A CLOSER LOOK -- The Greenlight Initiative

Noaki Schwartz

A line dividing the city’s leaders and its residents that has surfaced in

recent months could solidify by the time the controversial Greenlight

initiative appears on the November ballot.

And as the debate over the proposed slow-growth initiative becomes more

dynamic, the arguments on either side are also coming into focus.

Residents fed up with congestion want to stop traffic increases, and to

them, the measure promises a solution. City leaders say the initiative

won’t stop congestion -- but will choke future finances.

And people on both sides are arguing the merits of the democratic system.

Supporters say the measure is the epitome of democracy because it will

reign in a development-happy council and allow residents to decide their

city’s future. But a self-proclaimed conservative City Council believes

that it threatens one of the fundamental tenants of democracy --

representative government.

JOINING A BIGGER MOVEMENT

This slow-growth or smart-growth philosophy is a movement that has spread

throughout California. In the past five years, similar measures have

already cropped up in Northern and Southern California. And by November,

Newport Beach could be the newest addition.

It’s a movement that many supporters say is symptomatic of city officials

having lost touch with their constituencies and having allowed urban

sprawl to go unattended.

Some of these initiatives, such as Save Open Space and Agricultural

Resources or SOAR in Ventura County, have been voted in. However, others

like the Citizen Alliance for Public Planning -- or CAPP -- proposed in

the San Francisco Bay Area were rejected because they were too

restrictive and would require residents to constantly go to the ballot

box.While the initiatives were similar in their efforts to slow growth,

their methods were much different than that of the Greenlight measure.

SOAR sought to create urban growth boundaries in which development could

take place, and those boundaries could only change through a citywide

vote.

CAPP was more similar in that it set out a specific amount of development

-- in its case 10 homes -- that would trip a public vote, but still

cannot be compared to the much more complex Greenlight Initiative. The

CAPP measure was soundly defeated in November.

Greenlight proponents said they did not base their initiative on any

existing measures.

WHAT IS GREENLIGHT?

If the Protection From Traffic and Density initiative passes, there will

be a citywide vote on all developments that would require a “major”

general plan amendment. Major is defined as creating 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.

These thresholds do not apply to the city as a whole, but to each of 49

distinct neighborhoods, which all have a different history of general

plan amendments.

And this is where it gets really complicated.

The wording of the initiative says that the measure is, in a sense,

retroactive. It requires that 80% of the changes to the general plan

during the last decade be added to the numbers of a proposed project to

determine whether a vote is required.

Because each specific area is so different, the end result is that a

developer could build 40,000 square feet of office in one area without a

public vote, but a project consisting of 200 square feet in another area

would need a citywide vote.

And, once any of the thresholds are maxed out in any of the 49 specific

areas -- virtually any development would require a vote.

Allan Beek, a Greenlight proponent, is so far the only person who has

tried to add up all of the city’s general plan amendments from the last

10 years, which is information needed to apply the cumulative rule to new

developments.

According to his research -- which he admitted was not perfect -- seven

areas of the city already exceed one or more of the measure’s thresholds.

They are: Old Newport Boulevard (traffic, square feet and homes); Santa

Ana Heights, (square feet); Newport Center (traffic and square feet);

North Ford Road (traffic, square feet and homes); the airport area

(square feet); Corona del Mar Hills (square feet); and Bonita Canyon

(traffic, square feet and homes).

This means that as future development needs crop up, residents could face

sifting through tomes of planning and environmental reports for each

prospective project, said Councilman Dennis O’Neil. This time-consuming

job is now handled by the Planning Commission, a group of appointed

citizens who spend hours combing through the reports.

Commission Chairman Ed Selich said that just for the proposed Dunes Hotel

project, he has already spent 40 hours reading and researching

environmental documents, another 50 hours in meetings and hours simply

preparing for discussions.

Opinions on what to do about the “preceding 10 years” provision are

divided within Greenlight, the group of community activists that wrote

the initiative.

Spokesperson Phil Arst said he won’t mind the frequent voting. But Beek

said he hopes that the City Council will fix this through language in the

initiative that allows the city to adopt guidelines for implementing the

new law once passed.

However, City Manager Homer Bludau said because the cumulative aspect is

such a fundamental part of the measure, the City Council simply can’t

“fix” it by adopting an implementation guideline as the proponents

suggested.

