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).
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.