Future of Greenlight initiative unclear

Noaki Schwartz

NEWPORT BEACH -- Council members are debating their next move after the

legality of Greenlight’s initiative petition was called into question by

the city attorney this week.

“I’m apt to go on the side of what might stand up in court,” said

councilwoman Norma Glover. “The City Council has had to face a lot of

legal [issues] on the El Toro airport and it’s made us more aware of

living by the law.”

City Attorney Bob Burnham advised the city clerk to reject the petition

because it did not comply with the format requirements of the state’s

elections code. Burnham found that the initiative’s proposed change to

the City Charter -- Newport’s equivalent to a constitutional amendment --

was not properly indicated to potential signees.

Burnham is out of town this week and could not be reached for comment.

Councilman Dennis O’Neil, who is also an attorney, said he believes that

deciding whether the initiative should appear on the ballot is not up to

the council but is the clerk’s decision. And so far, although she is

waiting for council direction, City Clerk LaVonne Harkless is standing by

her decision to let the initiative go on the ballot.

“It does create an issue for us,” said Mayor John Noyes. “To be fair, we

really need to go into this on Tuesday’s [council meeting] to see what

the debate is.”

But there is cause for worry, says San Francisco-based elections law

attorney James Harrison, of Remcho, Johannes and Purcell. The city could

face a future court battle, either because the petition is flawed and got

onto the ballot, or because it was not actually faulty and was rejected.

Harrison cited past instances in which initiative petitions failed to

include the proper title and were debated in court.

The Protect From Traffic and Density measure proposes that residents vote

on developments that would create more than 100 peak-hour car trips, more

than 100 dwelling units or more than 40,000 square feet of floor area

over what the general plan allows.

The city is divided between those who want to put a cap on development

and others who believe the city needs more sources of revenue.

But until the council gets further legal advice from Burnham on the

potential ramifications of the petition’s problems, Councilmen Tod

Ridgeway and Gary Adams are leaning toward allowing it on the November

ballot.

“My immediate thoughts are if it’s not a fatal flaw, I’m still supporting

it going to election,” said Ridgeway. “I don’t agree with their cause,

but I respect what they’re trying to do. I certainly respect the 6,800

legitimate signatures on that document.”

If, however, it is rejected based on Burnham’s findings, Greenlight will

start all over again, said proponent Tom Hyans.

“We’ll rewrite it and make it tougher,” agreed supporter Bob Caustin. “If

[City Council members] are going to try to make Greenlight jump through

hoops for no good reasons, they’re showing their true colors as

developers.”

While council members wrestle with the question of allowing the measure

to appear on the ballot, one thing appears certain -- proponents probably

won’t get the special election they had planned to request at the next

council meeting.

“[The special election] is not going to be a possibility,” said Noyes,

echoing other council members’ thoughts that the entire city should be

allowed to vote on a momentous charter amendment.

The council will advise the city clerk as to whether to certify the

petition at Tuesday’s meeting.