Greenlight group asks for special election

Noaki Schwartz

NEWPORT BEACH -- Supporters of the so-called Greenlight initiative want

to see the measure on a special election ballot in April, hoping to give

voters a say on several upcoming developments if the initiative passes.

But others are already skeptical of the group’s motives. Councilman Gary

Adams, who has come out against the measure, said he believes the real

reason proponents want a special election is because that way it would

have “a much bigger chance of passing.”

The theory is that while thousands of residents would turn up for the

general election in November to vote on many issues -- including the

presidential race -- a special election would draw primarily supporters

or staunch opponents for a singular item.

Eileen Padberg, an Irvine-based political consultant, backed that theory,

saying that while about 30% to 40% of residents vote in a general

election, only 10% to 15% vote in a special election.

Phil Arst, a key supporter of the Protect from Traffic and Density

Initiative, asked for the special election in a letter to the city this

month.

He said if the initiative passes on the earlier election date, residents

would then be able to vote on pending general plan amendments, such as

the Newport Center expansion and the Newport Dunes hotel.

“Our concern in calling for a special election is to beat the projected

approval date in order to vote on some of these developments,” Arst said.

A special election would cost between $45,187 and $90,374, according to

City Clerk Lavonne Harkless. Getting the measure on the general election

ballot requires only the amount of money needed to validate signatures,

which Arst said would be about $18,000.

Arst said the city should save the $18,000 for signature validation by

conducting a statistical sampling, which is permitted under state law,

and use the money toward a special election.

However, if tax dollars are indeed a concern, a special election would

still cost much more than validating all 9,000 signatures, Harkless said.

The Greenlight initiative has been touted as legislation that will give

control over proposed developments to residents.

If passed, it would require a majority vote on major amendments to the

city’s general plan if proposed developments create more than 100

peak-hour car trips, add more than 100 dwelling units or add more than

40,000 square feet of floor area over what the general plan allows.

The effort began after the city passed a revised Traffic Phasing

Ordinance. Many resident activists, including Arst and former Mayor

Evelyn Hart, and environmentalists such as Jean Watt and Bob Caustin,

fear that without better checks on city growth, traffic will become

unbearable.

In order to put proposal to a special election, however, it will have to

be approved by the City Council, Adams said.

And Adams, for one, is against it.

“I think this initiative is a butchering of our city charter,” he said.

“It takes away flexibility in planning and reacting to changes in

economics and land-use conditions.”

He added that there is already a referendum and recall process in the

charter for the public to check City Council decisions. Voters can have

city council members removed if they believe their decisions are

unfounded.

Padberg agreed. “Ballot box planning is just atrocious and unfair to

local government. Planning should not be done by a small minority of

voters,” she said.

Still, proponents are determined to request early next year that the City

Council place the measure on the ballot in April.