Debate continues on Greenlight guidelines

Mathis Winkler

NEWPORT BEACH -- The mechanics of Greenlight remain uncertain after

City Council members spent Tuesday afternoon discussing possible

guidelines for the slow-growth initiative.

Approved by voters in November, the new law 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.

While council members are not required to adopt guidelines, the text

of the initiative encourages it. But the initiative requires at least six

of the city’s seven elected officials to vote in favor of any rules.

That restriction could affect Greenlight’s so-called “look back”

provision. It requires that 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.

City officials and Greenlight supporters alike favor a 2000 starting

date for the provision because it would prevent unnecessary elections.

The provision initially was added to Greenlight to prevent developers

from introducing projects piece by piece to avoid a citywide vote.

But Greenlight’s text, as it appeared on the ballot, stated that

general plan amendments “adopted within the preceding 10years” should

count.

During Tuesday’s discussions, Councilmen John Heffernan and Tod

Ridgeway said adopting a 2000 starting date would be akin to ignoring the

initiative.

“I think you’re running counter to the text,” Heffernan said. “To me,

look back means look back.”

Councilman Steve Bromberg voiced similar concerns at a previous study

session on the issue.

Heffernan, a Greenlight supporter, found an unlikely ally in the

Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, which opposed Greenlight.

Doug Stuckey, the chamber’s spokesman, said his organization supports

setting a starting date reaching back 10 years.

When Mayor Gary Adams countered that a general plan amendment for a

400-square-feet filing room now before the city would have to go before a

vote, Stuckey responded that the chamber would not oppose it.

“We want to stop the initiative,” he said. “We want to let the people

see that there are problems with the initiative. We want them to see them

as soon as possible.”

Council members decided to take a straw vote on guidelines, which also

include setting definitions for peak-hour trips and floor area, at

another study session Feb. 13. They could vote on the guidelines at their

following meeting, Feb. 27.