Council should heed residents

Phil Arst and Joe O’Hora

Councilman Tod Ridgeway’s recent Community Commentary, “Facts rosier

than Greenlight allows,” presents a promising picture of the impact

of proposed new growth in our city. However, the true facts tell a

vastly different story.

Thus far, the city has spent almost $2 million of our taxpayer

dollars on a general plan update process that is currently proposing

options for up to 3,700 additional housing units, up to

2.3-million-square-feet of additional commercial development and up

to 1,150 hotel rooms.

Even if only part of these proposals are implemented, they are the

exact opposite of the “residential beach community” that a large

majority of our residents said they wanted in the Visioning Festival

poll of residents and businesses sponsored by the city.

Our principal concern is that the city will couch this

contemplated excessive growth in terms that could permit them to

avoid the city law requiring voter approval/disapproval of these

proposed major developments. We have repeatedly asked city staff

whether the legally mandated vote of the people to approve/disapprove

this major change to the general plan will take place.

They say they are not ready to make a statement. Remember, this is

the same City Council that last year tried to avoid the same voters’

choice law. It took a lawsuit by the Greenlight residents group to

stop the attempt.

Greenlight is simply striving to preserve your right to vote on

these massive development proposals. You would then have the choice

to vote for or against each proposed project. We are campaigning to

ensure that you have that choice. Otherwise, Ridgeway, who recently

suggested adding an option for possibly several thousand more housing

units over and above the already excessive current proposals, and his

colleagues on the council, will have the sole decision-making power

to select just how much of the proposed increases in traffic

congestion will be authorized.

Our goal is to also protect residents’ property rights to preserve

their home values in an uncrowded city without having to face traffic

congestion every time they drive to shop, work or school. We hope

the council will appreciate that the residents of Newport Beach, in

the above- cited official city poll, expressed strong opposition to

changing their city into another Santa Monica and to massively

expanding the road system to accommodate this traffic.

Ridgeway also challenges our assertion that 170,000 additional

average daily auto trips are permitted to accommodate the unused

entitlements under the current general plan. We cited the city’s own

traffic study, “Traffic Model Executive Summary, 12/3/2003,” which

projects that 170,000 trips could be added and 18 unsatisfactory

traffic intersections or more created if the current general plan

were built out. The study also shows that six intersections are now

unsatisfactory under current city policies. The more we develop, the

more intersections that become unsatisfactory from a traffic

standpoint. We think the six currently unsatisfactory intersections

should first be fixed before we contemplate further major

development.

Councilman Ridgeway’s remarks that the present Traffic Phasing

Ordinance and similar measures would protect residents from

additional traffic congestion are misleading. Since he and other

previous Council Members voted to emasculate the traffic ordinance,

its purpose is now only to collect a usage-based fee from all new

developments. Even if the fees could cover the costs of all needed

street widening and overpasses -- which they cannot, since they are

generally cost-prohibitive -- the residents stated strong opposition

to turning the city’s major streets into wide highways to accommodate

more traffic.

Ridgeway’s statement that his suggested housing unit increases

applied only to the airport area also troubles us. He is contradicted

by the Jan. 11 City Council meeting official minutes, in which he is

quoted as requesting more intense housing unit development not only

in the airport area but also in Balboa Village, added units to

Emerald Forrest and in Corona del Mar along Coast Highway. This

demonstrates the reason why citizen watchdogs are needed to monitor

council activities.

Greenlight’s purpose is to keep residents informed of the huge

increases in traffic and density that are proposed in the current

draft of the general plan so that they can tell their council members

of their desires to maintain their quality of life, property values

and right to vote on major developments. The Greenlight website,

www.newportgreenlight.com, contains an overview of the city’s

official data, so residents can check out our statements.

Hopefully, the council will listen to the residents, drastically

cut back the unprecedented growth options proposed, and in the

process, remove the excessive entitlements in the current general

plan. We look forward to further dialogue.

* PHIL ARST is the spokesperson for the Greenlight Residents’

Committee. JOE O’HORA is a new member of the Greenlight Residents

Committee.