Council Torn Between High-Rises : City Hall: Possible conflict of interest prevents Abbe Wolfsheimer from casting tie-breaking vote.

If the nine-member San Diego City Council were writing a book, it might be called “A Tale of Two High-Rises.” Only trouble is, the council keeps adding chapters but can’t agree on an ending.

Four members favor the Huntington, a 36-story, $91-million luxury condominium project proposed by the Koll Co. and Davidson Communities Inc. for the southwest corner of Broadway and State Street, a prime piece of city-owned land surrounded by the towers of downtown’s resurgence.

Four others prefer Huntington’s competitor, a 30-story, $44-million high-rent apartment building called simply 900 State Street and proposed by A. J. Lirot of El Dorado Asset Management and his partner, Trammell Crow Co.

Try as it might for the past few months, the City Council has been unable to reach a majority decision. The council failed again Tuesday, deadlocking 4 to 4 on separate votes for each project. On the side of the Huntington were Ron Roberts, Gloria McColl, Bruce Henderson and Ed Struiksma. Backing 900 State Street were Mayor Maureen O’Connor, Bob Filner, Wes Pratt and Judy McCarty.

Another vote is scheduled in three weeks, when, according to the mayor, Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer will be available to cast the tie-breaking vote.

But Wolfsheimer’s chief aide says the councilwoman has no intention of voting. Wolfsheimer, who owns a Marina Park condominium near the contested property, believes that such a vote might constitute a conflict-of-interest violation of the state Political Reform Act.

“They can’t depend on her. This has to be resolved by negotiations among the eight of them,” said Wolfsheimer’s aide, Joanne Johnson. She added that an outside legal opinion may not be available until December or January.

Johnson said Wolfsheimer is unsatisfied with the conflict-of-interest analysis provided by City Atty. John Witt and the financial analysis provided by City Manager John Lockwood, who concluded that, by voting for one of the high-rises, the councilwoman would not sufficiently increase the value of her condominium to create a conflict of interest.

The City Council’s discussion after the tie vote indicated that they assumed Wolfsheimer was close to receiving an opinion from a private attorney. But Johnson said Wolfsheimer has not hired an attorney and has no plans to do so. Instead, she said, the councilwoman will probably rely on advice from the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

Wolfsheimer left council chambers during the high-rise debate, her absence particularly noticeable because, unlike her colleagues, she was dressed for Halloween in a “Hairy Sterling” outfit consisting of a judge’s robe on which knives, forks and spoons were taped. Her head was covered with a cotton-white fright wig.

The council again discussed the merits of the proposed buildings--from height and design to street-level accommodations--and the city’s potential financial windfall.

“What you have are two very good projects,” said City Architect Mike Stepner, telling the council: “It’s a judgment call.”

Attorney James Milch, representing the developers of the $130-million, 30-story Emerald Shapery Center under construction across Broadway from the high-rise site, described the 470-foot-tall Huntington as massive and bulky, calling it a “monolithic wall” that would block Emerald Shapery’s southern views. He called on the council to approve 900 State Street, a more slender and shorter edifice at 400 feet.

The mayor said that, if the deadlock continues, the city should “go back to square one.”

Such a prospect is disquieting to Pam Hamilton, head of Centre City Development Corp., the agency in charge of downtown redevelopment that reviewed the projects before recommending the Huntington. However, the agency’s board also told the council that, if the Huntington was rejected, it approves of 900 State Street.

Hamilton said after the council meeting that she hopes the council will realize that going with its second choice is better than starting the bidding process again.