Proposed law affects homes too

If the “Greenlight II” slow-growth ballot measure is going to pass in November, it needs the support of Newport Beach homeowners.

That support may be tougher to get after the revelation that 65% of the city’s single- and two-family properties will fall under the measure’s restrictions on development.

The measure, backed by the Greenlight citizens’ committee, is a follow-up to the group’s successful 2000 initiative ? Measure S ? that requires public votes on some developments that exceed what the city’s general plan allows.

The general plan grants entitlements for development that may or may not be built.

Greenlight backers feared an update to the general plan that is underway would simply raise the amount of development allowed, decimating the voter controls of Measure S. So they wrote Greenlight II, which says a building project must go to the ballot if it adds more than 100 homes, 100 peak-hour car trips, or 40,000 square feet of building space.

That’s where it gets complicated.

An analysis of Greenlight II by city staff showed the measure would affect 65% of the city’s residentially zoned properties, because the exemption written into the measure only covers some kinds of residential zoning.

Greenlight spokesman Phil Arst said that wasn’t intended ? the target of the measure is major developments that produce a lot of traffic, like big-box stores and high-rise office towers.

“It was such an unlikely thing, we didn’t think of it. It was an oversight,” he said in a phone interview Saturday.

But he counters ? and city staff admitted to the council Tuesday ? that it’s unlikely a homeowner would need a public vote to build a “granny unit” on his property. Council members racked their brains to think of ways residential properties would be affected by the measure, but most of them seemed far-fetched.

Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood said there’s really no way to gauge the effects of Greenlight II, because no one knows what development projects will be proposed. If the measure passes, it would require closer scrutiny of every discretionary approval ? that means most development decisions made by the City Council and planning commission, and some by top planning and zoning staff.

To determine if a public vote is required, Wood said, “We’ll have to track every single discretionary approval, and then for anybody who comes in with a discretionary approval we’ll have to check to see what’s happened within 500 feet of that property within the last five years.”

That will probably raise hackles in the business community, as the 2000 Greenlight measure did. City Councilman Steve Rosansky, an outspoken opponent of Greenlight II, said he thinks residents will also be wary.

“People get very concerned when you start messing with their property rights,” he said.

Recent political experience has borne that out. Stanton residents rebelled against a mandatory home inspection rule, leading the City Council to repeal it in June, and concern over the abuse of eminent domain prompted a state-wide ballot initiative that will go to a November vote.

Greenlight supporters have already formulated their argument to the residential property issue. City officials publicly said the likelihood is small that a residential project would need a public vote, and Arst intends to cite those comments.

And if opponents point to the 65% statistic, Arst said “We say ? 100% of the city’s residences will be impacted by the general plan update because the traffic and higher density will lower their property values and their quality of life.”

City Councilman Dick Nichols, who first ran for the council in 2002 with Greenlight’s backing, said he thinks the group’s support has grown and won’t be damaged by the residential issue.

When the City Council in October voted to require more parking for new duplexes city-wide, Nichols said, “More people lost their property rights that way than is probable that are going to lose it this way.”

It’s unclear how homeowners will react to the measure, but those who aren’t exempt may be uncomfortable to find their property in its cross hairs.

“Greenlight I was more of a rifle approach,” Rosansky said. “Greenlight II is more of a shotgun approach. You’re going to hit a much bigger target.”

QUESTION

Where do you stand on the Greenlight II measure on November’s ballot? Call our Readers Hotline at (714) 966-4664 or e-mail dailypilot@latimes.com. Please spell your name and hometown and give your phone number for verification purposes.