Slow growth law on agenda

The city of Newport Beach could be the target of legal challenges if a ballot initiative to limit development there becomes law, according to the city attorney.

The City Council will vote Tuesday on whether to place the initiative, known as Greenlight II, on the November ballot.

Development projects in Newport Beach already are subject to Measure S, a law passed in 2000 that requires a public vote on new building projects that exceed the city’s general plan by more than 100 dwelling units, or 100 peak-hour car trips a day, or 40,000 square feet of building space.

The Greenlight citizens’ committee has now proposed a stricter measure ? Greenlight II ? that would call for a vote on projects that add 100 units or car trips or 40,000 square feet to already-existing development.

City Attorney Robin Clauson’s report on Greenlight II estimates costs for preparing and reviewing the development plans required by the ballot proposal would cost between $20,000 and $53,400, which could be passed on to the developer of the plans.

The city could be hit with other costs, with the biggest likely being to defend the law from court challenges. An analysis from a consulting attorney said the claim could be made that Greenlight II causes an unlawful “taking” of property.

Greenlight committee leader Phil Arst said he wouldn’t necessarily expect a flood of challenges to the measure if it is passed.

“All we can go by is our past experience,” Arst said. “The same issues were raised for Greenlight I and there have been no formal legal challenges. Its constitutionality was analyzed, I understand, by several law firms and not challenged.”

Arst has said the measure is not intended to stop growth in the city, but to control traffic and give residents more say over major projects that will affect their quality of life.

Newport Beach City Councilman Steve Rosansky is evaluating the measure in terms that may not be entirely measurable.

“The monetary costs could be negligent, but the true costs are the chilling effect it has on the community to bring forth quality projects,” Rosansky said.

He said he’s been discussing a potential development agreement with the owner of the largely undeveloped and still unincorporated Banning Ranch, but talks may sour if Greenlight II goes on the books.

“They’ve made it very clear that if Greenlight II passes that they’re going to take their project to the county and process it through the county,” Rosansky said.