Council takes issue with Greenlight measure

Noaki Schwartz

NEWPORT BEACH -- The council burst through the dam of silence Tuesday,

unleashing a torrent of criticism about a controversial slow-growth

initiative known as Greenlight.

After months of stony silence -- while signatures were collected to get

the measure on the November ballot -- an otherwise standard debate heated

up into a dramatic exchange between city officials and community

activists.

“[Council members] were trying to intimidate us, but Tom Hyans and I

stood our ground,” said proponent Phil Arst. “No one’s mind was changed,

but I didn’t expect that.”

Council members find the measure problematic because they say it takes a

stab at the democratic process and, therefore, at the role of elected

officials to represent the community. The measure proposes to take

decision-making power from the council on potential developments and give

it to residents.

“This initiative would lead people to believe that we have a government

out of control,” Councilman Dennis O’Neil said. “We are good stewards of

the public’s trust. I don’t like being accused of not being responsible.”

The Protect From Traffic and Density initiative proposes to let residents

vote on developments that would require a “major” general plan amendment.

Proponents say “major” means developments that would create more than 100

peak-hour car trips, more than 100 homes or more than 40,000 square feet

of floor area over what the city’s general plan allows.

However, a closer look reveals the measure is much more complex than

meets the eye.

The thresholds do not simply apply to the city, but to each of 49

distinct neighborhoods, which all have a different history of general

plan amendments.

Compounding this is that the measure is retroactive. It requires that 80%

of the changes to the general plan during the last 10 years be added to

the numbers of a proposed project. Once any of the thresholds are maxed

out in any of the 49 specific areas, virtually any development would

require a vote.

As such, residents could be deluged with reviewing gigantic environmental

reports and planning documents for each prospective project that

surfaces, O’Neil said. Within the next year, there are 11 major projects going through the approval process.

“Are people going to be voting every three months? How are we going to

pay for these elections?” O’Neil asked. “I elect my official to go to

Sacramento or Washington because I [don’t have time] to read all the

legislation.”

The measure would put an unnecessary burden on citizens because there are

already government provisions to voice their opinions on prospective

projects, said Councilman Gary Adams. Residents can contact council

members to object to a development and also have the power to overturn a

council decision.

Supporters, however, say that one of the motivations behind this

initiative is that citizens have a right to decide the future course of

their city. Proponents believe that citizens should be able to put a cap

on the city’s development in order to slow the increasing traffic

problem.

But Councilwoman Jan Debay said the measure won’t solve the city’s

traffic problem.

“Those projects will go to adjoining cities, people will commute and

we’ll still have the traffic,” she said.

Council members fear the initiative will stop growth and therefore

prevent residents from getting the high level of city services they are

used to in Newport Beach. A recently released five-year financial

forecast indicates the city will need to find additional sources of

revenue to keep these services going.

“The thing I think we have to understand is that as our costs go up, our

property tax will not sustain this city,” said mayor John Noyes. “The

bottom line is -- is it good for the community?”

VOICES

DENNIS O’NEIL -- NO

“I’m going to vote against it. It’s not necessary. I think it’s an abuse

of the democratic process. I will tell everyone not to vote for it.”

JAN DEBAY -- NO

“What Greenlight doesn’t do is fix the problem. Proposed projects will go

to adjoining cities, people will commute, and we’ll still have the

traffic.”

GARY ADAMS -- NO

“I would vote against it. There are so many reasons why. One of my huge

concerns is that it will essentially eliminate all general plan

amendments in the city.”

TOD RIDGEWAY -- NO

“I’m not going to vote for it. No way. It doesn’t create a solution. The

Greenlight initiative stops development.”

NORMA GLOVER -- NO

“I think that to put the community under a slow-growth policy is not in

the best interests of the city.”

TOM THOMSON -- ?

“I’m not going to give you my personal opinion on this. I don’t know

yet.”

JOHN NOYES -- NO

“I’m going to vote against it. The bottom line is, is it good for the

community?”