A flaw in Greenlight?

Noaki Schwartz

NEWPORT BEACH -- Proponents of a controversial slow-growth initiative

have found a potential problem in their petition and say they will look

to the City Council to clarify the measure if it passes.

Supporters of the so-called Greenlight initiative admitted this week that

the retroactive nature of the measure could cause residents to vote on

more developments than originally anticipated.

The Protect From Traffic and Density initiative proposes to let residents

vote on “major” amendments to the city’s strict general plan. “Major”

means it generates more than 100 car trips, 100 homes and 40,000 square

feet over what the city’s general plan allows. The thresholds apply to

each of 49 district neighborhoods in the city, not the city as a whole.

The portion supporters want cleared up is a requirement that 80% of the

changes to the general plan during the preceding 10 years be added to the

numbers of a proposed project. That means how the initiative is applied

would be affected by amendments approved before it existed.

Greenlight proponent Allan Beek said the problem could be fixed if the

city council interprets that language to mean that the 10 years starts

when the measure is passed, “recognizing that if we counted [the previous

10 years], then nearly everything in some areas would have to go to the

voters.”

Beek said there are seven areas in the city that are maxed out in either

one, two or all three of the Greenlight thresholds. They are: Old Newport

Blvd. (traffic, square feet and homes); Santa Ana Heights, (square feet);

Newport Center, (traffic and square feet); North Ford Road (traffic,

square feet and homes); the airport area (square feet); Corona del Mar

Hills (square feet); and Bonita Canyon (traffic, square feet and homes).

But proponent Phil Arst said those areas -- particularly Newport Center

and the airport area -- are precisely the congested portions of the city

in which the group wants voters to have a say.

“There may be an extra procedure [in voting on smaller projects], but

that is the price you pay for getting the big ones,” Arst said.

Both Beek and Arst said they hope the city will adopt the guideline they

are proposing.

But city officials said Thursday that such a fix is changing more than

just the spirit of the measure and in fact could land the city in legal

hot water.

“If it gets voted in, we’ll have to make it work,” said councilman Gary

Adams. “The council is duty-bound to enact something that maintains the

spirit of the initiative.”

The reason for the cumulative portion of the measure was so developers

couldn’t simply work around the initiative and incrementally build homes

or office space until they reached their goal number, Arst said.

But because of the way the city’s general plan has been amended during

the last 10 years, it is difficult to determine the exact number of extra

homes, peak-hour traffic trips and square footage increases that have

occurred.

Beek, who conducted a study to determine how many existing city

developments would have been voted on in the last 10 years if the measure

had been in effect, acknowledged that the data was confusing and said he

could not be sure if his figures were accurate.

“If we would have thought of it, we would have made [the cumulative

language] say, ‘starting with the date the petition was circulated,”’

Beek said. “If the City Council adopted [10 years in the future] as a

guideline, I don’t think we’d object.”

But City Manager Homer Bludau said he doesn’t believe the council can

make a change of this magnitude.

“The council can make interpretations to meet the intent and spirit of

the initiative. But that wouldn’t be an interpretation,” Bludau said. “I

would expect us to be sued if we tried to do that.”

The only way to change the city charter again would be a public vote, he

said, adding that if the initiative passes, the city will just have to

work with the measure as it is.

Officials said that means residents may have to keep up on their

homework, read environmental and planning reports and go to the polls.

Councilwoman Jan Debay said she fears it could result in an unengaged

electorate. She said she has already received a number of calls from

residents saying they didn’t realize the initiative was so complicated.

“People aren’t going to go to the precinct and vote on every single

thing,” Debay said.

A GO FOR GREENLIGHT?

Would you vote for the proposed Greenlight initiative? Why or why not?

Call our Readers Hotline at (949) 642-6086 or e-mail your comments to o7

dailypilot@latimes.comf7 . Please tell us your name and hometown, and

include a phone number (for verification purposes only).