SORTING OUT GREENLIGHT

* Number of elections triggered by Measure S if in place since 1990:

- Measure T claims: 58

- Measure S claims: 15

The likely scenario:It all depends on the so-called “accumulation

period” that will take effect after the election, should Measure S pass.

Measure T supporters argue that a 10-year “look back” period, as proposed

by Measure S, could have caused 58 elections. Measure S relied on a

city-sponsored analysis for its numbers, which did not consider any

general plan amendments before 1990.

While Greenlight supporter Phil Arst said Measure T supporters “have

no data to say that’s what would have happened,” he added that six

projects requiring a citywide vote would already wait on the sidelines if

Measure S passes.

Although City Council policy limits general plan amendments to three

times a year -- February, June and October -- they could process several

amendments at each of those times, said City Atty. Bob Burnham.

* Measure S will require both minor and major developments to go

before a citywide vote:

- Measure T claims: Yes

- Measure S claims: Yes, but unlikely

The likely scenario:

While acknowledging that very small renovations or expansion projects

could require a vote, Arst said it was unlikely to happen.

“I’m not saying that it can’t happen,” he said. “But so far, it’s been

rare.”

* Measure S’s effect on the Newport Dunes expansion project:

- Measure T claims: Developers can build a 275-room hotel and could

reduce its revised plans for a 470-room hotel and 31,000-square-foot

convention center to fall below Measure S’s election threshold.

- Measure S claims: Even if the Dunes developers avoid a citywide

election by reducing the project, this would be better than construction

of the currently proposed complex.

The likely scenario:

Newport Dunes is entitled to build the 275-room hotel and will not

require approval from the city to do so. The revised and larger proposal

would trigger an election under Measure S.

* Measure S trashes or restores representative government:

- Measure T: trashes it

- Measure S: restores it

The likely scenario:

The current process of review and public hearings in front of the

city’s Planning Commission and City Council would not be affected by

Measure S. But the final say on projects that trigger an election would

lie with the voters. In Escondido, where a growth-control measure was

approved in 1998, the City Council moved projects straight to the ballot

without public hearings. Measure S supporters have said the City Council

could face lawsuits if members failed to fulfill their duty to review

projects.

* In 1999, amendments “gutted” the city’s traffic phasing ordinance:

- Measure T claims: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is

unconstitutional to require developers to pay more than their “fair

share” of traffic improvements. State law also required the city to bring

the ordinance in line with its general plan.

- Measure S claims: With only five votes -- instead of six -- out of

seven on the City Council required to override the ordinance, Measure S

supporters say it’s been weakened. Since developers are required only to

pay a portion of the cost of traffic improvements, the city must wait

until other developments come in to fix traffic problems.

The likely scenario:

Burnham said the 1999 changes to the ordinance can be divided in three

categories:

1. Changes to bring the ordinance into conformity with court rulings

2. Changes to make the ordinance internally consistent

3. Changes to include administrative guidelines

Also, the number of council votes necessary to override the ordinance

was lowered from six to five.