LETTER TO THE EDITOR:Flawed logic and exaggerated flaws from opponents

Politics, concerning land-use planning under the proposed update to the general plan, have plummeted to a new low. I hope the half-truths and misrepresentations associated with the anti-Greenlight side will be considered by the Pilot as part of the community’s and the newspaper’s support for ethics in the election process.

Here is what bothers me and is not getting through to the voters.

The proposed general plan vision statement demonstrates the desire of our community to retain a beach-style atmosphere with slow growth and free-flowing streets and highways. Because of the influence of developmentrelated interests, the general plan land-use element does not reflect the desires expressed in the vision statement. The apple pie general plan has a poison pill in the land-use element.

The city has paid a reported $500,000 to promote the proposed general plan in part to trump Greenlight I (the original Measure S). It provides promises in the sky to create an ideal environment for our city residents. But concerning land use, it is proposing major growth and is being sold with misrepresentations and half-truths to defeat our residents’ proposal to approve major projects and keep our rubber-stamp City Council in check.

The proposed general plan is being promoted as reducing construction, population and traffic, without making clear that this is from the existing general plan projections. True, but the old plan is irrelevant. The fact, which should concern voters, is that, when built out, it will add to our city an estimated at 17,000 population and 125,000 daily vehicle trips over traffic on our streets now, without considering growth from adjacent cities.

Let’s say that I planned to buy a boat for $1 million. Then I changed my “plan” and decided to buy a boat for $50,000. Then I told my friends that under my new plan I would save $950,000. This would be an example of the flawed logic being used to confuse our voters.

Our current general plan provides for major growth, development and population, in some areas where no growth was or is likely — such as Banning Ranch. The proposed general plan will shift that major growth, creating a high-density population explosion and traffic in the airport area, among others where growth is very likely because developers pushed for entitlements in these areas. The current general plan would require a Greenlight vote on these amendments, but the new general plan would not. The approved growth is included in the new general plan. No vote on the projects, just the new general plan, without details. Measure X would give the voters a say on these proposed developments as they occur.

Pro-development supporters are tossing voters a crumb in saying, as Mayor Don Webb has, that Measure V puts voters in charge and that any future changes will still go to a citywide public vote. True, but misleading. The mayor should have said that any future change in the general plan will still go to a citywide public vote.

However, those “future changes” do not include the 20% population growth and 125,000 daily vehicle trips authorized by Measure V. While voters might read a broader implication, he cleverly is referring to Greenlight I (Measure S) which applies only to the amendment of general plans, which increase land-use growth by certain parameters.

Greenlight II (Measure X) gives residents the right to vote on any major growth under the current, proposed or future general plans. If Measure X, to extend Greenlight, is not passed and Measure V is passed, developers in major areas will receive virtually everything they could hope for under the proposed general plan. Measure V permits high-rise condos in the airport area; multi-family, multi-story buildings scattered about the city; and massive development of the city center to be rubber-stamped by the council without review by voters on these specific projects. Greenlight I will apply only to amendments to the proposed general plan, if it passes. No amendments, no vote. Voters will have no say, and Greenlight’s protections will be destroyed. If measures X and V are passed, voters will be able to vote on major developments under the proposed general plan or amendments to it.

Measure X opponents claim that because of a flaw in drafting, residential expansion will be impaired. This argument is a red herring — that is a smelly fish dragged across the trail to confuse hunting dogs. Do not be confused.

The facts are these: Measure X does not apply to all residential room additions or remodels; it does not apply to all R-1, R-1.5 or R-2 residences; it and Measure V do not apply to Newport Coast, which is exempt by agreement of the city and the county. The remaining portion of residences are in planned communities which are virtually built out. As a result the planning director for the city acknowledged that the possibility of Measure X affect these type of improvements is remote.

The so-called flaw is like a gnat on a windshield.

Greenlight’s sponsors’ major concern with traffic is that approximately a dozen intersections are now below city standards approaching gridlock, and six others are near current capacity. City management and staffers have promised to reduce these problems to get voter support but have made no provisions and have announced no plans to do so. There is no money to make these needed improvements, which require massive funding.

The city will continue as usual without plans for intersection improvements as a capital spending priority. The proposed general plan paints a pretty picture for everything but land use, and its promoters are using artful devices to confuse and misinform local voters.

The Pilot should not condone these tactics notwithstanding its position on the issue.

Is our city a commodity or a community? Yes on X; No on V until the land use element is cleaned up.

GEORGE JEFFRIES

Corona del Mar