Project Vote Abstention Draws Fire : Santa Monica: Christine Reed is attempting to avoid criticism, opponents say, not conflict-of-interest charges.

In what her opponents called a ploy to avoid criticism for her pro-development stance as election time nears, Santa Monica City Councilwoman Christine E. Reed said she will not vote on a controversial five-story office-building project.

Reed said during a public hearing on the project Tuesday night that her home is too close to the site, and that the value of her home could be affected by her vote on the project. Reed’s home is three blocks from the site.

But slow-growth advocates said that Reed is attempting to skirt criticism of her pro-development stance. They say voting for the project could jeopardize her campaign for reelection.

Reed’s abstention could create the council’s first test of a rule enacted earlier this month that makes it tougher to overturn Planning Commission approval of projects.

The rule states that at least four of the seven members must vote yes to overturn Planning Commission decisions. Councilman William H. Jennings is also abstaining because he lives about one block away from the project, leaving only five council members who can vote on the proposal.

Some candidates for the three City Council seats up for election on Nov. 6 have focused on development as a major campaign issue. As the council’s only incumbent candidate, Reed has been the focus of criticism for what some candidates say has been a City Council sell-out to developers during the last decade.

Some council members were critical of Reed and asked why she did not abstain when the council approved a three-story building in May that will occupy the site of Madam Wu’s Garden, a restaurant at 2201 Wilshire Blvd., about a block closer to Reed’s home than the current project.

“She didn’t think (about a conflict) about the Madam Wu’s project,” Councilman Ken Genser said in an interview. “By stepping across the dais and saying she has this phantom conflict of interest, she is actually helping the project go forward.”

Reed defended her move by saying she could be subject to criminal prosecution if she voted on a project that could affect the value of her home. She also said the issue of conflict of interest was not brought to her attention before her yes vote on the Madam Wu’s project as it was before consideration of the current project.

“The issue of misrepresentation has been brought to me all week long, especially by people on my street,” Reed said.

City Atty. Robert M. Myers said state law requires council members to abstain from voting on projects that lie within 300 feet of their homes, or within 2,500 feet if they could affect their property values by $10,000.

Myers said Reed guessed at whether her property value would be affected by the project, and said, “If you guess the wrong way, you could be subject to sanctions under state law.”

Two community groups, Mid-City Neighbors and Save Our Neighborhood, appealed Planning Commission approval of the project to the City Council. The council held the matter over until next Tuesday because 60 people requested to speak on the project, and that could have carried the meeting until early morning.

Activists say the proposal is a blight. The developers see the project--a 101,000-square-foot building with surrounding shrubbery--as an enhancement to a site at 2320 Wilshire Blvd. that now is home to a car wash.

After studying the project in its approved form, the city staff recommended that the council approve the project in a reduced form of four stories and 94,000 square feet because it is “higher than most other buildings in the vicinity.”