TRAFFIC TROUBLES

The biggest reason thousands of residents signed the Greenlight petition

is because of the promise of a solution to what they believe is a growing

traffic problem in the city.

Both sides agree that the sources of traffic are residents driving to and

from their homes and businesses, commuters who drive through the city on

a daily basis and tourists who come for the city’s beaches and large

pleasure harbor.

While the measure, by stopping development, could freeze the traffic from

residents and businesses, it does not address the other two sources.

And while the perception among residents’ activists clearly is that

traffic congestion in Newport Beach is out of control, others argue that,

compared to most cities in the state and even the county, traffic here is

a breeze.

Another argument against the notion that Greenlight will put the brakes

on traffic is that developers could simply take their proposals to an

adjacent city and build there. Newport Beach would not get any of the tax

money, but would be stuck with the ever-increasing traffic problem as

people will undoubtedly always drive through the city.

Beek said at least the initiative would address one element of the

problem. He said the city could deal with the increasing traffic in a

number of ways, including keeping narrow streets to discourage commuters

or building overpasses to ease the burden.

However, the question remains: Where would the money come from to pay for

roadwork if there is a moratorium on development?

Among other sources, Beek suggested state money.

DISRUPTING DEMOCRACY?The red flag city leaders have been waving is

that the measure disrupts the democratic process of elected government.

O’Neil argued that he hires state and national representatives because he

doesn’t have the time and may not have the background to make educated

legislative decisions. Vice mayor Gary Adams added that residents already

have the right to overturn council decisions they don’t agree with

through the referendum process.

This measure would completely change the way Newport government operates,

and whether that is a blessing or a disaster depends on who you talk to.

After a project goes through a lengthy review process and gets the stamp

of approval from various city boards, including the council, it would

still have to go to a public vote.

Combining land-use decisions and politics could also compromise the

process, say others, as each potential development could turn into a

political campaign.

City officials worry that this factor and the potential for voting on

countless developments could discourage the electorate.

Arst, however, argues that residents could get their information from

city government, the Greenlight group and the media as opposed to pouring

through technical documents. They could weigh the various arguments and

then make an informed decision, he said.

Another concern Newport Beach officials have is that the city could be

sued by potential developers because of the disputable language of the

initiative.

Initiative proponents argue that a developer would never undertake the

extra expense of taking the measure to court. However, business sources

say a lawsuit could be a more appealing route for a developer than

shelling out cash for all of the required environmental studies and

risking a public vote. The studies alone can cost anywhere from $50,000

to $350,000 said Planning Director Patricia Temple.

“If [Greenlight] passes, the city would have to budget a huge amount for

litigation. It would be challenged constantly,” said architect Rush Hill.

And while it is too early to tell whether Greenlight will mirror the path

other initiatives have followed, lawsuits have surfaced on those

measures.

In one Ventura County case, the group that actually wrote the measure

sued in an effort to block a development from going to a public vote.

GREENER PASTURES?

Neither city officials nor Greenlight activists have a crystal ball to

see just how the measure, if passed, will affect the city.

City leaders say because of the heightened time and money developers

would have to go through to even get a project on the ballot --

campaigning, expensive studies and the extra time -- many could be

discouraged from even proposing a development. That could include

existing, growing businesses that contribute to Newport’s economy --

Pacific Life, Conexant -- moving out of the city because Newport Beach

can’t meet their expansion needs.

Arst however, claims that developers interested in the benefits of

building in Newport Beach won’t be deterred by the extra costs.

City officials also predict that a dwindling voting population, confused

by a deluge of information, will simply vote against everything. This

could put a moratorium on development and cut off the city’s revenue

sources, they fear.

While this wouldn’t affect city services for some time, inflation, a

cyclical economy and a choking revenue stream will eventually force staff

to cut service levels, officials said. But Greenlight supporters argue

that city expenses should be cut, anyway.

And while chasing developers out of town may sound like a good idea now,

officials say a serious consequence of that mentality will be the

continuing decline of older neighborhoods in the city. For example,

rebuilding an area such as Lido Marina Village takes a giant commitment

and cash flow without having to worry about taking the project to a

public vote.

“This measure plays up to people’s short-term interests, but the impacts

will be felt long term,” Adams said.