‘Growth’ Becomes Fightin’ Word in Newport Beach

A slow-growth movement in Newport Beach, headed for the ballot in November, has pitted activists against city leaders in what has become a power struggle.

While Newport Beach contemplates several large-scale building projects, supporters of the so-called Greenlight Initiative say they want direct control over the city’s future layout and the power to say no to projects that residents don’t want.

City officials suggest the effort will place too great a burden on voters, requiring them to decide on projects they have neither the time nor resources to evaluate responsibly.

“We’re targeting traffic as the most visible measure of our quality of life,” said Philip Arnst, a Greenlight spokesman and Newport Beach resident. “We don’t want to be another Miami Beach. But already, in places like Santa Barbara, other people are saying, ‘We don’t want to be another Newport Beach.’ ”

Aimed at preventing traffic congestion, the measure would require voter approval for individual development projects if they are large enough to require a significant change in the city’s general plan.

A slew of proposed commercial and residential developments throughout the city are currently in various stages of study by the planning commission. If the Greenlight Initiative were in place today, each of those changes would trigger a citywide election. Of particular concern to Greenlight organizers are the many proposals for additional office space in the city, which they say would generate a big increase in traffic but little economic benefit.

Unlike retail development, which generates sales tax revenues, the only direct income the city realizes from office space is from property tax revenues.

But perhaps the most controversial project--a change to the city’s general plan that would permit dramatic expansions of office and retail buildings in and around Fashion Island--was abandoned by the Irvine Co. on Thursday in light of the uncertainty the initiative has already created.

In a statement from the Greenlight steering committee, advocates trumpeted the Irvine Co.’s pullout as the group’s “first victory in protecting the people from more traffic and piecemeal growth.”

The proposed developments which remain on the table include:

* A 600-room hotel and time-share complex on 30 acres at Newport Dunes. It would include 55,000 square feet of banquet and conference facilities, 13,650 square feet for restaurants, an 8,000-square-foot health club, 4,600 square feet of retail shops and a swimming pool. Currently the city’s general plan would allow a 275-room hotel on the site.

* A 566,000-square-foot addition to the Conexant company headquarters on Jamboree Road. This would bring the total allowable building area on the site to more than a million square feet.

* A 412-acre planned community development at Banning Ranch by Taylor Woodrow Homes Inc. that would include up to 1,750 housing units, 75 hotel rooms, 70,000 square feet of commercial space, a 10-acre elementary school site and 216 acres for parks and open space.

* A 250,000-square-foot, 10-story office tower in Koll Center Newport at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road.

Other potential projects near Fashion Island were thrown into doubt this week when the Irvine Co. withdrew its properties from a proposed general plan amendment for that area. The various property owners had been sharing the costs of development studies.

In addition to the Irvine Co. plans, the amendment would have allowed a 420,000-square-foot expansion of the Pacific Life building in the 700 block of Newport Center Drive and an additional 180,000 square feet of office space on property owned by the State Teachers’ Retirement System in the 800 block. It would also permit 15 housing units to be built on the grounds of the Newport Beach Country Club.

Representatives of the State Teachers’ Retirement System could not be reached for comment on the Irvine Co.’s decision.

Pacific Life officials don’t yet know if they will continue to seek the expansion of their facility in light of the Irvine Co.’s pullout. The costs of seeking a general plan amendment could be too high to go it alone, said Thomas Mays, vice president of government relations for the 2,200-employee insurance company.

Under the Greenlight guidelines, any development proposal would trigger a citywide vote if it exceeded the existing plans for that neighborhood by 40,000 square feet, 100 residential units, or if it would generate 100 or more peak-hour car trips in the area. Those decisions are currently made by the City Council, which receives recommendations from an appointed planning commission.

In areas of the city that are already highly developed, the initiative could have a retroactive impact as well. Factored into the equation would be 80% of the impact from previous projects that have already exceeded the general plan in the last 10 years.

Opponents of the measure say that in some parts of the city, including Fashion Island, the bill would require residents to vote on nearly any new project--even as small as a new Starbucks. But Greenlight advocates say that’s exactly the kind of control they’re seeking.

“We have no problem with that,” says Newport Beach environmental activist and Greenlight advocate Nancy Skinner.

“This will allow for a conversation with the City Council, so we can work with them and help guide them. We don’t have that kind of dialogue with them now. I see this as nothing but positive, and I think the City Council will too someday.”

Newport Beach Mayor John E. Noyes isn’t holding his breath.

“They act like we were hired from L.A. to come down here and control things,” Noyes said. “I think the issues they’re talking about are valid. . . . In my opinion we’re addressing all those issues on the City Council.”

Council member Dennis D. O’Neil, a land use lawyer and former Newport Beach city attorney, agrees. Just because the robust economy has brought a rash of development proposals to the surface in recent years doesn’t mean that the city will rubber-stamp them without a thorough evaluation, he said.

“They’re very fearful that the planning commission will just summarily approve projects and create traffic, [and that will] lower the value of property and allow the quality of life here to deteriorate,” O’Neil said. “A lot of what they say has merit. I just don’t believe that it’s appropriate to turn over these decisions to the public in general. They don’t have the time, the experience or the knowledge to make those decisions responsibly.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Newport Beach Growth

The proposed developments that are currently on the table in Newport Beach include:

* A 600-room hotel and time-share complex on 30 acres at Newport Dunes. Includes 55,000 square feet of banquet and conference facilities, 13,650 square feet for restaurants, an 8,000 square-foot health club 4,600 square feet of retail shops and a swimming pool.

* A 566,000 square-foot addition to the Conexant company headquarters on Jamboree Road. This would bring the total allowable building area on the site to more than a million square feet.

* A 412-acre planned community development at Banning Ranch by Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., which would include up to 1750 housing units, 75 hotel rooms, 70,000 square feet of commercial space, a 10-acre elementary school site and 216 acres for parks and open space.

* A 250,000 square foot, 10 story office tower in Koll Center Newport at the intersection of MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Rd.

* Other potential projects near Fashion Island were thrown into question this week when the Irvine Co. withdrew its properties from a proposed general plan amendment for that area. In addition to the Irvine Co. plans, the amendment would have allowed for a 420,000 square foot expansion of the Pacific Life building in the 700 block of Newport Center Drive and an additional 180,000 square feet of space on property owned by the State Teachers’ Retirement System in the 800 block. It would also permit 15 housing units to be built on the grounds of the Newport Beach Country Club.