Shedding light on Greenlight issue

June Casagrande

What three years ago appeared to be a straightforward measure to

require voter approval on some large developments has proved more

difficult to decipher than anyone could have guessed.

In hopes of shedding light on Measure S guidelines, the City

Council will hold a study session on Tuesday.

“We have a better understanding now than we did three years ago,

so it seems appropriate to take a look at some of the language that

the council might want to clear up,” City Atty. Bob Burnham said.

The study session comes in the midst of a battle between members

of the Greenlight group and the city over how to weigh the Marinapark

hotel project. City officials have said that the project does not

trigger a Greenlight vote because the city has always measured hotels

by the number of rooms and not by square footage, which is a main

trigger of the Measure S or Greenlight initiative.

The City Council voted last year to send that project to a vote of

the people, but said it did not believe that a vote was required

under Measure S. Greenlight spokesman Phil Arst labeled it a crafty

attempt by the city to set a precedent for sidestepping Greenlight

laws in the future. But city leaders fired back that Greenlight

leaders had supported the idea of using rooms to measure hotel

impacts three years ago when the Measure S guidelines were first laid

out.

The Balboa Theater project has underscored similar problems in

Measure S guidelines. In considering the theater renovations, the

city measured the theater by the number of seats and not square

footage. The Greenlight group supports the Balboa Theater, Arst said,

but members worry that applying the same logic to the larger Port

Theatre could produce a very different outcome.

Tuesday’s talks could set in motion moves to erase such ambiguity.

“This is a good thing,” Arst said. “We’re cautiously optimistic

about where this is going.”

One of the things the city attorney’s office will point out to

council members is that the word “approved” in the Measure S

guidelines might be too vague.

For example, under Measure S, large projects go to a vote of the

people after the city council votes to “approve” the general plan

amendment for the project. Burnham said he will recommend that such a

council vote is a vote only to send the matter to voters, and that it

is not an endorsement of a project by the council.

City leaders will also consider whether “transfers of entitlement”

should be subject to Measure S. Transfers are a fairly common

practice in which a site approved for development transfers the

specifics of the approval to another property or even to another

developer.

“These are some of the things we’re going to try to smooth out now

that we’ve had three years of experience with Measure S,” Burnham

said.

John Buttolph, a Newport Beach resident who helped prompt the

study session by writing to the city attorney’s office to point out

problems with Measure S guidelines, said he will be keeping a close

eye on the fine print of the talks.

“It should be watched very closely to be sure that it’s not merely

a public relations ploy, but addresses the substantive problems with

the guidelines,” Buttolph said.

Buttolph does not identify himself as a member of Greenlight and

instead describes himself as a concerned resident who wants to assure

that the city follows the Measure S law.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE covers Newport Beach and John Wayne Airport. She

may be reached at (949) 574-4232 or by e-mail at

june.casagrande@latimes.com.