Confusion adds up to postponement

June Casagrande

Sometimes it seems as if the law is written to assure that only

lawyers understand it. Then there’s the stuff that not even the

lawyers understand.

Proposed changes to Measure S guidelines fit into the latter

category, prompting City Council members to bump the matter to a

meeting in late April to give staff time to clear up the confusion

and council members time to understand what it all means.

“Hey, even I was lost for a while there,” said Councilman Steve

Bromberg, a lawyer. “We’re going to need time to digest it.”

Everyone agrees, though, that it’s worth the effort: The Measure S

guidelines are the rules that help determine whether certain projects

trigger a Greenlight vote. Though the Greenlight, or Measure S,

initiative is straightforward, the question of when to apply it isn’t

as clear. Specifically, a Greenlight vote is triggered whenever a

development exceeds general plan specifications for any given area by

40,000 square feet, 100 peak-hour car trips or 100 dwelling units.

But in some cases -- most notably for hotels -- the city’s general

plan doesn’t mention square footage or car trips.

Historically, the city has always thought about hotels in terms of

number of guest rooms, believing that is the best indicator of how

much traffic will be generated. So to build a 500,000-square foot

hotel in a spot designated by the general plan to allow a dozen hotel

rooms does not trigger a Greenlight vote by that measure alone.

Greenlight Committee members want to change this, and city

officials agree that it’s wise to look at the fine print to determine

whether it’s serving the best interest of the residents. But that’s

where things got tricky.

On Tuesday night, council members considered new wording suggested

by City Atty. Bob Burnham, which in turn got some suggested changes

from Councilman Steve Rosanksy and yet more suggested changes from

Councilman Don Webb.

Speakers at Tuesday’s council meeting seemed to agree that the

suggestions contained some very important insights. But even council

members and staff got so lost in the twists and turns they agreed

they needed time to sort it out.

“The question is how do we apply it and apply it fairly?”

Councilman Gary Adams asked. “And I think we need some more time to

consider the long-term ramifications of what we’re doing.”