Will Greenlight be rewritten by its guidelines?

Mathis Winkler

NEWPORT BEACH -- As City Council members prepare to put the

slow-growth initiative to work, some say they are concerned about

honoring Greenlight’s language as approved by voters in November.

The initiative requires citywide elections on any general plan

amendment for a project that adds more than 100 peak-hour car trips or

dwelling units, or 40,000 square feet more than the plan allows.

One section dealing with the initiative’s implementation states that

“the City Council is encouraged to adopt guidelines to implement

[Greenlight] . . . provided that any such guidelines shall be consistent

with the amendment and its purposes and findings.”

At least six of the city’s seven council members must vote in favor of

the guidelines, the ballot text states.

While council members will discuss definitions for terms such as

“peak-hour trips,” “floor area” and “dwelling unit,” Greenlight’s

so-called “look-back period” has raised some concerns behind the dais.

The provision intends to prevent developers from pushing projects past

Greenlight’s threshold by introducing them piece by piece.

Under the initiative, 80% of previous general plan amendments within

one of the city’s 49 distinct neighborhoods “adopted within the preceding

10 years” shall count toward the threshold, which is the trigger for a

citywide vote.

While Greenlight’s language seems to suggest that amendments since

1990 should count, city officials have recommended to set the starting

date for the “look-back period” as Dec. 15, the day Greenlight became

law.

Greenlight author Allan Beek said a 1990 starting date is not in

anybody’s interest, adding that the later date was “consistent with the

spirit” of the initiative.

Voters would have to deal with more ballot measures, such as a

400-square-foot general plan amendment for a filing room now before the

city, he said.

Developers, who opposed the initiative in the first place, also would

lose out with an earlier starting date, Beek said.

“The person who sued is going to have to take the blame for those

extra ballot measures,” he said. “Whoever sued would look pretty

ridiculous.”

Beek said the Greenlight team realized that the initiative’s reference

to the “preceding 10 years” should have been changed.

But trying to gather enough signatures to get the measure on the

ballot, Greenlight supporters decided instead to leave the text alone and

look to the City Council to adopt appropriate guidelines later, he said.

But Councilman Steve Bromberg said the proposed starting date would

not follow the initiative that residents voted on.

“My goodness, I just don’t know how at this point in time you can get

around the words,” he said, adding that he still hopes to hear arguments

convincing him that a setting a 2000 starting date is within the

council’s scope.

“I can’t imagine how any reasonable mind would want more elections

than fewer elections,” he said. “But we’re not in a position as a matter

of law to rewrite [Greenlight.]”

Although she supports the 2000 date, Councilwoman Norma Glover said

she doesn’t want to adopt guidelines that amount to rewriting the

initiative.

“I’m just looking at what is going to be the best for the city,” she

said, adding that a later starting date would be in the best interest of

business owners in her district.

And since a lawsuit against guidelines is something to reckon with,

Glover said the city might as well get it out of the way.

“No matter what we do, we’re going to be sued,” she said. “It’s maybe

better to have that happen sooner than later.”

Greenlight opponents said a legal challenge to the 2000 starting date

was a possibility.

“There are people out there who might jump on that and say, ‘The law

is law,’ ” said former Mayor Clarence Turner, who co-chaired the

opposition campaign against the initiative.

“Quite frankly, I think that if they change [the date] to 2000, they

jeopardize the initiative,” he said, adding that Greenlight supporters

should instead present an amendment clarifying a 2000 starting date to

voters in a future election.

“You can’t go along and pass an initiative based on certain verbiage

and then arbitrarily change it. People told us what they wanted and

that’s the way it should remain.”

Mayor Gary Adams said he also has some concerns that council members

stay true to the text of the initiative.

But he said that City Atty. Bob Burnham, who compiled the proposed

guidelines, was “very comfortable that we can defend a starting date of

2000.”

“We need to talk it through in the public hearing [Tuesday] and come

to some consensus,” Adams said.

Burnham said the proposed guidelines in his staff report were still in

draft form.

“I intend to listen to all testimony and comments as will the City

Council,” he wrote in an e-mail, adding that he will not discuss the

matter publicly before the meeting.

FYI

The Newport Beach City Council will meet for a study session to

discuss Greenlight guidelines at 4 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall, 3300

Newport Blvd.