Traffic, growth measures on collision course

Noaki Schwartz

NEWPORT BEACH -- Both attempt to tackle the city’s cumbersome traffic

problem. Both have respected, longtime community leaders behind them. And

both claim to protect the city’s future quality of life.

But the two initiatives that appear headed for a showdown in competition

for voters’ support are very different.

And at the end of what will likely be a long and grueling battle, only

one will remain standing after the November election.

In the coming months, residents will hear a litany of reasons why either

measure deserves their vote.

The Greenlight initiative, which would give residents the final say on

“major” developments, has stirred controversy since petitions first began

circulating last summer. The slow-growth measure is intended to prevent

out-of-control development in the city by requiring public votes on

projects that would trigger certain thresholds for traffic and density.

The measure will have the most effect on already congested areas, such as

Newport Center and the area surrounding John Wayne Airport, where

city-approved traffic and space limits are maxed out.

A competing measure surfaced only two weeks ago and has yet to obtain the

signatures needed to place it on the ballot. It proposes to add sections

of the city’s Traffic Phasing Ordinance to the City Charter -- making it

difficult to ever change that law, which is intended to provide traffic

relief from new developments. The law requires some developers to pay for

improvements to intersections around their projects.

The ordinance was developed more than two decades ago -- and has been

called the toughest traffic law of its kind throughout the county.

But that all changed last year when the City Council watered down the

restrictions on developers in response to a lawsuit claiming that the law

imposed an unfair burden upon builders. The amendment altered the way

that the costs were assigned to developers and lowered the number of

council votes needed to override the fees.

A group of city leaders thought the changes to the law weakened the

city’s ability to control, and perhaps decrease, traffic -- prompting

them to write the Greenlight measure, formally called the Protect from

Traffic and Density initiative.

The idea is that residents will regulate which developments are

acceptable and which are not -- a decision that traditionally lies with

elected city officials.

Voters could end up going to the polls as often as developers propose

projects -- nobody really knows how many special elections the Greenlight

initiative will trigger. And it is also impossible to predict whether

residents will educate themselves about each issue before casting their

votes.

Ironically, the new measure was born of the idea that Greenlight won’t

work. Instead of attempting to slow down traffic by cutting growth -- and

potentially city revenues -- it is intended to regulate developers and

make them responsible for funding certain street improvements.

Despite the 1999 changes, the city’s law remains the toughest of its kind

in the county, said former mayor Clarence Turner, who helped draft the

new measure.

It will not change traffic right away. The law from which it is based is

already in place. However, it would make it tougher for the City Council

to amend it any further.

Up to this point, Greenlight proponents support the new traffic measure

and believe the two could actually coexist.

The problem arises in the fine print. The new measure includes a

provision that if both initiatives are approved, the one that garners the

most votes wins. The other would have no effect.

But at least one activist caught up in the traffic fight said that caveat

is unfortunate because the two initiatives -- perhaps in a perfect world

-- could work together.

“There is no conflict between the [Traffic Phasing Ordinance] and

Greenlight,” said Greenlight supporter Nancy Skinner. “It’s not just a

traffic issue, it’s a quality of life issue.”