The general plan grants entitlements for development that may or may not be built.
Greenlight backers feared an update to the general plan that is underway would simply raise the amount of development allowed, decimating the voter controls of Measure S. So they wrote Greenlight II, which says a building project must go to the ballot if it adds more than 100 homes, 100 peak-hour car trips, or 40,000 square feet of building space.
That's where it gets complicated.
An analysis of Greenlight II by city staff showed the measure would affect 65% of the city's residentially zoned properties, because the exemption written into the measure only covers some kinds of residential zoning.
Greenlight spokesman Phil Arst said that wasn't intended ? the target of the measure is major developments that produce a lot of traffic, like big-box stores and high-rise office towers.
"It was such an unlikely thing, we didn't think of it. It was an oversight," he said in a phone interview Saturday.
But he counters ? and city staff admitted to the council Tuesday ? that it's unlikely a homeowner would need a public vote to build a "granny unit" on his property. Council members racked their brains to think of ways residential properties would be affected by the measure, but most of them seemed far-fetched.
Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood said there's really no way to gauge the effects of Greenlight II, because no one knows what development projects will be proposed. If the measure passes, it would require closer scrutiny of every discretionary approval ? that means most development decisions made by the City Council and planning commission, and some by top planning and zoning staff.
To determine if a public vote is required, Wood said, "We'll have to track every single discretionary approval, and then for anybody who comes in with a discretionary approval we'll have to check to see what's happened within 500 feet of that property within the last five years."
