Public debates Greenlight II

NEWPORT BEACH — This November, the most important political question in Newport Beach may be who should control development: the City Council or voters.

People on both sides of the issue fired their first public salvos at a forum Wednesday before an audience of about 70 residents, including nine of 13 prospective City Council candidates. Community group Speak Up Newport organized the event at the Newport Beach Yacht Club.

Speakers debated the November ballot measure known as Greenlight II, but they also discussed the city’s general plan update.

The Greenlight initiative is a follow-up to Measure S, which Newport Beach voters approved in 2000. Proposed by the Greenlight residents group, Measure S requires a public vote on development projects that would add more than 100 homes, 100 peak-hour car trips or 40,000 square feet beyond what the city’s general plan allows.

The new measure would set the public vote threshold at 40,000 square feet or 100 homes or car trips beyond existing development.

Greenlight spokesman Phil Arst said the new ballot issue is needed to control traffic in the city and give residents more say in how their community grows. The city’s general plan update, also on the November ballot, would emasculate the controls of Measure S, he said.

“It gives you the right to vote, and you can control the destiny of the city in terms of traffic and high density,” he said. “The city hasn’t leveled with you. Some might call their traffic estimated half-truths or worse.”

While city officials have said the updated general plan would reduce traffic, Arst argued that they’re comparing it to the old general plan — including development that was never built — rather than reality. He said the new city plan would increase population by more than 30% and pack city streets with more than 125,000 new car trips.

But Dennis O’Neil, a former Newport mayor and city attorney who is leading the opposition to Greenlight II, said a major cause of traffic is neighboring cities, like Irvine, over which Newport has no control.

Taking into account state requirements, city traffic impact fees and other remedies, O’Neil said: “We think that we do have adequate controls in place right now without having Greenlight II.”

He said the measure’s provisions are “fatally flawed” and could embroil the city in expensive court battles, particularly because some 65% of residential properties aren’t exempt from the measure.

“It seems to us that’s unfair and discriminatory zoning that would subject this measure to legal attack,” O’Neil said.

City voters have seen two elections as a result of the 2000 measure: an office tower at the Koll Center and a waterfront luxury hotel at Marinapark. Voters rejected both plans.

But this November will in essence be the biggest Greenlight election of all. Without Measure S, only the City Council — and not voters — would need to approve the general plan update.

Arst urged the audience to vote for Greenlight II and against the general plan update to maintain the city’s character.

But Speak Up Newport Vice President Dave Goff asked Arst a question that sums up the entire debate for some Greenlight opponents: Who should be making development decisions?

“You trust the general public, the voters, to make land-use decisions,” Goff said. “Why do you not trust them to elect representatives that can do a good job of representing them?”

QUESTION

Does Newport Beach need a second Greenlight initiative? Call our Readers Hotline at (714) 966-4664 or send e-mail to dailypilot@latimes.com. Please spell your name and tell us your hometown and phone numbers for verification purposes only.