Crafting Newport Beach’s looking glass

June Casagrande

A year’s worth of questioning is complete. A year’s worth of

answers are compiled. But in undertaking the monumental task of

updating the city’s general plan, answers tend to lead to more

questions that, in turn, can lead to controversy.

Beginning with a Visioning Festival in January 2002 and ending

with a Visioning Summit in 2003, city leaders have been picking

residents’ brains. Should the city promote more tourism? Should more

development be allowed in Fashion Island? What should be done with

underused commercial areas? Should the city allow property owners to

build extra large homes on lots where smaller homes were razed? Will

economic development damage quality of life?

City staff last month presented a comprehensive summary of all the

opinions gathered from residents during the visioning phase of the

general plan update process, closing a painstaking chapter while

opening the door on the next, perhaps more controversial, stage.

QUESTIONABLE PROCESS

A couple aspects of “visioning,” though, have ruffled some

feathers. Greenlight leaders, who fear that the general plan update

process will open the door to excessive development, have been the

first to fire salvos. Traffic and economic studies that were supposed

to help guide the general plan update process fell behind schedule,

putting residents in the position of having to answer questions

without a full picture of what their answers could mean.

Greenlight leaders have also charged that the General Plan Update

Committee contains too many “pro-development” members and that some

questions posed to residents during the visioning process were skewed

in favor of development. They say the city has downplayed residents’

opposition to economic development measures that would hurt

residents.

“The parts about economic development have been glossed over and

put in the back of the report,” Greenlight spokesman Phil Arst said.

The report shows that 57% of residents surveyed think that

encouraging economic development will hurt quality of life.

ELECTION MAY COME

INTO PLAY

These differences have already led to a minor scuffle between city

staff and some residents over whether a “Visioning Statement” should

be formalized with a vote of the City Council. If not resolved, such

differences could erupt into an upset at the ballot box when,

eventually, the general plan update goes before voters in accordance

with the city’s Measure S, or “Greenlight” initiative.

Critics of the Greenlight group, most of whom now fully embrace

and acknowledge the Greenlight Initiative as law, fear that such an

upset is just what the Greenlight leaders have in mind. Greenlight,

they say, is angling for power at the risk of endangering the entire

general plan update process.

SOME COMMON GROUND

The summary of resident responses to visioning summits, surveys

and questionnaires show solidarity on some matters.

Most residents agree, for example, that Balboa Village, Mariner’s

Mile, Old Newport Boulevard, Cannery Village, West Newport and other

areas need to be revitalized. The summary even agrees on what

“revitalization” means: “Making something nicer without making it

bigger.”

The environment is another topic that rallies residents and

business owners. Harbors and beaches, they agree, must be protected.

Water quality is a priority. Stricter measures must be taken to

protect coastal bluffs and public view corridors.

MORE DISAGREEMENT

But where they stand united on the city’s natural assets, they

stand divided on how to balance business interests with quality of

life for residents.

“Most of the divided opinion is about areas suitable for

development, so that’s Banning Ranch, Newport Center, the airport

area,” Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood said.

A majority said that Fashion Island and Newport Center should not

expand to allow more businesses, but some expansion for existing

businesses might be OK.

For the airport area, about two-thirds of the respondents said

there should be no changes in development, but revitalization should

take place. Banning Ranch should also shoot for a status quo,

preserving open space. Corona del Mar’s residential area, Balboa

Village and Newport Heights should have stricter zoning to limit

development, they said.

Of the people who responded to a newsletter questionnaire, 56%

said the city should not accommodate more jobs.

MOVING ON

The next step is for the General Plan Update Committee to decide

on the scope of the updates, which portions should be revised in

light of this information.

Then comes perhaps the hardest part of all: rewriting portions of

the general plan, the document that will set the stage for the city

through 2025 or beyond.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE covers Newport Beach and John Wayne Airport.

She may be reached at (949) 574-4232 or by e-mail at

june.casagrande@latimes.com.