Time’s an issue for Greenlight

Mathis Winkler

NEWPORT BEACH -- Do development projects during the last decade count

or don’t they?

That’s the question supporters and opponents of a growth-control

measure on the Nov. 7 ballot have been throwing back and forth for

months.

The disagreement heated up again last week when Councilwoman Jan Debay

used two small proposed expansions as examples of insignificant

construction projects that would require a citywide vote if Measure S

passes.

Also known as the Greenlight Initiative, Measure S proposes to put

before a citywide vote any development that allows an increase of more

than 100 peak-hour car trips or dwelling units, or 40,000 square feet or

more than the general plan allowance.

Measure T, an opposing initiative, would add parts of the city’s

traffic phasing ordinance to the city charter and nullify Measure S if

voters approve both measures.

The projects -- a 2,160-square-foot lobby expansion and a

440-square-foot filing room -- are both located within areas of the city

that have reached their “construction allowance,” Debay said.

“This means that they have to wait and go to the ballot,” Debay said

during Tuesday’s council meeting. “The whole citizenry will have to vote

on these small additions.”

Greenlight supporters countered that Debay is mistaken, and that those

projects would not exceed the allowance.

At issue is a larger question of whether the measure’s accumulation

period -- the time during which developments are counted toward the

threshold that would trigger a citywide vote -- would begin in 1990 or

this year.

The text of Measure S states that all projects “within the preceding

10 years” would count toward the threshold. Its supporters say that

another clause, which encourages the City Council to adopt implementation

guidelines for the initiative, would allow council members to set Nov. 7

as the accumulation period’s start date.

Allan Beek and Phil Arst, two major Greenlight supporters, both said

their campaign would not challenge the later date.

But told about the two men’s assurances, Debay said she didn’t think

the City Council could ignore the measure’s “preceding 10 year” clause.

“The way it’s written, it’s set in stone,” said Debay, who supports

Measure T and will leave office after the election because of term

limits.

“I think they made a mistake in writing it and wish they hadn’t

written it that way,” she said. “I don’t think there is that flexibility

that their verbal agreement can counter the way this thing is written.”

Beek agreed that Greenlight supporters realized too late that they

should have added a Nov. 7 start date. By the time they wanted to make

the change, rewriting the initiative would have set them back a month in

collecting signatures, he said.

But the council will be able to use its discretion to choose that

date, Beek said. He added that City Council members will also have to

look at other issues, such as giving developers credit for building space

that gets torn down as part of a new project, before implementing it.

And even in the worst case scenario for Greenlight opponents -- a 1990

start date for the accumulation period -- the benefit of giving residents

the final say on large developments still outweighs the harm of forcing a

few small projects before a citywide vote, Arst said.

While Greenlight opponents argue that forcing elections on small

projects is one of the initiative’s major flaws, Beek said Greenlight

opponents used the argument as scare tactics before the election.

A majority anti-Greenlight City Council -- even if three Greenlight

candidates win seats in the election, the four remaining incumbents

oppose the measure -- will set the start date for Nov. 7 and not 1990,

Beek pointed out.

“I’m sure they’ll do it,” he said. “I can’t hear the council saying,

‘We choose to cause . . . unnecessary elections.”’

All that aside, Debay said she still wouldn’t support the measure.

“I don’t think that it is the way to plan,” she said. “My objection is

that ballot-box planning is not scientific and technical.”