “There are a number of issues that have been entirely political” in the last few months, he said.

Edgerton, with whom Harwood has repeatedly exchanged harsh words at recent council meetings, said Harwood’s change of heart may be self-serving and itself a good example of politics overriding council members’ true beliefs. Harwood is reconsidering his position on height limits because he has arranged a vote swap with Hall, Edgerton said. Hall switched her position to vote with Harwood Tuesday, when Harwood tried to limit the entertainment hours at Club Sylvia, Edgerton said. In exchange, Harwood will vote with Hall on height limits, Edgerton maintained.

‘Nothing . . . Sinister’

“There’s nothing particularly sinister about it. We all do it, but we don’t like it,” said Edgerton, who himself switched sides on the Club Sylvia issue. Edgerton said he sided with Harwood against Sylvia’s owners eight months ago because Kell wanted him to, “but I felt very bad about it. Frankly, I thought the (bar owners) should win.”

Harwood said he has not traded votes with Hall, but had asked her to reconsider her position on Club Sylvia. Hall said she did ask Harwood to rethink the height issue and did agree to take another look at the Sylvia debate. But she said she did not trade her vote.

Probably the strongest political consideration intertwined with Alamitos Bay height limits has been the spring municipal election, Tuttle and Clark said. They agreed with Hall, who has repeatedly said that Edgerton and Kell have opposed her on height limits because they support dentist Jim Serles, who has forced Hall into a June 3 runoff.

“It’s clear some political games are being played,” Hall said of Kell and Edgerton, who in an unusual move have campaigned against a council colleague.

Serles did not take a stand on the height issue until last week, when he said he favors the 30-foot standard. He has joined Kell and Edgerton as citing the issue as an example of Hall’s inability to work with other council members. That inability “has really torn our area (apart),” Serles said.

Surprise Council Vote

Serles has also accused Hall of listening to only one side in the height issue and of failing to notify three-story advocates before the council heard testimony on the issue April 22.

Hall, in turn, has said Serles was involved in a surprise council vote on the issue April 1. The issue was not on the agenda and was brought up by a Serles supporter in the audience.

Kell insisted that he voted with a 5-3 majority for the three story standard in December because three-story construction will provide an incentive for homeowners to upgrade their property, which in turn will require them to provide more on-site parking in an area where a parking space is hard to find. (Opponents say three-story structures will increase residential density and cause more parking problems.)

Kell said he hadn’t decided to support Serles when he first voted on the issue, but leaned that way after Hall “blundered” in her handling of the issue. Edgerton said that he was favoring Serles by December and that his votes on the issue might reflect that bias.

But Edgerton said that, by rearguing her case before the Coastal Commission, Hall, rather than Serles, was guilty of carrying the divisive height issue into the spring campaign.

Mayoral ‘Jockeying’

“Absolutely, there was politics involved in this,” Edgerton said. “With Jan Hall’s campaign and with who may or may not be mayor. I think both sides are equally responsible.”

Edgerton said five council members--Kell, Clark, Hall, Harwood and Sato--are interested in the mayoralty, which will be filled for a two-year term in July. He said “jockeying” for the position has come into play on the height issue and others this spring.

The tension between Kell and Clark, a three-time mayor who says he would like to hold that position again, has been apparent in recent months. Twice during council debate, Kell has called Clark “a horse’s ass.”

Edgerton said he is no longer interested in the job himself, because the mayor’s job has been used too often on the council as a lever to try to get him to support issues in which he does not believe.

Edgerton, Clark, Tuttle, Harwood and Hall all said council politicking and feuds have sharply escalated this campaign season.

“As Tuttle said, this is the silly time in politics,” Edgerton said. “And I’m sure I have my share of responsibility for the divisiveness. Two years ago I tried to be a peacemaker on the council, and I certainly haven’t played that role the last few months. I think a lot of us have changed.”

‘Twisted Around’

But Edgerton and others said they will try to put these recent differences behind them after the election, even as positioning for the mayoralty intensifies.

The council’s political maneuvering on height limits has not been lost on residents of Belmont Shore and Naples.

“It’s incredible how this issue has gotten twisted around,” said Howard Homan, president of the Belmont Shore Homeowners and Business Assn., which favors three-story homes.

“All we have are these ongoing debates at council meetings,” he said. “And the issues are so involved you can’t really debate them at council meetings. There could have been a compromise by now, but nobody listens.”

Councilman Wallace Edgerton is convinced that the issue ought to be taken out of the council’s hands and decided directly by homeowners in a referendum.

But Councilwoman Jan Hall says a mail referendum has already been tried, and only 606 of about 4,700 surveys sent to residents were returned.

Councilman Wallace Edgerton is convinced that the issue ought to be taken out of the council’s hands and decided directly by homeowners in a referendum.

But Councilwoman Jan Hall says a mail referendum has already been tried, and only 606 of about 4,700 surveys sent to residents were returned.