Sounding Board -- Phil Arst

The Pilot’s editorial, “Controlled growth:” hollow words from

Greenlight camp” (Aug. 5), has completely misunderstood and thereby

clouded the issue concerning Greenlight’s view of future growth and the

quality of life in Newport Beach.

Greenlight emphasizes growth through general plan amendments that

benefit the city and its residents, not the pocketbook of the developer.

An example of the type of project we support is the Our Lady Queen of

Angels’/St. Mark’s Church’s proposals currently being processed by the

city. It would enlarge current church facilities. We also support school,

hospital and other growth that serves the public good and passes

environmental standards requirements.

Greenlight is certainly not a “no-growth” law. The many potential

residential and commercial developments within the scope of the current

general plan are not affected. These represent the vast majority of

building permits sought by applicants. Further, Greenlight does not

affect all amendments to the general plan, merely those whose size or

traffic generation is substantial.

The Daily Pilot seems upset that we oppose the Koll Project. First of

all, it violates environmental requirements by creating significant and

unavoidable traffic and pollution impacts -- and its traffic congestion

affects traffic throughout the city. Why, may we ask, did the

pro-development majority of the City Council push through a project that

creates unwanted traffic congestion?

Did the message from the Greenlight voters not register with them?

In addition to flunking the environmental review process because it

creates traffic congestion and pollution problems, Greenlight financial

studies demonstrate that the project provides a net long-term financial

loss to the city. Office buildings require more in city services,

particularly to repair and improve streets because of their heavy

traffic, than they normally produce in revenue. Because of its proximity

to the airport, the project will attract more airport using businesses,

thereby encouraging demand for greater numbers of flights from John Wayne

Airport.

Finally, it sets a precedent for accepting future developments

requiring general plan amendments such as the Dunes expansion, American

Legion site hotel, Conexant, Banning Ranch and other traffic generating

developments with questionable financial benefits to the city,

entitlement windfalls for the developers and no benefits to the

residents.

If the project passed environmental review, provided substantial

revenue to the city, or were a church, school or hospital, these would be

compelling factors to be weighed in its favor. However, this project

degrades our quality of life and has no redeeming value. Significantly,

three council members voted against it for various reasons.

The city should follow its general plan without further piecemeal

amendment, and developers should build within the entitlements granted to

them.

Greenlight believes that reasonable growth meeting the general plan,

environmental standards and contributing to our quality of life is to be

encouraged.

Let’s face it, we are a wonderful beach/bay community and we should be

preserving it for our children and children’s children. Turning the city

into a money-losing, high-rise metropolitan complex is a disservice to

all. If the foregoing sounds hollow to the Pilot, so be it. Greenlight

believes it has the ring of truth.

* PHIL ARST serves as spokesman for the group of residents involved in

securing the Greenlight initiative’s victory.